Popoi: It hasn't been observed to be true in enough circumstances to support as broad an interpretation as creationists tend to read in to it. If we interpret it as "modern life does not arise from non-living material" (i.e. spontaneous generation is wrong) I'm ok with it. Most people around here seem to want it to mean "life doesn't arise from non-living material ever”, which has two problems. The first is that we don’t have anywhere close to the variety of observations that would be needed to make such a statement, and the second is that it’s logically impossible. At some point in a finite universe, there must have been some kind of first life that didn’t come from reproduction.
Inductively speaking, the examples of life coming from life are into the billions. Every time someone is born, or any animal reproduces, you have an example that counts.
On the other hand you have ZERO examples of a fictional primordial 'lifeform' coming from a fictional primordial swamp, in a fictional version of earth.
That's three pieces of fiction, and zero data.
Furthermore, the reason the law of biogenesis is relevant to nature but not the the supernatural, is that we are not claiming that nature can somehow create life. If life can be created naturally, then we have to look at the scientific evidence against that. There is no natural process that creates lifeforms from non-living material, all of the organic chemistry that exists, exists within life, and all of the designed machines exist within the cell.
"What If", your complaint about the bible, the Lord God of the bible, was that He slaughtered people in Noah's flood even though they agreed to repent. This is not what the bible says. You want to condemn the God of the bible, but you can't condemn the Lord God of the bible based on something the bible doesn't even say.
You now say that the bible is wrong, and all of the people were not wicked, and only thinking of evil things, yet you accept there was a flood and that God killed them.
So that basically means your motive is to condemn the God of the bible, even for things it doesn't say He done.
If you are going to assume the truth of the bible for argument's sake, you can't say that some of the things it says were true, to suit your argument that the God of the bible is false or evil.
Think about it, imagine you were a witness to a crime and you said, "that big fat man called Bob was innocent of murdering the woman, he was with me as we watched someone shoot her and run away." Could I then say; "we accept your testimony, you did see Bob, you did see the woman killed but we can't accept that Bob didn't do it because we want Bob to be the murderer."
That doesn't even make any sense. If you are going to condemn the bible, you can't say, "X part of the bible is false, I am changing that history and I am going to say that God murdered a bunch of innocent people that did repent before the flood."
This is where logic can help if you would just begin to study what it means;
"if the bible is true inerrantly, then the people were wicked as it said."
That follows, so to say "they were not wicked" would mean that the modus tollens would then allow us to conclude that;
"therefore the bible is false." (meaning the inerrant God of the bible would also be false(at least that version), so you couldn't still blame Him as He would also be false.)
Are you blaming an inerrant bible God by arguing the bible isn't inerrant? (Lol) (I suppose I could also blame the weather by arguing that the weather isn't to blame.)
You can't say that the bible is inerrantly true, and false at the same time, because that breaks the law of non-contradiction.
That's your argument - that the bible is false because people can't be fully wicked. We don't accept that as bible believing Christians, because we choose to believe God doesn't lie. You have chosen to conclude that He does lie.
(isn't that what I was talking about earlier? A choice.)