@Gilbo : You're forgetting what I was responding to, which is usafjay's question of why I found abiogenesis more plausible
than something with no internal structure exhibiting complex behaviour. That has nothing to do with proving
abiogenesis happened naturally. I'm sharing the reasoning behind my beliefs here, as Tirian asked me to. That has nothing to do with trying to convince you or anyone of those things. I'm glad to explain my reasoning in more detail if you don't understand it, hence my responses to you, but it's a given that we disagree on the conclusions so I don't see why you feel the need to rehash that.
So essentially you just prefer to avoid the question of where did the universe come from, considering that its one of the arguments for God the fact that you choose to ignore it and then still believe that God doesn't exist could be seen as something negative.
The origin of the universe as an argument for God is a terrible one, it assumes that intelligence can exist independently of the universe and isn't bound by causality. That's a fine assumption to make but as an argument for God it begs the question.
@Calypsis : You don't obey road signs when you're off the road. The “law of biogenesis” (insofar as it even is a law) only applies to modern life forms, and the first law of thermodynamics, as a law of the universe
, has no reason to apply when the universe doesn't exist. Such as before the beginning of the universe
And it certainly doesn't rule out Darwinian evolution. None of the laws of thermodynamics do that. If they did then they'd rule out life as a whole, and life being designed by God wouldn't change that – you can't design something that breaks the laws of thermodynamics.
It's interesting though that you think the first law of thermodynamics applied at any other time in the past; after all, I don't know if this is true of you but many young Earth creationists think the laws of radioactive decay (and, for some, the speed of light) have changed in the past. Why do you think the first law of thermodynamics worked the same way, say, before the Fall ? Or the Flood ? Or three thousand years ago ?
@usafjay : Well, as you didn't explain anything my mind can't have been blown, unfortunately. As for explaining how complexity can arise from evolutionary processes, I've already explained the basics; I'm not going to go into pages-long explanations when you only engage superficially with basics in the first place. Especially when you've got a pattern of asking billions of questions that require page-long explanations as answers and then not making much effort to understand or engage with what answers you do get. If I am going to have a conversation with you, instead of continuing this hijacking of a conversation with Tirian that was itself a tangent off a conversation that was a tangent off my response to your original post, I'd rather discuss said response to your original post. For example, do you understand what I was saying when I said the Big Bang didn't involve an explosion ? If not, could you maybe tell me what it is about that you don't understand so I can explain better ?