But that isn't correct. Evolution (on naturalism) is not dependent on the exact mechanism for how life appeared in the first place. It doesn't matter whether it arose from a creation event by a god, or from nonliving material, etc. It only depends on it happening by some
mechanism, independent of what that mechanism is. That is my point.
That is your point, and that is the problem; on one hand, you agree (I'm assuming), that naturalism is incompatible with creationism.
Well, if naturalism is true (no creationism) then abiogenesis (or whatever non-supernatural/intelligent creating agent) must be true.
But abiogenesis could be false...which by default, means that naturalism and the evolution
that comes with it also could be false.
There is just no way out of it, bruh.
Actually, my girlfriend came up with that name as the James Bond flick Dr. No was on the tube when I signed up for this website, and since I am an atheist she thought that would be an appropriate name. It occupied about 10 seconds of effort.
But atheism is a lack of belief in gods ... it does claim that they absolutely do not exist. Big difference.
Wellll, the belief has been modified over the past 50 years. Ask Madalyn Murray O'hair her definition of "atheism".
If some god came down from the clouds and turned this glass of orange juice I have in front of me into a good Chardonnay, I'd believe in that god as I would have seen it, or direct evidence of it.
Sure, an intelligent being turning orange juice into Chardonnay, miracle. But dead matter coming to life and beginning to talk; good ole natural law.
Yet, you don't believe one until you see it, but you have no problem accepting the possibility of the other one.
SMH. "Anything but the G word".
But so far none of the thousands of god concepts humans have came up with can satisfy those basic requirements.
Cool. Because so far, none of the thousands (or however many) scientific concepts have ever come up with theories as to how dead matter can suddenly/gradually becoming sentient...and also how a reptile can suddenly/gradually evolve into a bird.
So hey; I am without convincing evidence on my end, too.
I believe some sort of abiogenesis or panspermia event is true, and we just haven't found the mechanism yet (using the humble, agnostic approach that leaves this on the table).
Well, sure. That is what you believe. I believe, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".
Well, it would certainly defeat the atheism part.
Well, after atheism is defeated, what is the only game left in town? Would that be...theism?
But so far there is no evidence that any creating god(s) exist.
*No evidence that is convincing to you
And if god doesn't exist, and abiogenesis is true (being humble and agnostic again), then we have the answer.
True, but that is a big "if".
Science says to keep looking for the mechanism for nonliving molecules organizing in such a way as to create the simplest, single-celled organism meeting the requirements for life. Religion says to forget that ... just pin it on some unseen god being that has yet to reveal itself in any way and be satisfied with that explanation. One has some hope of being demonstrated, the other does not if past history is any guide.
You've just basically made a "God of the gaps" accusation, only after using "Nature of the gaps" rationale.