Its easier just to admit we dont know how life originated

@Yusa, think about how long you subjected my infinitely basic example through a vigorous examination for, even though it was just that, and think about how quick you are to assume that God is behind anything you don't know the origins of

Ask yourself why does that happen.

@Vlad Well, the example was your problem because you didn't answer my question. If I had asked how life turned into man, I wouldn't of questioned your example

I know how life can turn into man

You asked for the origins of man originally not the origins of life

That's just dishonest.

The problem is finding life

It was obvious what point I was referring to.

I asked how **matter** turns into man

I said it *3000* times.

And now you're changing the subject.

Why do I have to keep explaining that?

You don't. It's literally irrelevant.

lol

> @Yusa, think about how long you subjected my infinitely basic example through a vigorous examination for, even though it was just that, and think about how quick you are to assume that God is behind anything you don't know the origins of

I **didn't** ask how **life** turned into man

K?

That's not the topic.

I quoted myself.

I agree with your example

@Yusa you're conflating abiogenesis with evolution. You're asking two separate questions with two different answers expecting one linear explanation.

If you can't actually *prove* that god exists, then logically you can't claim to truly *know* that he does. Lets say that he is outside the realm of reality, the problem is that you are still bound by those laws. Even if he is real, if you are separated effectively by the laws of reality itself then obviously *you yourself* cannot truly know for certain if he exists. This is not on the same level as the origin of life, we already know that there are simple organic molecules and compounds, which we already know for certain can be created naturally, that can *likely* give rise to life.

And now that I understand that you weren't answering my question, I agree with your example

Well, okay, but that's still not relevant.

Irregardless of why you did it, you still subjected my example through an examination.

@Cobra Commander Well, life coming from non-life has a bigger problem then God. Not only can you not prove it, but it goes against the laws of science.

And you're not doing that with the idea of God doing shit.

Why?

You see, if God created the laws of science, he wouldn't have been subjected to them in the beginning

Laws of science are created by men.

They're describing natural phenomenons.

And nature, which the men of science are describing, could have originated from non-divine means.

So, what you're saying is irrelevant.

Let me ask you a quick question

I literally just said that organic molecules and compounds are able to appear. There is no problem with that, but we can only infer that this leads to actual life forms instead of truly claim to know. That's why I didn't say that we know this was the case for absolute certainty.

Is the god you believe in omnipotent @Yusa

@Vlad They are describing natural phenomenons that always repeat themselves. They are the rules of nature. "Laws" are "rules".

K?

@Cobra Commander Well because I view the world differently, I can **know** that the theory of life coming from non-life is not true

How so?