Atheists naturally object to any evidence suggesting God could exist. That’s what atheism does. So when atheists ask for the most compelling evidence for God’s existence, they’re not asking because they sincerely want to know if God exists. No. They’re asking because they want to oppose that evidence.
Therefore, I present the Law of Biogenesis. This law is derived from Louis Pasteur’s famous flask experiment, disproving spontaneous generation. The law simply states that life comes from life. It’s one of the most elegant, fundamental and consistent laws of science, and I will make the case that this law is good and sufficient evidence for God’s existence.
One of the first objections atheists (or evolutionists) make is that the Law of Biogenesis isn’t even a law. Therefore, I will demonstrate that it is indeed a scientific law. A law of science is “a statement or mathematical equation that describes or predicts a natural phenomenon… All scientific laws are based on empirical evidence and the scientific method.” There are plenty of similar definitions, so I’ll link to another one here to be helpful.
The Law of Biogenesis meets all the relevant criteria of a law. Therefore, it is a law. There’s no mathematical equation, but this isn’t a requirement. The Law of Superposition and the Law of the Conservation of Matter are two laws expressed as statements describing natural phenomena without mathematical formulas.
The Law of Biogenesis is subject to the scientific method. This means the law is observable, testable and repeatable. One of the nice things about the scientific method is experimentation and the ability to repeat the experiment. In our case, we can predict- every time without exception- that life will only come from life. Life will never form spontaneously via naturalistic processes.
Another objection presented by atheists is that there must have been an exception at one time in the past. They dogmatically believe there was a time on this planet when there was no life, so life must have come from non-life at some point. But such claims are problematic. First, it’s a circular argument. An atheist, naturally, doesn’t believe in God and, therefore, must believe (by faith) that there must have been an exception at some point in the past. But that is not a foregone conclusion. It could be that God exists, and, if so, then perhaps the Genesis account of creation is true, and God did create life, just as the Bible says. If God exists, then the atheist objection poses no threat to the Law of Biogenesis because it’s speculation based on a competing religious belief (atheism vs. theism). Second, the objection is not scientific in nature. If it were, then they would be able to produce observable, repeatable experiments to support their claims, which they cannot do. Their only response is faith in nature, literally believing that life can occur by naturalistic processes despite the observable evidence to the contrary.
A third objection is that some atheists claim that the Law of Biogenesis is about the ongoing nature of life, NOT about the origin of life. However, this is isn’t accurate. The statement that life only comes from life is fairly straight-forward and has huge implications. While the statement itself doesn’t necessarily mention the phrase “origin of life,” the statement effectively nullifies abiogenesis as an option. Abiogenesis is the belief that life arose from non-life, and it directly contradicts known science in favor of blind faith. Further, Pasteur made it clear when he said, “No, there is now no circumstance known in which it can be affirmed that microscopic beings came into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves.”
This leads to a similar objection. What if the first living organism arose from a chemical process in which the organism wasn’t alive, but suddenly came to life and began to reproduce microscopic beings similar to itself? Well, first of all, we have no scientific evidence for such a possibility. Stating “What if” isn’t evidence. It’s speculation. It’s faith in the power of nature. Most of those who make these claims have no idea how complex the simplest living organism is, or how DNA coding works to produce life, or what kind of energy is required to bring something to life and start reproducing. If all this were properly understood, then no one would seriously question the Law of Biogenesis. Just because atheists can imagine such a scenario doesn’t make it a valid scientific objection. Until someone can provide empirical, objective, scientific evidence that life arose from nonliving material in the past, or demonstrate that life can arise from nonliving chemicals today without assistance from pre-existing life, then it’s safe to conclude that the Law of Biogenesis does indeed speak against abiogenesis. The entire reason why the law can be stated is precisely because life is too complex to arise from non-life.
There are many more objections, but these are the most common. However, none of the objections refute the Law of Biogenesis. And none are capable of affirming abiogenesis. The best objections are only meant to cast doubt on the origin of life, leaving the door open for abiogenesis. But I would suggest that the implications are clear. The Law of Biogenesis implies that natural processes are not capable of creating first life. Therefore, the only viable alternative is special creation by the living God. This is a logical deduction based on the evidence.
sixdaysblog 
curious how there is no “law of biogenesis”.
Good question. I think it’s more of an emotional objection. Evolutionists don’t like to admit there’s any evidence against their theory, or evidence for God’s special creation, so their first reaction is to deny the evidence and hope that works.
Alas, for your false claims, Jonathan, ther eis plenty of evidence for evolution. It’s hiliarious how christians think they can lie about that. Its’ even funnier when you claim to worship a god that hates lies and liars.
No wonder none of you can do what jesus promised to his true followers.
Christians can’t even agree on which version of their creationism is the right one and one side can’t even convince the others. That’s because not one of you has any evidence for your god or if young earth creationism, old earth creationism, theistic evolution, etc is the right version.
Nice to see you doubling down on your lie of “the law of biogenesis”. It’s no more than a god of the gaps argument dressed up to seem scientific, aka just another lie from a Christian.
Okay, let’s examine your claims. First, you’re asserting that I’ve made false claims without evidence. What false claims have I made? Be specific.
Second, there is no real evidence for evolution. The case for evolution isn’t made because evolution can be observed, or because evolution can be tested by the scientific method, but because evolution is demanded by evolutionists. The evidence is based on evolutionary assumptions, which makes evolution a circular argument. Evolution is true because evolutionists say it’s true and assume it’s true. But that’s not evidence. That’s bias.
Yes, the Law of Biogenesis is evidence for God and against evolution. Obviously you don’t like that, but I made a solid argument. All you can do is call names, deny whatever we say, and deflect. You’re not interested in evidence. If you cared, then you would consider the evidence presented, not deny it.
Jonathan, you have claimed that there is a “law of biogenesis” and here is no such thing in the sciences. That is a lie. It is an invention of creationists to try to make their baseless nonsense sound scientific. A scientific law is defined as: “Laws are generalized observations about a relationship between two or more things in the natural world based on a variety of facts and empirical evidence, often framed as a mathematical statement”
There are quite a few scientific laws, like the laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, law of conservation of mass, etc. There is no “law of biogenesis”. Like so many creationists, you try to ignore any research in abiogenesis, and have to retreat to long abandoned nonsense. Even your link shows that this supposed “law” is not a scientific law: “Biogenesis Vs. The Modern Context Of Abiogenesis – The Biogenesis law states unequivocally that life creates life and life can only come from a pre-existing life or other living things and not from a non life. This is closely linked to the theory of evolution, however, it does not explicitly address the question of the Origin of Life or how life began. Rather, it focuses on the continuation and propagation of life once it has emerged. The very primitive life on Earth was not as structurally complex as modern life is, thus, the contemporary context of Abiogenesis could explain how such a transition from a prebiotic world characterized by non-living molecules and chemical reactions to a biotic world where living organisms of increasingly complex molecules abound could have occurred billion years ago.“
So your false claims on how this is a law fail. Even your own link shows that you are a liar. it’s a shame how Christians try to lie and require willful ignorance to cling to their religion.
Then you try this nonsense “Another objection presented by atheists is that there must have been an exception at one time in the past. They dogmatically believe there was a time on this planet when there was no life, so life must have come from non-life at some point. But such claims are problematic. First, it’s a circular argument. An atheist, naturally, doesn’t believe in God and, therefore, must believe (by faith) that there must have been an exception at some point in the past. But that is not a foregone conclusion. It could be that God exists, and, if so, then perhaps the Genesis account of creation is true, and God did create life, just as the Bible says. If God exists, then the atheist objection poses no threat to the Law of Biogenesis because it’s speculation based on a competing religious belief (atheism vs. theism). Second, the objection is not scientific in nature. If it were, then they would be able to produce observable, repeatable experiments to support their claims, which they cannot do. Their only response is faith in nature, literally believing that life can occur by naturalistic processes despite the observable evidence to the contrary.”
Curious how this isn’t a circular argument at all and it is no surprise you don’t know what a circular argument is. I do not need to believe anything by “faith” in its religious definition, since we have plenty of evidence that abiogenesis doesn’t need magic, just physical laws. There is no evidence that any gods exist, and thus all you have is a baseless assertion that all of your claims depend on. If the presupposition fails as a premise, every conclusion fails too.
Happily, atheism is not a religion, and it’s always hilarious when theists try that argument. A religion e.g. christanity, islam, etc is a “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious (relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity)attitudes, beliefs, and practices”, in this case a deity. I am not devoted to reality, nor do I believe in any deities. So you fail miserably on all counts with your attempts to equate atheism and theism.
This also fails “Second, the objection is not scientific in nature. If it were, then they would be able to produce observable, repeatable experiments to support their claims, which they cannot do. Their only response is faith in nature, literally believing that life can occur by naturalistic processes despite the observable evidence to the contrary.”
This is no more than the usual god of the gaps argument. You have to claim that humans will *never* figure this out, which is a claim you cannot know the answer to. And even if we nevre completely figure it out, you still have no evidence that your god exists. There is no faith, as in the religious sense. There is no “observable evidence to the contrary”.
It’s hilarious how you continue to lie, Jonathan. Evolution has been repeatedly observed, from how bacteria evolve to resist antibiotics, to how ash trees are now resisting the Hymenoscyphus fraxineus fungus. It’s great how you repeatedly demonstrate how you have no idea what evolutionary theory even says and you have no evidence for your nonsense that “evidence is based on evolutionary assumptions, which makes evolution a circular argument”. Show how this works, Jonathan. The scientific method is what shows that evolution is true, and again, you can’t show where that fails.
No law, so no evidence. Your “argument” fails repeatedly. You have no evidence. I have considered your claims and that I can show how they fail, thus denying your nonsense. It’s hilarious how some Christians assume that people must agree with them if they have considered their claims. Reality doesn’t work like that, Jonathan. Consideration can have serval outcomes: agreement, denial, or a request for more information.
I addressed your objections in the article and thoroughly refuted them. You state, without evidence, that there is no such thing as the Law of Biogenesis, yet I linked to non-creationist sources stating otherwise. I even provided terms and definitions, which are consistent with the Law of Biogenesis meeting the requirements of a law.
In fact you reacted exactly as I suggested evolutionists would react, so thank you for proving my point. You claimed that there’s no such thing as the Law of Biogenesis, just as I predicted. And that’s why I provided evidence from an unbiased source and included unbiased definitions demonstrating why the Law of Biogenesis is a scientific law.
Interestingly, if you conduct a search on scientific laws that do not contain mathematical equations, the Law of Biogenesis appears. So I’m afraid you’ll have to do better than deny the law as a law, which is a typical, dishonest atheist tactic that I already refuted with evidence. An honest evolutionist, when confronted with evidence, would admit that the law is a law and wouldn’t bend over backwards to deny the obvious.
Why are you accusing me of ignoring any research in abiogenesis? That’s very dishonest of you. I’ve written many articles concerning research in abiogenesis and have refuted it as a theory. I’ve spent much time refuting Miller-Urey and all kinds of origin of life research. You’re just too dishonest to admit the truth.
Funny, you state that the link I posted shows that the law is not a scientific law, but then you quote a paragraph referring to the “Biogenesis law,” which states, “life creates life and life can only come from pre-existing life…” So your quote actually affirms the Law of Biogenesis. The paragraph you referred to only attempts to distance the law from evolution. Very dishonest of you.
So you’re admitting that the circular argument used by atheists is nonsense? Good. All I did was refute the atheist’s circular argument by using a circular argument of my own. I thought that was brilliant! Fighting fire with fire. You just can’t admit to being wrong.
Obviously, you believe in abiogenesis, so your claim that you don’t need to believe anything by faith is hogwash. You state that abiogenesis has plenty of evidence without providing any evidence. Priceless! Okay, then show me the physical laws that lead to abiogenesis. Surely you can since there’s so much evidence, lol. If there were physical laws supporting abiogenesis, don’t you think someone would have presented it by now?
Atheism is a religion, make no mistake. And your response helps make this point. You quote the definition of religion, and it fits atheism. But you had to quickly insert, “in this case a deity” because that phrase wasn’t included in your quote. You had to add it for your own personal agenda. Religions don’t require a deity. Just faith. And you have blindly accepted evolution and abiogenesis by faith, even though there’s no evidence.
You shouldn’t object to a God of the gaps unless you also object to evolution of the gaps.
I never said that humans will “never” figure this out. My claim is that there will never be any empirical, objective, observable scientific evidence that natural forces alone can create life from nonlife. Even if you could explain the origin of life, that would amount to nothing more than a sci-fi writer. What we really need is to observe it happen in nature.
Antibiotic resistance is not evolution. It’s speciation, natural selection and adaptation. Bacteria remain bacteria. They haven’t evolved into anything else. They haven’t evolved any novel body plans. There’s no novel genetic code. Bacteria are simply doing what they’re designed to do, and it can be observed happening today, tomorrow and the next day. Evolution doesn’t work like that. That’s why it’s not evolution. Evolution takes millions of years and isn’t predictable, but antibiotic resistance happens all the time and is predictable.
Ash trees resisting fungus is the same thing. The Ash Tree hasn’t become a different kind of tree or organism. It’s still an Ash Tree. This is another example of normal genetics.
As I’ve demonstrated, the Law of Biogenesis is evidence for God’s existence.
Yep, just the same old baseless lies, Jonathan. It’s hilarious. Again, there is no “law of biogenesis”, only the ignorance of cultists who need to pretend their god is needed. Your “law” depends on humans never doing any more research. Happily, that won’t happen. You can’t show that life always requires life. You simply assume so.
it’s rather notable that you have no idea what a scientific law even is. “Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.[1] The term law has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, biology). Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.[2]
Scientific laws summarize the results of experiments or observations, usually within a certain range of application. In general, the accuracy of a law does not change when a new theory of the relevant phenomenon is worked out, but rather the scope of the law’s application, since the mathematics or statement representing the law does not change. As with other kinds of scientific knowledge, scientific laws do not express absolute certainty, as mathematical laws do. A scientific law may be contradicted, restricted, or extended by future observations.”
You claim you are absolutely certain, and a scientific law is not that. You have no causal source for your nonsense.
I reacted like sane people react since you simply lie, dear. And no, dear, your little part you took out of my post doesn’t support your lies. It says that it is claimed that life only can come from life, not that this is the correct answer.
It’s hilarious that you are absolutely ignorant of research in abiogenesis, and then you claim I’m dishonest for pointing that out. You have written nonsense that has not refuted abiogenesis as a hypothesis, which it is, or a theory, which it is not. Research has going far beyond the Miller-Urey experiment, so yep, you are ignorant of research.
it’s great how you try to lie about atheists as a defense for your own circular argument: “but but you used one, so I did too”. Sorry, no circular argument from atheists, but one from you. Nice of you to admit that’s all you have. That you invented a lie to excuse your incompetence and then try to call it “brilliant” is just pitiful.
I don’t believe in abiogenesis blindly. I follow the research to see how it is going and then adjust my trust in it accordingly. It is still going on, so I wait to see if their claims are true. Curiosu how Christians, and all other thesits, have yet to show that their gods merely exist, much less do anything at all. Abiogensis research has progressed in showing how amino acids for, how proteins form, how cell walls can form, etc. The physical laws that lead to biogenesis are the same physical laws that exist in this universe. Chemicals make bonds thanks to physical laws. Lipids can form surfaces thanks to physical laws. It seems you have no idea what physical laws even are, dear.
Curious how magic never happens so no reason to think magic started life. Strange how not a single theist has been able to present a god by now.
It’s great how desperate cultists are. Atheism is not a religion which is: “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious (relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity) attitudes, beliefs, and practices” – merriam webster. Atheism is one concept: that a particular god or gods doesn’t exist. There is no “system” in atheism, just one conclusion. I always love when Christians simply lie about such petty things. Alas, no, the definition of religion doesn’t fit atheism at all.
You are an atheist too, Jonathan. If you want to claim you are in two religions, that’s just silly.
Religions, as used in this context, do require a deity aka a ultimate reality that you have faith in, faith being the believe in things unseen as per your bible. Unsurprisngly, I haven’t blindly accepted evolutionary theory or abiogenesis by faith. I accept these things because the theory of evolution is predictive, we see what it says will happen. I am curious what abiogenesis research shows and I look at it knowing the science that also is predictive.
Again, plenty of evidence for both, still none for your cult’s imaginary friend. You are part of the evidence that indicates there are no gods, since you can’t do what your religion promises. You a fraud per your own religion. Happily, evolution works. You have no idea what it actually says, and thus you attack strawmen in your ignorance.
Nice fail when you try to lie and claim you have not said that humans will never figure it out. I love how you show yourself a liar in this lovely sentence: “My claim is that there will never be any empirical, objective, observable scientific evidence that natural forces alone can create life from nonlife.” And alas for you, there is already that evidence.
Still not a shred of evidence for your religion’s claims. Strange how we don’t see your imaginary friend in nature at all. Every cult tries to claim that we see their god in nature, but not one can show this is true.
Yep, it’s great when an ignorant cultist declares that evolution isn’t evolution, when they have no idea what evolutionary theory even says. Antibiotic resistance is evolution since evolution is what covers, speciation, natural selection and adaptation. It’s so sweet when creationists lie so incompetently. As usual, creationists slowly accept science when they can’t deny it anymore, and alas, science never needs to accept the baseless garbage that creationists have.
Your nonsene about “novel body plans”, “novel genetic code”, etc show that you have no idea about what you attack and lie about. Evolution does work like thatn and it’s great that you are a fraud and a failure. Evolution doesn’t always take millions of years, and it is predictable given the population of organisms and the environmental pressures.
You show you have no idea that evolutionary theory involved populations, not individuals.
and still no evidence for your imaginary friend.
Thankfully I’m not insecure, so you’re welcome to call me a liar and other names if that makes you feel better. But what’s wrong with lying if God doesn’t exist? It’s not like we’ll go to hell, right? But if God does exist, then I hope you’re prepared. Do you know Jesus as your Lord and Savior? The forgiveness of sins is the most important thing, and it will determine where you spend eternity.
Funny that you claim I have no idea what a scientific law even is when I’ve provided an accurate definition, discussed it and refuted your talking points. So I think I have a pretty good idea what a scientific law is. The problem is that your anti-Christian bias won’t allow you to admit the truth. You’re desperate. The Law of Biogenesis is already a law, so your opinion doesn’t matter. For instance, you found a definition that suited your bias, and it says, “scientific laws do not express absolute certainty.”
The problem is, the Law of Biogenesis doesn’t express absolute certainty any more than any other law, so your objection isn’t to the law, but to those who express absolute certainty. And I’m absolutely certain that the Law of Biogenesis has never been violated, nor will it ever be violated. If you disagree, then provide evidence. Tell me, are you absolutely certain that the Law of Biogenesis is not a law?
But make no mistake, you do blindly believe in abiogenesis because you’ve given yourself no alternative. You claim to follow the research, but no research justifies abiogenesis. Anyone can research abiogenesis, but researching it doesn’t justify it as a theory. Believing it with all your heart, mind and soul doesn’t justify it. You state that you follow the research and adjust your trust accordingly. Show me. Don’t tell me. It will always be ongoing research. At what point do you admit it’s unreasonable and adjust your trust? Never? Sounds like blind faith to me. Unless you’re willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads… including the possibility that life was created by God. Are you willing? If not, then you hold to a blind faith.
You’re giving abiogenesis credit for showing how amino acids, proteins and cell walls form. But no belief in abiogenesis is required to learn or understand how any of them form. I learned how they form, yet I believe in biogenesis. But your little lesson in biology and chemistry does nothing to refute biogenesis, nor does it justify abiogenesis.
I don’t get your point on magic. God doesn’t use magic. He’s God. So he doesn’t have to. Just like a bird doesn’t use magic to fly, neither does God use magic to create life.
You state that not a single theist has been able to present a god by now, but this post actually did present God as the only viable explanation for life.
You have a personal set of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices. Therefore, you are religious. Deny it all you wish, but the definition you posted makes it so. You stated, “Atheism is one concept: that a particular god or gods doesn’t exist.” Like it or not, this statement is a personal set of religious attitudes. Therefore, you, and all atheists, are religious by your own definition.
I love when evolutionists bring up the predictive power of evolution, as if it’s magic! The predictive power of evolution is a farce. Evolutionists predicted that junk DNA is useless leftovers from our evolutionary past, and some even suggested cutting it out. But creationists predicted it wasn’t junk because God wouldn’t create junk. Who was right, and who was wrong? Evolutionary predictions failed, while creationist predictions were confirmed. I have blogged on this and many other failed evolutionary predictions. It is you who hasn’t researched. So you believe evolution by faith alone.
Nope, antibiotic resistance isn’t evolution. Try again. It’s just another bait-and-switch tactic to get gullible people to blindly accept evolution and not question it.
How is it nonsense to bring up novel body plans and novel genetic code? Don’t evolutionists believe that eyes evolved from an eyeless ancestor? Or feathers on a featherless ancestor? Funny that you’re an evolutionist and don’t believe evolution works like that. Congratulations, you just unwittingly refuted evolution!
You say, “Evolution doesn’t always take millions of years.” Well, if it doesn’t take millions of years, then that’s a good sign that it’s not evolution. The kind of evolution that I don’t believe in is the kind that takes millions of years and can’t be substantiated, like dinos to birds, or a hoofed mammal to whale. These examples require many, many novel body plans and genetic code changes. But the kind of “evolution” that happens rapidly isn’t really evolution. Experiments on e-coli and fruit flies demonstrate this, which is often a loss of information. Something in the genetic code is broken, which allows e-coli to digest citrate. Sorry, but this isn’t evolution, at least not in the same sense as a fish turning into an amphibian, or scales evolving into hair. It seems as though you’re the one who doesn’t understand evolution. Check out some of my other blog posts. You may find them helpful.
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)
https://sixdaysblog.com/2021/01/02/when-it-comes-to-the-origin-of-life-scientists-are-clueless/
https://sixdaysblog.com/2025/05/10/microlightning-offers-hope-to-evolutionists/
https://sixdaysblog.com/2025/04/19/cells-eliminate-splicing-errors/
https://sixdaysblog.com/2022/11/17/critiquing-7-theories-on-the-origin-of-life/
https://sixdaysblog.com/2020/09/29/searching-for-the-origin-of-life/
https://sixdaysblog.com/2016/05/21/could-life-have-started-with-rna/
https://sixdaysblog.com/2019/11/23/lenskis-30-year-experiment/
https://sixdaysblog.com/2024/04/05/the-myth-of-junk-dna/
https://sixdaysblog.com/2021/10/23/the-days-of-junk-dna-are-over/
If you need to be threatened by hell to not lie, Jonathan, I can see where your morality stands, in a response to threats and nothing more.
Lies can be wrong since it prevents people from making an informed decision. Some times lies are indeed a good thing for say, lying to nazis to save people. Again, all you have is pascal’s wager, which shows how Christians have no actual evidence for their god but only hope that it’s real. If your god exists, I am indeed prepared. I certainly wouldn’t worship it and if your bible is correct, a fine iron chariot, e.g. an M1 Abrams tank, should do nicely.
In that Christians themselves can’t agree on what their god considers to be a sin, your claims of forgiveness are similarly incoherent and baseless. It always amuses me when Christians think that threatening a non-christian with their hell would work. Christians can’t even agree on what that is either.
Again, still no “law of biogenesis” just the desperate hope and baseless claims of theists who need a job for their god. You have no idea if life is required to make life or not. You simply assume that. Unsurprisingly, that definition is quite accurate when it comes to scientific laws and it’s great how you can’t show it’s wrong.
You have presented your “law of biogenesis” as if it were a certainty “And I’m absolutely certain that the Law of Biogenesis has never been violated, nor will it ever be violated.” “ and it’s great that now you have to admit that it isn’t what you claim. “The problem is, the Law of Biogenesis doesn’t express absolute certainty any more than any other law, so your objection isn’t to the law, but to those who express absolute certainty.” which shows you agree with the definition I “found”, when you claimed this before “For instance, you found a definition that suited your bias, and it says, “scientific laws do not express absolute certainty.”” Indicating that the definition I found isn’t true. You’ve managed to contradict yourself.
No evidence shows that your invention is a law, *or* that it isn’t. We simply don’t know.
Unsurprisingly, you lie yet again when you claim I blindly believe in abiogenesis, or anything else. There is plenty of evidence for abiogenesis, and research has indeed supported that abiogenesis happens. You have no idea what that research even is, dear, since you are too terrified to learn about things that show your cult’s claims are false.
Abiogenesis is currently a hypothesis, not a scientific theory. The research being done is to determine if it should be a theory or not. You seem to have no idea what research is for. It’s hilarious how you demand that I show you that I adjust my trust depending on evidence. How do you propose I do that, dear?
It’s even more hilarious when you whine about ongoing research. There is no need to set a time limit for when research must stop. You have to claim that this is required, and that only seems to be because you are terrified that research will show your claims wrong. I can ask you when you should stop believing in your cult since it’s failed to meet its promises for the last 2000+ years. When do you think you should “adjust your trust”, Jonathan? Hmm, never? Sounds like blind faith to me. I’ve followed the evidence where it has lead and where it leads; still no evidence for your religion’s claims despite it being 2000+ years.
Science has another good 1500 years to keep looking to match your nonsense.
No, I am not giving abiogenesis credit for showing how amino acids, etc form. I am saying that since science can show how these form, this supports abiogenesis as a hypothesis. No believe in abiogenesis is needed to see how chemistry and physics work. You have no idea how they form, and thus you cling to your magic nonsense. No evidence of magic needed to form amino acids, etc.
Magic: 1a: the use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural (
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil) power over natural forcesb: magic rites or incantations
2a: an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source
Your god is supernatural:: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
By definition it ismagical and uses magic. It’s hilarious when Christians get so indignant about their god being called magic. It uses magic, supernatural means, to create life.
Birds don’t use magic to fly. They use their wings which interact with the air to allow lift. Birds aren’t supernatural, dear.
Your post made baseless claims and has yet to show that your god exists at all. Your god isn’t the only explanation of life since there are many other gods, and of course reality. You can’t evne agree with other Christians on which version of your god is the right one, much less show it exists at all. Most, if not every, religion claims that their god is the one responsible for “life” and again, not a single one of you frauds can show this is true.
No, I don’t have a set of religious beliefs and practices, but nice fail with that. Unsurprisngly, the definition I posted did no such thing, and it’s great when a Christian chooses to try to lie in a recording medium. I do not believe in the supernatural and thus I do not have a religion like you do. Remember, Jonathan, context matters. Atheism is a single conclusion that a particular god or gods doesn’t exist. You have the same conclusions about all other gods but your own. So, do you have two sets of religious attitudes? Yes or no.
It’s great how you can’t show evolutionary theory is wrong or that it does not have predictive power. It seems you have no idea what predictive power even means. Scientists aren’t the theory, so your accusations fail as usual. Creationists do love to try to claim that they knew about DNA and predicted things about it, when they are doing no more than accepting the science they claim is a lie.
It’s great how you can’t show that antibiotic resistance isn’t evolution. You simply make a baseless assertion, as usual. It’s great how you have nothing yet again, Jonathan. You don’t even know what evolutionary theory says.
It is nonsense because it shows how you have no idea what evolutionary theory says, dear. Yep, scientists do indeed believe eyes evolved from light sensitive areas, and feather evolved from scales, and nothing about that requires “novel” anything. You again show you have no idea what evolutionary theory says.
ROFL. It’s hilarious when you come out with garbage like this: “Well, if it doesn’t take millions of years, then that’s a good sign that it’s not evolution.” Curious how it is evolution and there is no time scale required for it. Again, you show you are simply an ignorant failure who attacks things he is too afraid to learn about. It’s always fun when Christian frauds pick and choose what evolution they will accept, when their forebearers claimed that evolution didn’t work at all. Nice to see how cultists keep following science and it’s never the other way around.
There is no “broken” genetic code, which assumes a change is deleterious. Again, you show how you don’t understand even the most basic things about evolutionary theory. The ability to digest citrate is exactly the same as fish evolving into amphibians, and scales becoming hair. All are changes that are passed into the population thanks to environmental pressures.
Your other blog posts simply show repeatedly how Christians lie and have no idea about the things they attack. You really spend a lot of time being a complete idiot.
Every cult says much the same as Romans 1, and to one of you cultist can merely show your god exists, much less that it does anything at all.
I’d love to continue refuting every one of your sentences, but that’s getting old. Let’s try a different approach. Let’s focus on just one specific topic you’d like to discuss. I’ll let you choose. Pick one that you have the most expertise on, or have the most interest in, and let’s discuss.
I’m sure you’d love to but you haven’t done so yet. Pick a topic, Jonathan. I’m an expert on all. Show how I’m wrong on anything you’d like to choose.
all you have are your continued inability to show I’m wrong.
afraid to pick a topic, Jonathan? shall we discuss how Paul is utterly ignorant about the events around jesus?
Okay, let’s get started. I love talking about Jesus. Glad you’re interested. Go ahead, explain how Paul is utterly ignorant about the events around Jesus. Make your case.
Sure.
“3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.” 1 Corinthians 15
Strange how Paul knows nothing about the women being the first witnesses. No where in the gospels does jesus appear to only Peter/Cephas after his resurrection. Wha we do have is in the gospel of John, Peter comes to the tomb with the “other” disciple, sees the wrappings and wanders home. He doesn’t join the rest of the apostles in hiding. Then jesus supposedly appears to the disciples including thomas and we have the scene where thomas is poking around in JCs wounds. Curious how Peter, the most important disciple, isn’t there at all, *or* if there, isn’t being surprised to see JC at all.
Luke has peter seeing the tomb and yep, wandering home.
Then things get strange. Ther is the event on the road to Emmaus, and when those two apostles join the others, they are supposedly saying “4 They were saying, ‘The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!’” Now, this isn’t mentioned anywhere in the gospel. When did JC appearl to “simon”, who I would assume is Peter. An enire account is missing.
Then it gets even worse for Paul since the gospels of mark andmatthew don’t even have the apostles involved at the tomb at all, and they both contradict luke and john.
This could also be interpreted that Paul has no idea that Peter is part of the “12”.
There is also no mention of Jesus appearing to James at all in the gospels. Now, do you think it would have been important if Jesus appeared to his supposed brother, a supposed skeptic, to the gospel authors?
So, no, Paul is utterly ignorant about the events around jesus. There is also the curious lack of information he has about the earthquake, the sky darkening and the dead jews wandering around. Of course, those things are also not uniformly mentioned in the gospels either, which is hilarious since the resurrection was very important and the resurrection of many jews would have been quite noticeable to a Jew who had the authority to persecute christians in Jerusalem.
Paul didn’t notice any major earthquake, or the sky darkening, or these dead jews, when he would have been in the middle of such nonsense if he had been somenoe taught in Jerusalem like the bible claims.
Unsurprisngly, the romans and the other jews didn’t notice this nonsense either.
Some christians claim that Paul didn’t mention these things since the gospels didn’t exist at his time, which comes into conflict on when christians want to claim the gospels were written, another thing they can’t agree on.
If Paul was in jerusalem as he claimed to be, curious how he missed such gossip and didn’t think it important to relay to those who he converted himself in areas far from Jerusalem. He never mentions his supposed teacher at all. or these fantasic events.
This is strange Paul doesn’t mind mention his own nonsense, and doesn’t mind directly contradicting jesus, as if he has no idea what actually taught. It reads as if Paul has invented his own “gospel” and simply mentions jesus as his appeal to authority.
We see that in where Paul claims that he and those he is preaching to will be taken up by jesus. (1 thessalonians) Jesus says that no one knows the time or date. Curious how “Jesus ” didn’t mention that to paul in his “visions”.
to go on about how Paul contradicts jesus as if he has noidea what jesus taught, there is this list, by a christian, that goes through quite a few instances. I am curious what you think of his claims. https://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html
Just checking to see you received my response.
still waiting for you to show I’m wrong.
I find it strange that anyone would conclude that Paul knows nothing about the women being the first witnesses. Paul never mentioned who was first, second or third. Nor was he required to. What matters is why Paul was writing his letter to the Corinthians, and it had nothing to do with the order of who saw Jesus, or their gender.
You state, “No where in the gospels does jesus appear to only Peter/Cephas after his resurrection.” However, according to Luke 24:33-34, “They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, ‘It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.’” So Peter had already seen Jesus while the other apostles were in hiding.
Now it’s strange that you went on to point out exactly what you claim didn’t happen, and then claim that an entire account is missing. Yeah, there’s a lot missing that I would like to be in there. But let me ask, if nothing were missing, would that be enough to change your mind about Jesus, or would you still doubt that he is God? While I wish there was so much more about Jesus, what is written is sufficient.
You state, “Then it gets even worse for Paul since the gospels of mark andmatthew don’t even have the apostles involved at the tomb at all, and they both contradict luke and john.”
I don’t get why you think this is bad for Paul. The apostles did go to the tomb (Luke 24:12), and this does not contradict Luke or John. It sounds like you believe that every account must be identical, with nothing missing and nothing added. But that’s not how it works. A number of different people can provide different accounts without any contradictions. It’s only a contradiction if one person says X happened and another person says X didn’t happen, and this is not the case. All the gospel accounts are accurate, and so is Paul’s testimony. Just because Matthew and Mark don’t have the apostles involved at the tomb is not a contradiction unless it denies that the apostles were involved at the tomb, and that is not the case.
It’s silly to interpret any of this to mean that Paul has no idea that Peter is part of the 12. Peter and Paul became close friends, and Paul was the 12th disciple. There was also Matthias, so there’s no reason to misinterpret what Paul was saying.
I think it’s obvious that Jesus appeared to James, his brother, and that’s why James became a disciple of Christ. Just because it’s not mentioned doesn’t mean he didn’t see Jesus, especially when we learn that more than 500 people saw Jesus alive. You’re jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
Paul is under no obligation to mention the earthquake or sky darkening. He mentioned everything that was important. Paul never contradicted Jesus.
I’ll work on the list of supposed contradictions when I get more time.
1: Okay, firstly, the author, Edgar Jones, is a skeptic who wants to convince others that Paul is a liar. So he’s going to take Paul and the rest of Scripture out of context in order to make his point. He’s not unbiased (neither am I), and his claims are not in good faith.
Both Jesus and Paul are correct, and there is no contradiction. Jesus is making the point that nobody knows the day or time he will return. Paul doesn’t deny that. Nor does Paul pretend to be the second coming of Jesus. Jesus tells his followers not to follow those who claim to be the returning Christ. Paul is simply encouraging believers to be ready because their salvation is near, which is true. Salvation for every believer is always nearer than when we first believed. Therefore, Paul says, we must put on the armor of light and walk as God has called us and be obedient to him. I’d also encourage you to read 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 where Paul emphatically rebukes anyone who thinks they belong to him. Here, Paul makes the point that believers belong to Jesus, not Paul or Apollos or Cephas, etc. Paul came to serve Jesus and proclaim the gospel. So there is no contradiction. Edgar Jones is trying to manufacture a contradiction, but there is none if we’re sincere in trying to understand Scripture.
2: I’m having trouble understanding what Jones thinks is a contradiction. In all three cases, the Holy Spirit is the one who reveals and teaches. Paul didn’t learn about the gospel of Christ from people, but from Jesus and his Holy Spirit.
3: When Jesus and Paul are speaking about the living and the dead, they’re speaking in different contexts, so there is no contradiction. Jesus is making the point that Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive, even though they died. When believers die, they continue to live, even though they’re dead. The believer’s body of flesh dies and returns to dust, from which we were created. But our soul continues to live forever, and those who are believers experience eternal life, while unbelievers experience eternal death. Therefore, when Paul says that Jesus is Lord of both the dead and the living, he is correct. This is basic Christian theology. To God, the dead are alive, even though they’re dead. And this is why Jesus tells his disciples that Lazarus had fallen asleep (John 11:11-12), even though he was dead. Context is key.
4: Once again Jones is trying to manufacture a contradiction. I’ve read these passages many times, but it never occurred to me that there could be a contradiction there. Context is key. Paul and Jesus aren’t talking about the same thing. They’re making separate points, both of which are true. When asked which commandment in the law is the greatest, Jesus didn’t even quote any of the ten commandments. Instead he quoted from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. And Paul agrees with Jesus, stating, “for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.” Paul goes on to quote four of the Ten Commandments and is in agreement with Jesus that all of the commandments are summed up with, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
5: I don’t follow why Jones thinks this is a contradiction. When Jesus says, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy,” he is speaking truth. And so is Paul. They’re all true at the same time. No contradictions.
Jesus is primarily speaking to those who belong to God, and he is encouraging them to be merciful, just as God is merciful. Believers are to be merciful to others because this reflects God’s compassionate nature, overlooking their sin (through faith in Christ). Being merciful doesn’t earn anyone salvation. And that’s why Paul is also correct.
Okay, I’ll stop there for now because none of these are in good faith. These aren’t contradictions because they don’t meet the definition of a contradiction.
For instance, regarding Contradiction #1, in order to avoid bias, I asked Grok, “Some skeptics claim that this is a contradiction. Do these passages represent a true contradiction, or can they be explained without any contradiction?”
And here’s Grok’s response: “No, these passages do not represent a true contradiction. They can be reconciled through careful consideration of their distinct contexts, intents, and historical backgrounds within early Christian writings.” And, “In summary, the passages align within Christian theology as complementary: Jesus warns of deception, while Paul applies eschatological hope to ethics. No irreconcilable conflict exists when read in full context.”
Honestly, if you think there are any contradictions on that list, I’d encourage you to run them through Grok or another AI tool. But if you have any other specifics in mind, please let me know.