I don't think it's that huge an assumption, really. But I don't think I can prove it happens, so I'll let it drop.
So, initially when there was absolutely no life...my original question...how did life begin? I am not trying to annoy you, simply trying to get what a concise thought on the matter is. I have never read nor heard of an answer to that question that is reasonable by any sense of logic and reason.
I don't know. I think the current hypotheses have to do with self-organizing molecules and self-replicating RNA. That's all just chemistry, as I understand it. I'll admit it's not my strong point. Here's a page that goes into somewhat greater detail.
BTW, life either is or isn’t...pre-life is no life. To my knowledge, there can be no in between.
In that case, you need to define "life." You said yourself "It is debatable whether virus’ are living beings or not." If there's a debate, doesn't that imply that "life either is or isn't" is an oversimplification?
Lastly, my point with the Beagle is why are there not large animals popping out? We truly now have a “soup” from which life may be created if the atheist view is to be accepted. There really is no reason to begin with a simple single cell organism is there? If so, why?
Nobody thinks that large animals ever just popped out. Nobody thinks that a complex organism would come together slowly in the "soup" until it emerged fully formed. That would require the cells to know what they were supposed to be from the moment of their formation, without any DNA to guide them, and it would be an application of the common fallacious estimate of the probability of a cell being formed. Besides, I think in that case it really isn't much of an assumption to conclude that a half-beagle would be eaten by something long, long before it ever became a whole beagle.
BTW, Ha Ha Thats Very Logical, thanks for debating with me.
You're welcome. Thank you for the civil comment.
Ever wonder what makes sub-atomic particles assemble themselves into atoms?
I do not know html so cannot differentiate my font to make better sense of our discussion by showing you what I am answering to...so, bear with me.
Where I have a problem with atheistic evolution is that they first of all cannot come up with a concrete theory on how life began. I went to the site you linked to..thanks, it was good to read. The best they can come up with is that life evolved...which if one thinks about it...is rather crazy. Specific life forms may evolve, but life did not evolve. There was nothing living before life...so it did not evolve. But, let’s move on a little bit...you state that there is no record of “large animals popping out” and I totally agree with you. Indeed, there has never been any small living new organisms which just popped out on record. There are organisms that have mutated but none that have been newly created on record. Think about that for a while...here we now have an environment very rich in life...very very rich in the “soup” some like to refer to. Yet, life only was created new during the initial stages of it’s own creation.
Next, we are asked to believe that some organism that never flew ‘evolved’ somehow into a being that could fly. Then we are asked to believe that along the evolutionary trail a specific bird (can’t remember the name, but can get it if you like) evolved a ability to fly from what is now the North American continent (Canada I believe) all the way to Hawaii...a trip that has no places to rest, eat, or drink along the way once the bird is over water. The trip is barely makeable, so how did they evolve to that?
How could a single cell organism all of a sudden grow a set of lungs to breathe air? You cannot live with partial lungs, indeed you cannot live with partial livers, brains, etc. Yet, we are to believe that something existed before lungs, etc. and made an evolutionary trip to fully working set of lungs.
I agree that a definition of life does need to exist which is realistic. I would think that consciousness would have to be included. Yes, it has been proven that plants are sentient beings. I don’t know if you have ever seen anything die, but there is a spark, if you will, which leaves the body when we die. Christians understand that it is the soul leaving the body, not sure how atheists make out what it is. But, the spark/soul is energy...what is left is a pile of chemicals...without the energy. So, that energy, that spark is life. The body is almost irrelevant if you really think about it. It is simply mass when death occurs, albeit it is food for other organisms. What atheist evolutionist put forward is that the chemicals and mass are everything and ignore the energy. They miss the boat of what life is and of course do not have a real clue as to how life began because of this. They come up with grand theories of “sub-life” or “pre-life”, but again they are simply talking the physical aspect. The chemical compounds, etc. That is not life, that is simply chemistry. If they really knew how life was created they could create new life...life which has never been on earth before. But, they cannot because they simply do not have a clue. They might be able to make complex compounds of molecules...proteins, amino acids...but come on...who in their right mind would call that life? But, they try to push that idea so that it fits their preconceived idea of creation...
So, maybe ask yourself more carefully...how did life begin before there was life. Life has to include some level of consciousness, pretending a protein or amino acid is life is really changing the logical definition to fit their own concepts.