Look whose talking.
You have often argued very strongly for abiogenesis.
This is, as usual, incorrect.
I have represented the 12 or so most common suggestions as to how naturalistic abiogenesis could occur. If we are talking about things that might have been possible, lacking any spectacular evidence one or another--which we do-- there is no substantive reason to reject them in favor of non-naturalistic explanations. More specifically, I have argued that that means the creationist claim--yours in particular--that God did it because no other explanation exists, is simply wishful thinking on creationist's part.
As to games and other nonsense about life from non-life there are none that can surmount the problems against it that real science has shown.
This is, of course, blatant nonsense. There is no major body of scientific thought that rejects abiogenic origins, just as there is none that rejects devine intervention.
As to your atheism, I see no difference in your writings from those of atheists. Like you they also hate God.
So athiests hate an entity they don't believe exists, eh? That must be a good trick. Sure they hate God's run-of-the-mill avaricious, self-satisfied, self-seeking, cruel representatives, but they don't hate God nearly enough; but, So what? That doesn't give you a license to rewrite Webster's to suit your arguments. Obviously, I am not an athiest by any rational measure.
Each time I say abiogenesis is impossible you argue with me. Now all I want from you is to show me one single theory which can resolve the following problems with abiogenesis - and explain how it surmounts them:
1. the problem of arranging some 500,000 pairs of DNA in exactly the correct way to make life possible.
2. the chicken - egg problem - you need DNA for life to exist, however, you need the products of DNA - the proteins, etc, in order to have an organism and for DNA to be able to work.
3. the DNA/RNA symbolism problem. You cannot have life without DNA coding for the amino acids which RNA translates into the amino acids which make the proteins of life. There is no chemical or other reason for the translation of these codes into specific amino acids. It is purely conventional as our letters represent sounds. So your theory also has to answer to how RNA was taught to interpret the DNA code.
Let's see you (or anyone else here) take up the challenge.
Yup. Essentially, atheists know that God exists but hate to admit it. They have become atheists because of hatred of God, not because they could care less about religion. The hatred shown towards Christianity by evolutionist-atheists amply proves my point.