Thread: Why God Exists.

I've never seen not one single atheist say this. Every atheist in this forum will argue it up until they're blue in the face that they know EXACTLY what it was.

Ah Ne-yo, an inspiration to trolls everywhere. When you can't win an argument honestly, make shit up.

There is nothing natural about an event that clearly violates the laws of chemistry.

There is nothing about it that indicates any violations of any laws, or that it was supernatural. But then, I actually have legitimate qualifications in the subject of Chemistry, instead of being an ignorant fool. That always helps when making such statements.

Other than you trolling, I have no idea why you bother to argue over scientific matters. You long ago proved you are totally inept and unqualified to do so.

Originally Posted by Xei

It isn't a hole in the viewpoint because atheists acknowledge that it's not within their viewpoint. They say, 'we don't know what the origin was', and leave it at that. What more can you do? The theistic position makes an assertion which does not actually logically explain it anyway, so it's worse, in the sense that it's baseless and plausibly incorrect. It's like you have a box that cannot possibly be opened. The atheist says, 'I don't know what's in it'. The theist says, 'there's a banana/cash prize/ghost' in it. You're saying the latter is more intellectually satisfying because it 'doesn't have holes'?

I'm not saying it doesn't have holes, but it's still an attempt at an explanation. You can't be right if you don't take a stab at the question. And, after all, it all comes down to that question. We can ask "If X came from Y, then where did Y come from..." and so on for all eternity, but suggesting an origin for our universe is more than atheism can do.

Originally Posted by Supernova

I'm not saying it doesn't have holes, but it's still an attempt at an explanation. You can't be right if you don't take a stab at the question. And, after all, it all comes down to that question. We can ask "If X came from Y, then where did Y come from..." and so on for all eternity, but suggesting an origin for our universe is more than atheism can do.

Pascal's Wager. Your argument is invalid.

Originally Posted by Supernova

I'm not saying it doesn't have holes, but it's still an attempt at an explanation.

Positing something that is intrinsically incomprehensible as an explanation for something does not make it an explanation. It's saying "I have an answer, I just don't know what it is yet."

You can't be right if you don't take a stab at the question. And, after all, it all comes down to that question.

You can't be wrong either. If someone's answer is that they don't know the answer to something, they're not even trying to answer the question. They're stating their lack of knowledge of an answer.

We can ask "If X came from Y, then where did Y come from..." and so on for all eternity, but suggesting an origin for our universe is more than atheism can do.

If the suggestion is inherently meaningless and for all intents and purposes a non-answer, does it matter if it's "more" of an answer than a statement of ignorance? No, because they're both equally ignorant. I would just say that one answer is more honest than the other.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Actually this could be an atheistic viewpoint. It could a weak atheist viewpoint, also sometimes called an implicit atheist viewpoint. This viewpoint lacks a belief in any Gods. If you lack a belief in God, you might be inclined to say that we don't how the universe started. But you could also have your own theory of how the universe started that didn't involve a God. In reality the postition could be assosciated with anyone, even a theist. You could believe in a God who didn't create the universe.

An agnostic viewpoint of this situation would be that we can't know how the universe began, whether or not God created the universe.

Good point about agnosticism, although I don't think making a grey area about atheism really makes any difference. I suppose both atheism and agnosticism overlap in such a way.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

What makes faith a sturdy bridge?

If faith is a bridge, the question of sturdiness is the question of strength of faith. In addition to this, there is also numerous people that have known the Divine reality as confirmation, with great consistency throughout history. Call them saints, leaders, teachers, mystics, etc. All the means for perfect faith are already given.

Originally Posted by Supernova

I'm not saying it doesn't have holes, but it's still an attempt at an explanation. You can't be right if you don't take a stab at the question. And, after all, it all comes down to that question. We can ask "If X came from Y, then where did Y come from..." and so on for all eternity, but suggesting an origin for our universe is more than atheism can do.

Good point. Having rejected not only God, but (often indirectly) any truth beyond the scientific paradigm, the atheist is incapable of making revolutionary discoveries. The belief structure and attitude is what stops any further progression into that ground.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Pascal's Wager. Your argument is invalid.

Please elaborate?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You can't be wrong either. If someone's answer is that they don't know the answer to something, they're not even trying to answer the question. They're stating their lack of knowledge of an answer.

I'm sure atheists don't "state their lack of knowledge" when they are arguing against God, so this wouldn't apply to them, would it?

Originally Posted by Mario92

Pascal's Wager. Your argument is invalid.

I don't see how my argument is Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager says that you might as well believe in god because if you do you're covered weather god exists or not.

Originally Posted by really

Good point. Having rejected not only God, but (often indirectly) any truth beyond the scientific paradigm, the atheist is incapable of making revolutionary discoveries. The belief structure and attitude is what stops any further progression into that ground.

If something is beyond the scope of science (read: beyond the scope of objective testing), there are no revolutionary discoveries to be made. At that point, they become extremely unreliable personal experiences. There is no way to tell if your last mindgasmic trip to the center of oneness actually happened, or if you imagined the whole thing.

Please elaborate?

Pascal's Wager states, in essence, that even if there is no god, it is better to believe there is one than not; the idea being that you can't win the lottery if you don't play. The problem with that is there are an infinite number of possible gods, and the equally possible possibility that there is no god at all. Where did the universe come from? I contest it is equally possible that it had no beginning, that the universe is outside of time. We only perceive that it must have a beginning because of the linear causal appearance of time we constantly experience. In other words, there is no grand question of where did we come from.

Note: I don't actually believe this. I have no reason to, along with every other proposal of how the universe began, or if it began. I don't know, and I'm okay with that.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The research says otherwise.

How can the research say otherwise when the research is inconclusive?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Why?

Because OOL Researchers are currently studying a false hypothesis, however, they need something to fuel the masses, which is why research is always conducted knowing that it will never show any positive truthful results.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

Sometimes I get the feeling you don't really know what you're talking about, so I had to clarify.

I know what you mean, I get that feeling about you except it's not some of the time, it's all of the time.

I'm curious this wall of documents you posted are they all peer reviewed?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

There is nothing about it that indicates any violations of any laws, or that it was supernatural.

There is plenty that indicates otherwise.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

But then, I actually have legitimate qualifications in the subject of Chemistry, instead of being an ignorant fool. That always helps when making such statements.

Why is that people like you and Ninja insist on tossing me your resumes? I know, I know everyone in this forum is highly capable and have advanced abilities and expertise in diverse areas of Scientific fields and everyone has a PhD. :p Anyway, I don't have a legitimate background in Chemistry. I just have knowledge from a few books I've picked up at my local library, with that being said, perhaps with your expertise qualifications in Chemistry, you could help me better understand the following scenario.

Previous as well as recent, geological evidence acknowledges that rocks of early Earth resided under oxidizing conditions, it is further believed that Earths mantle granites are also highly oxidized. These findings seems to have come in waves "after" Urey-Miller's experiment back in the 1950's. This actually demonstrates conclusive evidence that not only Earth environment was always abundant with oxygen but that the very formation of this planet took place within special parameters rich of oxygen.

Here's a few examples. The findings of any evidence leading to an anoxic atmosphere on early Earth seems to be missing from geological records. On the other hand an abundant of discoveries displaying just the opposite appears to have surfaced.

Isotopic evidence for Mesoarchaean anoxia and changing atmospheric sulphur chemistry : Abstract : Nature

Oxygen in the Precambrian atmosphere: An evaluation of the geological evidence -- Clemmey and Badham 10 (3): 141 -- Geology

The U and Pb isotopic dating methods of the xenocrystic zircon grain(AC012/07) found within the Acasta Gneiss dated at 4.2 (Ga). The 4.2 (Ga) zircon occurs as a xenocryst in 3.9 (Ga). Special points to this particular discovery is made clear, particularly one that deserves extreme special attention.

Originally Posted by ABSTRACT

(1) A prominent
positive Ce anomaly, a feature typical of terrestrial zircons, suggests that AC012/07 crystallized under oxidizing conditions (Hoskin and Schaltegger, 2003).
4.2 Ga zircon xenocryst in an Acasta gneiss from northwestern
Canada:

The evidence suggest that early Earth consisted of an environment rich with oxygen. So with that being said, I would like for you to explain how exactly can amino acids form within oxidized conditions? See this particular question just throws me and it's probably because I'm not very knowledgeable about Chemistry but since you're so qualified in this area then I'm sure you could clear this one up.

One other thing as well. Autogenesis ad-hears to a reductive gaseous mixture-like of an atmosphere. What evidence supports the existence of such conditions on early Earth?

Why is that people like you and Ninja insist on tossing me your resumes?

Because it's pertinent when responding to claims like "this violates the laws of chemistry".

The fact that much of the specifics of abiogenesis are up in the air does not mean is is impossible.

perhaps with your expertise qualifications in Chemistry, you could help me better understand the following scenario.

I'm not a Geochemist, but I'll weigh in as best I can.

Your first link "Isotopic evidence for Mesoarchaean anoxia and changing atmospheric sulphur chemistry" isn't helpful to your case. Reading the full paper, it actually argues against the idea that the Earth had an oxic atmosphere (as posed elsewhere) and in favour of the idea of an early reducing atmosphere, by suggesting that observed results are down to UV fluctuations or atmospheric composition changes related to the trace gases. It's actually a rebuttal to the idea.

The evidence suggest that early Earth consisted of an environment rich with oxygen. So with that being said, I would like for you to explain how exactly can amino acids form within oxidized conditions?

Even if Earth's atmosphere did always contain O2, amino acids have been found in comets. The formation of those is itself explained by exposure to heavy UV light, instead lightning/electric currents as has been suggested how they could have formed on Earth if the conditions were right.


As for the rest of your links, I'm going to have to get back to you on that.

Originally Posted by Supernova

I'm not saying it doesn't have holes, but it's still an attempt at an explanation. You can't be right if you don't take a stab at the question. And, after all, it all comes down to that question. We can ask "If X came from Y, then where did Y come from..." and so on for all eternity, but suggesting an origin for our universe is more than atheism can do.

I didn't realise anybody would seriously answer 'yes' to my question. It was supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum.

You seriously find it more intellectually satisfying believing that there is an old shoe in my box? Wow...

You can't be wrong if you don't take a stab at the question. How on Earth is guessing a satisfying solution to anything? Ever? I have no conception of how your mind works.

All you atheists, (arguing theist view points) are putting lovely logical arguments forward, but I think you are missing the point.
Religion is about faith. Faith doesn't need logic, it's a feeling from the heart, like knowing murder is wrong. If atheists really paid attention to life they would realise that there has to be a higher order. Since the dawn of time humans have recognised a spiritual presence in the universe, since God put us here 4000 years ago. True, some may have confused this need for faith and worshiped other religions, but one can only hope God will be merciful.
It's true that the universe could have been created from the big bang, and we have all evolved out of single celled organisms, but when you look at all the beauty of the universe, does that really seem likely?
One final point. If there is no God, and evolution is true, there is no purpose in life existing at all. We are nothing more than complex biolgical organisms, with no purpose in life but to survive. We are insignificant in the grand scale of the universe, and just as this notion drove so many mad in the Restaurant at the end of the Universe's total perspective vortex Technology in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This idea would so drive me mad. The only way to stay sane is to believe that we are part of a higher plan, and that amoungst all the universe, we are God's chosen.
And this is why I belive.

Originally Posted by Oneironautic

All you atheists, (arguing theist view points) are putting lovely logical arguments forward, but I think you are missing the point.
Religion is about faith. Faith doesn't need logic, it's a feeling from the heart, like knowing murder is wrong.

I live very close to nature. I've lived in the countryside since birth. And I have never felt such a feeling, so what you are saying has no effect on me.

If atheists really paid attention to life they would realise that there has to be a higher order. Since the dawn of time humans have recognised a spiritual presence in the universe, since God put us here 4000 years ago. True, some may have confused this need for faith and worshiped other religions, but one can only hope God will be merciful.

Feeling that murder is wrong is a primal thing. I imagine any feeling of God would be a simple feeling. How on Earth can a gut feeling communicate to you that the correct God is the one who put people on Earth 4,000 years ago, who created Eve from Adam's rib, who built the Ark, etc. etc. etc.?

I find it amazing you cannot realise the absurdity of saying to every other person who 'feels a religious presence', people following your exact same reasoning, that they are 'wrong' because they believe in some other version of God. Give me a single good reason, even one based on faith, that makes you so sure other religions are utterly wrong.

Be honest, were you told that the Christian God was the correct one from birth? That would certainly be a good candidate for explaining your 'belief'. It would also explain why you're not a Jew or Muslim, and explains why all the Muslims who 'feel a presence' reckon that Allah is the right guy and Islam the right faith. Bit of a weird coincidence, don't you think, that the One True Religion also happens to be the exact strain of religion of the people closest to you. Apparently religion is relative to geographical location.

It's true that the universe could have been created from the big bang, and we have all evolved out of single celled organisms, but when you look at all the beauty of the universe, does that really seem likely?

On the face of it, no, it seems amazing. A few hundred years ago I'd've accepted this as one of the best arguments for God. But since the Enlightenment some great minds have grappled with this and we now have a completely plausible (moreover, based on evidence) and wonderful account of how structure can emerge from chaos.

One final point. If there is no God, and evolution is true, there is no purpose in life existing at all. We are nothing more than complex biolgical organisms, with no purpose in life but to survive. We are insignificant in the grand scale of the universe, and just as this notion drove so many mad in the Restaurant at the end of the Universe's total perspective vortex Technology in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This idea would so drive me mad. The only way to stay sane is to believe that we are part of a higher plan, and that amoungst all the universe, we are God's chosen.
And this is why I belive.

Firstly, facts don't disappear because you don't like them. Obviously. It must be a nightmare living in a mind where you are constantly at war with your own mind, refusing to accept what your eyes see and your reason tell you. It's so fundamental to you that you're even capable of stating it without realising it (or at least being capable of effectively suppressing the realisation). For more on this, read 1984 by George Orwell.

Secondly, I realise that the universe won't create meaning for me. I create it. And I enjoy life; so do you. It doesn't require explanation, it's inherently obvious. So I don't think I would be worried about the total perspective vortex. I know I'm totally insignificant to the universe, but I also know that I am very significant to myself.

Hey Xei, I'm pretty sure he was actually sticking to the OP of the thread. That's not what he actually believes.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Because it's pertinent when responding to claims like "this violates the laws of chemistry".

My question was rhetorical :p

Originally Posted by Photolysis

The fact that much of the specifics of abiogenesis are up in the air does not mean is is impossible.

So if it's not impossible what makes this concept possible at this moment right now?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I'm not a Geochemist, but I'll weigh in as best I can.

Neither am I but this question I'm asking you is common sense stuff. Nothing is complex about this at all. Someone would your so-called legitimate and qualified background in chemistry should be able to see exactly where I'm going with this.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Your first link "Isotopic evidence for Mesoarchaean anoxia and changing atmospheric sulphur chemistry" isn't helpful to your case. Reading the full paper, it actually argues against the idea that the Earth had an oxic atmosphere (as posed elsewhere) and in favour of the idea of an early reducing atmosphere, by suggesting that observed results are down to UV fluctuations or atmospheric composition changes related to the trace gases. It's actually a rebuttal to the idea.

There were 3 links in total. You could have waited to post your thoughts on all 3. No one is in any type of rush here.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Even if Earth's atmosphere did always contain O2, amino acids have been found in comets. The formation of those is itself explained by exposure to heavy UV light, instead lightning/electric currents as has been suggested how they could have formed on Earth if the conditions were right.

You believe in Panspermia? I am aware of the demonstrations, displaying how organic molecules could actually survive the extremely high temperature of entry, plummeting to Earth while piggybacking on comets. However, I'm sure you are aware that amino acids bonds are very weak and prone to degradation. Which in-turn would obstruct the capabilities of forming any highly structural and complex self-replicating chains. Pushing the origin of life into outer space is just a way to evade the insurmountable amount of problems encompassing abiogenesis. The idea doesn't answer the Origin of Life, it just pushes the question away from Earth, nothing more.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Hey Xei, I'm pretty sure he was actually sticking to the OP of the thread. That's not what he actually believes.

fffffffffffff I was away for the weekend and forgot what this fucking thread was again.

Oh well, writing it gave me a couple of interesting thoughts.

So if it's not impossible what makes this concept possible at this moment right now?

The distinct fact it hasn't been proven impossible for one, or otherwise in a conflict with other well established theories. The idea that amino acids and suchlike couldn't have formed on early Earth due to the conditions being dramatically different is interesting, but does not actually pose a barrier to the theory, because their presence can be accounted for by other means.

There were 3 links in total. You could have waited to post your thoughts on all 3. No one is in any type of rush here.

I was writing a response and wanted to post what I already had. At this present moment I'm simply writing a quick reply.

Neither am I but this question I'm asking you is common sense stuff. Nothing is complex about this at all. Someone would your so-called legitimate and qualified background in chemistry should be able to see exactly where I'm going with this.

If I'm going to actually read the papers and understand what they are saying, especially if they're in a field I'm not experienced in, then that takes time.

Now, I can either be intellectually dishonest and assert that you're wrong without reading them (which does happen to be true, given the point you are trying to make - I already tackle why it's irrelevant above), or I can read them and explain exactly why you're incorrect in using them, as I did with that first paper.

Thus far you've argued that it's impossible, managed to cite at least one source that contradicts your position, and managed to make an argument that is irrelevant. Anyone could easily dismiss it.

You believe in Panspermia?

I don't see any reason to believe it, but I do consider it a possibility. What I referenced wasn't really Panspermia though, it's simply a way of accounting for amino acids and various other organic molecules being present even on an Earth with lots of Oxygen, which was your question ("explain how they could have formed..."). True Panspermia does simply shift the question elsewhere.

Originally Posted by really

If faith is a bridge, the question of sturdiness is the question of strength of faith. In addition to this, there is also numerous people that have known the Divine reality as confirmation, with great consistency throughout history. Call them saints, leaders, teachers, mystics, etc. All the means for perfect faith are already given.

Why is faith a bridge in the first place? How does it accomplish knowledge of the unknowable?

I'm sure atheists don't "state their lack of knowledge" when they are arguing against God, so this wouldn't apply to them, would it?

Yes, it would, even if they explicitly claim there is no god. It still leaves them in a state of ignorance regarding the origin of the universe if they say they don't know.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

How can the research say otherwise when the research is inconclusive?

Because OOL Researchers are currently studying a false hypothesis, however, they need something to fuel the masses, which is why research is always conducted knowing that it will never show any positive truthful results.

If the research is inconclusive, and thus has not been proven true or false, how can you say it violates the laws of chemistry or that it is false? Of course the situation isn't as dire as you so fallaciously present it, what with the baseless paranoia concerning "fueling the masses." Everything revolves around chemistry (especially living things), so that is the most obvious field to look into when trying to find a natural explanation (i.e. the only explanation) for the origin of life. The mass of papers I listed show how scientists have discovered a multitude of ways that chemistry may have been involved in the creation of life. Calling this a "false hypothesis" is pure nonsense.

I'm curious this wall of documents you posted are they all peer reviewed?

No, I just put on my creationist hat and went quote-mining.

Originally Posted by Mario92

If something is beyond the scope of science (read: beyond the scope of objective testing), there are no revolutionary discoveries to be made. At that point, they become extremely unreliable personal experiences. There is no way to tell if your last mindgasmic trip to the center of oneness actually happened, or if you imagined the whole thing.

Predictably, that's something a scientist would say about science. Perhaps there is no objective revolutionary discoveries to be made in the universe without reason and logic. But even with such methods, you cannot prove everything in the universe that is true, and hence science cannot grasp the whole of reality.

Pascal's Wager states, in essence, that even if there is no god, it is better to believe there is one than not; the idea being that you can't win the lottery if you don't play. The problem with that is there are an infinite number of possible gods, and the equally possible possibility that there is no god at all. Where did the universe come from? I contest it is equally possible that it had no beginning, that the universe is outside of time. We only perceive that it must have a beginning because of the linear causal appearance of time we constantly experience. In other words, there is no grand question of where did we come from.

Your answer to your own question still could be closer to a possible God than you realize; Pascal's Wager is not an automatically invalid argument.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Why is faith a bridge in the first place? How does it accomplish knowledge of the unknowable?

If our minds cannot know an absolute truth or "reality", while one undoubtedly exists, how else is a realization to take place? Faith is a process of surrendering and a trust that it is true and that one cannot possibly understand it.

Yes, it would, even if they explicitly claim there is no god. It still leaves them in a state of ignorance regarding the origin of the universe if they say they don't know.

Not really, if you claim something about the universe, it may be true or false. If you admit you don't know, that is another thing altogether.

Originally Posted by Xei

I have no conception of how your mind works.

Woah, dude, it's just a game.
TBH, I'm not even certain anymore where I was going with that. Hey, it's a hard viewpoint to support when you don't buy into it!

Originally Posted by really

If our minds cannot know an absolute truth or "reality", while one undoubtedly exists, how else is a realization to take place? Faith is a process of surrendering and a trust that it is true and that one cannot possibly understand it.

If you can't understand it, how can you know that it is true? It's a very poor guessing game.

Not really, if you claim something about the universe, it may be true or false. If you admit you don't know, that is another thing altogether.

Let's say Option A is presented as an explanation for the existence of the universe. Let's also say I deny that Option A is an explanation. There's no contradiction if I then say I don't know of an answer, because I don't think the option presented is an answer.

Originally Posted by really

If our minds cannot know an absolute truth or "reality", while one undoubtedly exists, how else is a realization to take place? Faith is a process of surrendering and a trust that it is true and that one cannot possibly understand it.

Do we not come to know the absolute through our senses? Is realization not some level of understanding?

On top of this, faith takes place on the level of mind. It is belief in an assertion.

Unless you are talking about faith in the universe, faith in oneself, faith in that we can change and learn and adapt so we can really handle almost anything if we really put in the effort and don't get distracted.

But that is very different from religious faith with most people and most religions. 99%

Originally Posted by Photolysis

The distinct fact it hasn't been proven impossible for one, or otherwise in a conflict with other well established theories. The idea that amino acids and suchlike couldn't have formed on early Earth due to the conditions being dramatically different is interesting, but does not actually pose a barrier to the theory, because their presence can be accounted for by other means.

It's only proven possible under certain conditions, However, these certain conditions has not been proven to have transpired nor can we account for any evidence to support such conditions. So as of today abiogenesis has not been proven possible either. In fact the evidence suggest otherwise and abiogenesis has been in jeopardy for quite some time now as we uncover more and more evidence pertaining to early Earths conditions.

Not to mention it's also only proven possible by intelligent intervention.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I was writing a response and wanted to post what I already had. At this present moment I'm simply writing a quick reply.

I'm not looking for quick replies. I don't understand why you feel you need to rush.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

If I'm going to actually read the papers and understand what they are saying, especially if they're in a field I'm not experienced in, then that takes time.

Now, I can either be intellectually dishonest and assert that you're wrong without reading them (which does happen to be true, given the point you are trying to make - I already tackle why it's irrelevant above), or I can read them and explain exactly why you're incorrect in using them, as I did with that first paper.

I would rather have a response to ALL not some. Responding to only half my post makes it appear as if you're dodging.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I don't see any reason to believe it, but I do consider it a possibility. What I referenced wasn't really Panspermia though, it's simply a way of accounting for amino acids and various other organic molecules being present even on an Earth with lots of Oxygen, which was your question ("explain how they could have formed..."). True Panspermia does simply shift the question elsewhere.

It sure sounds like Panspermia to me, in fact the idea of organic molecules hitchhiking a ride on comet and seeding the earth through impacts is exactly what Panspermia is all about is it not?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Panspermia (Greek: πανσπερμία from πᾶς/πᾶν (pas/pan) "all" and σπέρμα (sperma) "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids.[1][2]The mechanisms proposed for interstellar panspermia are hypothetical and currently unproven. Panspermia can be said to be either interstellar (between star systems) or interplanetary (between planets in the same star system), and its transport mechanisms may include radiation pressure and lithopanspermia (microorganisms in rocks).[9][10] Deliberate directed panspermia from space to seed Earth[11]

What you've stated about organic molecules found on comets and seeding the Earth is isomorphic to that quote above.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If the research is inconclusive, and thus has not been proven true or false, how can you say it violates the laws of chemistry or that it is false?

Because O2 was present over 4 billion years ago on Earth. There is evidence that supports this as I've already presented, which Photolysis is currently dancing around. It would've taken a miracle or something un-natural to stop the destructive breaking down of biological molecules imposed by the presences of O2. We know that the laws of chemistry does not support amino acids forming under oxidized conditions. Amino acids forming under these conditons would be a direct violation to the current laws of chemistry. If it happened it would've taken a supernatural event to make it happen based off what we currently know of early earth's environment.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE

No, I just put on my creationist hat and went quote-mining.

I'll take your sarcasm as a yes.

It sure sounds like Panspermia to me, in fact the idea of organic molecules hitchhiking a ride on comet and seeding the earth through impacts is exactly what Panspermia is all about is it not?

Panspermia deals with the idea that life evolved elsewhere; it's right there in the quotation. The idea isn't well accepted because there's no evidence for it, and it shifts the question of how life evolved elsewhere, as we've already discussed.

Conversely, the idea that organic molecules formed elsewhere does not raise further questions

The idea of organic molecules (including amino acids and nucleotides) landing on Earth via comets is not contended; it's been observed. Organic compounds have also been observed in other comets. Their presence is accounted for even if Earth had an Oxygen-rich atmosphere, which is why your attempts to prove that this is the case are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Because O2 was present over 4 billion years ago on Earth. There is evidence that supports this as I've already presented, which Photolysis is currently dancing around. It would've taken a miracle or something un-natural to stop the destructive breaking down of biological molecules imposed by the presences of O2. We know that the laws of chemistry does not support amino acids forming under oxidized conditions. Amino acids forming under these conditons would be a direct violation to the current laws of chemistry. If it happened it would've taken a supernatural event to make it happen based off what we currently know of early earth's environment.

One paper you presented (Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere: An Evaluation of the Geological Evidence, from 1982) argues in favor of an oxygenic atmosphere, while the other paper (Isotopic Evidence for Mesoarchaean Anoxia and Changing Atmospheric Sulphur Chemistry) argues in favor of an anoxic atmosphere. Not only is the latter paper more recent, but it goes against the idea you're arguing for. I mean it's right in the title.

And there are all of these fairly recent papers that go against the idea as well:

Oxygen in Earth's Early Atmosphere « Articles « NASA Astrobiology (2007)-- This actually links to the Mesoarchaean Anoxia paper.
Earth's Early Atmosphere (2001)
Atmospheric Influence of Earth's Earliest Sulfur Cycle (2000)
Copley, Jon. 2001. The story of O. Nature 410: 862-864.
Access : Palaeoclimate: Oxygen's rise reduced : Nature (2007)
The Rise of Atmospheric Oxygen (2001)
Biogenic Methane, Hydrogen Escape, and the Irreversible Oxidation of Early Earth (2001) -- Less related, but pertinent nonetheless

Do you even read what you post, or do you just quote-mine and hope we don't notice? If so, hats off to you sir, because you're like the best troll ever.