Atheists/Theists/Fence dwellers- Which of these is believable? a) Abiogenesis b) Resurrection?

Scientists may make it possible to achieve both of these things in the near future, so I’d say both are believable

It’s a great question though as if we were capable of scientifically resurrecting living organisms nobody would claim it a natural process, rather a manipulation of a natural process which would mean if we scientifically created organic life then it would be rather difficult to claim that also to be a perfectly natural process. So just because something is scientifically possible it does not automatically mean it’s truly believable

Pope Francis says the theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand” putting an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design! So the Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept the big bang and evolution!

Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!

Christian Fundamentalist is a complete contradiction in terms!

CHRISTIAN – A follower or believer in Jesus.

FUNDAMENTALIST One who believes the Bible is literally true and must be followed exactly.

Therefore they are followers of the bible and not Jesus making them non Christians!

But worse is to follow it also makes them ideologists.

IDEOLOGY An idea that is false or held for the wrong reasons but is believed with such conviction as to be irrefutable.

So Christians have a loving and forgiving god and fundamentalist - well - Just are not Christians!

Abiogenesis was refuted by the great believer in the Resurrection, PASTEUR. Read him and you will see clearly.

Abiogenesis was proven in 2009. Resurrection has never been proven.

Abiogenesis doesn't need belief, there is a large and growing body or research showing the probable mechanisms by which it occurred.

Resurrection in biblical terms of a three day old corpse being magically brought back to life doesn't have anything to suggest it is anything more than a story.

Just because a is a real thing doesn't mean b is.

Both are believable and both had happen .....The study of abiogenesis can be geophysical, chemical, or biological,with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three,as life arose under conditions that are strikingly different from those on Earth today...nobody ask anyone to believe that. Science dont work like that science they are looking for answers. Resurrection by medical knowledge and technology happen everyday at ER an had been documented and CPR Saves More Than 92,000 Lives Annually, if not helped when their heart stop those people will be dead...

Abiogenesis is believable because we know it happened while resurrection is a silly fantasy.

The process, level of complexity and the purported cause makes all the difference.

When it comes to abiogenesis, scientists are being led down this path of study as a result of learning about how DNA, RNA, proteins, amino acids, make up the building blocks of life. It's a result of studying the evolutionary history, of how complex, multicellular life had humbler beginnings. Most significantly, they are looking for a scientific explanation that deals in the meeting place between biology and chemistry. The cause that is being sought is some kind of natural process that could be replicated if similar conditions were re-created.

When it comes to resurrection, the claim is that a once dead person became alive. People haven't been led to believing in resurrection as the result of learning about some facts which lead to other facts, and an increasingly precise understanding of natural processes. The idea of resurrection flies in the face of the understanding of natural processes - we understand the idea of decay in dead matter, for example. There is no comparable study of how resurrection could occur - it's the result of religious beliefs. The story clearly impacts people on cultural, historical, psychological levels that are worth studying, but the cause is believed to be some kind of divine, supernatural process, and by definition, a miracle precludes it from replication.