Correction: Man cannot destroy nor create matter.
As for your other questions, none of what you’ve stated dictates the absence of God. If God created the heavens and earth, then He developed and controls the process that makes it rain. If He created man and gave the charge to be fruitful and multiply, then He designed the reproductive process (one which I happen to enjoy very much….THANK YOU, LORD!! ). Our recent understanding how such processes work doesn't mean that God wasn't responsible for such occuring "in the beginning" To the contrary, the complexity of such processess would indicate that design on a supernatural scale is necessary.
If already having a conclusion invalidates Creation, then it would invalidate evolution as well, for its conclusion is “There is no God!” Why do you think evolution hold such appeal to atheists? It’s a way for them to explain (or attempt to explain) life on Earth, without those pesky words, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth .
No one started with the aspect of having absolutely no idea how life began on Earth. Either you believe life came from a supernatural source or you don’t, period. All the studies, regarding life and its origin, are anchored on one of those two beliefs. That would explain why the concept of abiogenesis is, as you put it "a work in progress". Those who don't believe in God are looking for THAT specific answer: That life came from non-life, thus there is no God. And any evidence that states to the contrary will be disregarded.
BTW, am I the only one who finds it strange that skeptics have no problem believing that “matter” has always existed, but they do have a problem when Christians state that God has always existed (“From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God”)?
"Correction: Man cannot destroy nor create matter."
observe this everyone, its called the argument from ignorance. for one you are making this up, you have no evidence this is the case, are changing science to fit your views and frankly are acting extremely ignorant. i dont mean that in a malicious manner, its just that your making an argument that cannot be falsified, has no evidence, yet has every bit of evidence against it. this is rhetoric, and unintelligent rhetoric at that.
"As for your other questions, none of what you’ve stated dictates the absence of God. If God created the heavens and earth, then He developed and controls the process that makes it rain. If He created man and gave the charge to be fruitful and multiply, then He designed the reproductive process (one which I happen to enjoy very much….THANK YOU, LORD!!
). Our recent understanding how such processes work doesn't mean that God wasn't responsible for such occuring "in the beginning" To the contrary, the complexity of such processess would indicate that design on a supernatural scale is necessary."
for one, complexity does not require anything supernatural. many complicated things require no design. snowflakes, fractals, the growth of a human. you mistaking complexity for design is just your way of justifying god. natural processes are highly complex, and work without a god. but i see your argument. your saying that god created them, and we cannot actually prove this, or even provide one piece of evidence, great argument. why dont we just put magical people or GODS as the sustainers of natural processes, oh ya we did, thor anyone?
"No one started with the aspect of having absolutely no idea how life began on Earth. Either you believe life came from a supernatural source or you don’t, period. All the studies, regarding life and its origin, are anchored on one of those two beliefs. That would explain why the concept of abiogenesis is, as you put it "a work in progress". Those who don't believe in God are looking for THAT specific answer: That life came from non-life, thus there is no God. And any evidence that states to the contrary will be disregarded. "
i can see science is not your specialty. no one in science, or at least anyone reputable starts with the conclusion, god is responsible or not responsible. no one is trying to answer that question, they are just looking for truth, and verifiable evidence. if in the end any good scientist found evidence for god they would have that conclusion. no one in science is trying to disprove god, that has nothign to do with science, and no one disregards evidence to the contrary becuase that is anti-science.
"BTW, am I the only one who finds it strange that skeptics have no problem believing that “matter” has always existed, but they do have a problem when Christians state that God has always existed (“From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God”)?"
another ridiculous statement. matter can neither be created nor destroyed, do to bootstrapping it avoids entropy. you tell me what is an easier concept to digest. first, that matter is eternal, neither created nor destroyed which goes along with science, and has a simple explanation. OR, that there is a infinitely complex being who magically creates matter(but no one knows how) and knows everything, is everywhere, and is loving(all without explanation). the second scenario is way more complex, and complicates the question far more then need be. your adding complexity, yet using it to explain a less complex thing. this doesnt make any sense whatsoever. see occams razor for why this is a ridiculous argument.
so its highly plausible, even obvious due to thermodynamics that matter always existed, yet you choose to beleive that a highly complex BEING insted created everything, and you beleive this despite the overwhelming lack of evidence. faith is not rational, trying to ratinalize it is ignorant in my opinion.