‘The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[1][2]’
The Big bang theory also violates the laws of thermodynamics. Where do we start guys?
Because we average smarter than everybody else? 
If I don’t believe the Judeo-Christian creation fable I must be an atheist? I sense a middle someone is excluding.
Science kept marching on past the death of Louis Pasteur, And The Big Bang Theory doesn’t violate the laws of thermodynamics.
edited to add: And what dropzone said.
With you explaining which creation myth you believe and why. Please pick from this list or describe your preferred creation myth if it does not appear. Please describe, at least in general terms, any supporting evidence you know of.
Prediction: God said it, that settles it.
If I may chime in here for just a moment. I wonder if anyone really believes the Genesis creation myth anyways. Because some people just don’t know what it says.
It mentions God dividing the waters. And speaks of a “firmament”. These are clear references to the widely held ancient belief that the world is flat, with a massive geodesic dome, protecting us from the waters above. I’m not kidding. That’s what the “firmament” is (look it up).
So if you don’t believe the world is flat, you must be an atheist?
Personally, I believe in God, Darwinism, and a round earth. I don’t believe in an afterlife. But 1 out of four ain’t bad;).
OP, you made two points. Let’s take these as true:
How does god solve either? You can’t attribute properties to god that one couldn’t also give the universe without special pleading, e.g. eternal, popped in from nothing, bootstrap from simpler forms, etc. They both have the same supposed problems.
I’d just like the OP to explain in what way the Big Bang Theory violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Yes, I know that it doesn’t really, but I’d like to know what’s his understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and the Big Bang Theory.
In the beginning… 
we do have Talkorigins.org for several years already, you should start there as pointed many times before in previous threads.
They do BTW cite the published science for further reading, the point here is that you need to be aware at least of what the scientists are actually saying now and not hang on to incomplete and misleading sources that you are using.
As for the Atheist quip, I’m now an Agnostic, but OPs like the one you did make me respect more the Atheists than the creationists.
How about “Louis Pasteur was not omniscient and therefore any theory or observation of his cannot be considered as universal, axiomatic truth” ?
That seems like an OK start to me. I’ll even start : “Louis Pasteur might have been wrong, on only narrowly right. His frame of observation was severely limited both by technological means and lifespan”. Now you.
And…Pasteur was right, given an atmosphere rich with Oxygen…but the primordial atmosphere wasn’t, and so life had a chance to arise. The situation today isn’t the same as it was some four billion years ago.
I always love it when people try to disprove current scientific models with junior high school levels of understanding. It’s like the kid who thought he could disprove Einstein’s theory of Relativity…and couldn’t even work with square roots.
Isn’t “Pride” a sin in these guys’ book?
The laws of thermodynamics are a product of the Big Bang. You may as well complain that the Constitution must be false because it contradicts Wickard v. Filburn.
Pasteur knew nothing about DNA or even viruses. In any case, biology does not have the kinds of relatively simple laws that physics has.
The OP can come back and apologize now.
Hence the “universal” qualifier.
Pasteur’s observation may have been shit hot for its time and place. It probably was (I wouldn’t know, but he was French which makes it all very suspect :)). But that time and place were positively meaningless in a geological time frame. Or even on a simple, global scale since the range of his observations was very limited, geographically speaking. Did he plumb the abyssal depths ? No, no he fucking did not.
So Pasteur’s axioms are worth what they’re worth and not one iota more, and should only be considered valid (or applicable, even) within their precise and specific context. The inferences he draws from them may or may not be pertinent, and certainly aren’t The Truth for All Eternity, Amen.
Which was the point I was trying to get across to the OP. Who’s going to be a drive-by account anyway. And Lord knows religious types never seem to be satisfied with a non-simple, non-final answer to anything ; but hey. I got none better to do today.
“I read the Wiki page on <topic> and found a flaw in it while taking a dump, surely that means I’m a genius and nobody thought about it before.”
Yes, there’s an XKCD for this. Because of course there is. He’s a math guy, they get potty geniuses dividing by zero every Wednesday, regular.
I’m so sick of this crap. Thermodynamics is a fairly complex topic, and my thermo class was one of the hardest classes I took in college. Most people in the US don’t get any significant exposure to thermodynamics unless they do an AP Physics class in high school or do an Engineering or Physics major in college.
So, here we have a complex topic which you have obviously never studied in any depth, but yet you run around making definitive statements about it. And the statements are false. What kind of person does that?
Huh. See, it was my impression that the big bang theory was widely accepted among practising physicists, most of which will have gone through at least one course in thermodynamics in college. And that various scientific organizations, many of which have multiple people specializing in thermodynamics, accept it as valid. I’m wondering why they haven’t rejected it, or rejected modern thermodynamics.
Oh wait, I know! It’s because you’re completely ignorant of the subject you’re opining about. The big bang theory does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. This is an ancient creationist hobby-horse and it has been false from day one. You think it does? PUBLISH! Put your shit in the peer-reviewed journals, win a nobel prize, and stop bugging us with your crap. After all, if you’re capable of overturning decades of research in physics, you must be the best at thermodynamics the world has ever seen, with like 5 different degrees in thermodynamics! Similarly, appealing to the law of biogenesis. Oh look, research from a century ago that’s been supplanted. What’s next, want to bring up Bechamp and Lamarck?
And of course, our rejection of creationism has nothing to do with atheism. It’s entirely valid to believe that god created the big bang, or that god guided abiogenesis and evolution. I think it’s silly, but at least it’s working with the evidence. What’s not valid is to ignore the vast body of scientific research that validates the big bang theory and abiogenesis in favor of bronze-age mythology. The reason there aren’t many young-earth creationists here is because the site’s motto is “fighting ignorance”, not “let’s chill out in the dark ages”.
Also, obligatory: xkcd: Revolutionary Read the hoverover text.
OP asks a question, then proceeds to demonstrate ignorance towards science and logic. Apparently in OP’s world, appealing to bad science AND ignorance is enough to make one a believer.
As to your title question - I’m not sure it IS the case that this board is overwhelmingly atheist. I think atheists are more outspoken here, which gives that illusion.
Then again, maybe it is overwhelmingly atheist. It might be the case because the outspoken theists on the board bring up poor arguments, turning theists away from theism.
The fish sure are biting today.