The facts behind the myth of abiogenesis

[Toro]

The problem with the "intelligent design" argument that Christians postulate is that even if they are correct, it doesn't mean the intelligent designer is a Christian God.

It could be some other God completely hostile to Christianity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Prufrock's Lair
Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks.

That will surely win over the Atheists!

Obviously your little rant is for persuading believers, not Atheists.

Obviously, my interest in this instance is to expose the ignorance and arrogance of atheists, not win atheists over. . . .

And on both counts you’ve failed, and have only succeeded in exhibiting the ignorance and arrogance of most theists.

 

[Flopper]

Prufrock's Lair
Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or are unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is a Darwinian naturalism run amok: mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions, which displaces not only the traditional conventions of methodological naturalism (or mechanistic naturalism), but is superimposed on the discipline of science itself. Never has so much been owed to so little.

I'm well acquainted with the hypotheses, the research and the findings in the field of abiogenesis. Also, I understand evolutionary theory, inside and out. I know the science, and I'm current. Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who routinely sneer at theists as the former unwittingly expose their ignorance about the science and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable. God stands and stays: science can neither prove nor disprove His existence; it's not equipped to venture beyond the temporal realm. But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence. Science is a contingent source of wisdom, not the beginning and the end of it. And science in the hands of materialists is the stuff of fairytales.

Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

There are no accepted scientific theories that address the existence of God and there probably never will be because real science does not deal with the supernatural or even the metaphysical.

Even if Science, provides convincing evidence that one of the abiogenesis theories is an accurate explanation of the origin life, that does not disprove the existence of God. It will simply cast doubts on the a literal interpretation of the story of creation.

 

[Flopper]

I find my faith going back and forth concerning God. We seem to demand an explaination of how we and our universe came to be. Many through faith beleive that God must have created everything due to all the complexities of the universe, yet accept that God has existed forever. Isn't God greater than his creation? If so, then by the same logic that people use to say that our complex universe must have been designed by an intelligent being, then that intelligent being must also have been designed by someone. When I dwell on this I get lost in the contradictions of this process of inductive reasoning.

I think maybe I should accept living in the here and now. It is very unlikely that a being as small and with such a short life span as myself will ever discover how the universe really began. The best we can do is make some SWAGs (Scientific Wild Ass Guesses ) which are impossible to verify.

Your post is good example of why people look to religion for answers to questions that no man can answer. For many people the simple answer that God created the heavens and the earth and that God is eternal is sufficient. Those who seek a more in depth answer turn to science.

I have no doubt that science will eventually provide more answers as to how God went about creation but there will always be questions that science can't answer. For those answers, we will have to be content with God did or we just don't know.

 

[SAYIT]

I find my faith going back and forth concerning God. We seem to demand an explaination of how we and our universe came to be. Many through faith beleive that God must have created everything due to all the complexities of the universe, yet accept that God has existed forever. Isn't God greater than his creation? If so, then by the same logic that people use to say that our complex universe must have been designed by an intelligent being, then that intelligent being must also have been designed by someone. When I dwell on this I get lost in the contradictions of this process of inductive reasoning.

I think maybe I should accept living in the here and now. It is very unlikely that a being as small and with such a short life span as myself will ever discover how the universe really began. The best we can do is make some SWAGs (Scientific Wild Ass Guesses ) which are impossible to verify.

Your post is good example of why people look to religion for answers to questions that no man can answer. For many people the simple answer that God created the heavens and the earth and that God is eternal is sufficient. Those who seek a more in depth answer turn to science.

I have no doubt that science will eventually provide more answers as to how God went about creation but there will always be questions that science can't answer. For those answers, we will have to be content with God did or we just don't know.

And that may well speak for most who consider the question. There seems, IMHO, no conflict between the scientific explanation of evolution and the likelihood of God's part in it except among those who insist it can only be one (God) or the other (science). Certainly we have the capacity to scientifically explain many (but not all) of the gifts we have been given.

 

[Flopper]

I find my faith going back and forth concerning God. We seem to demand an explaination of how we and our universe came to be. Many through faith beleive that God must have created everything due to all the complexities of the universe, yet accept that God has existed forever. Isn't God greater than his creation? If so, then by the same logic that people use to say that our complex universe must have been designed by an intelligent being, then that intelligent being must also have been designed by someone. When I dwell on this I get lost in the contradictions of this process of inductive reasoning.

I think maybe I should accept living in the here and now. It is very unlikely that a being as small and with such a short life span as myself will ever discover how the universe really began. The best we can do is make some SWAGs (Scientific Wild Ass Guesses ) which are impossible to verify.

Your post is good example of why people look to religion for answers to questions that no man can answer. For many people the simple answer that God created the heavens and the earth and that God is eternal is sufficient. Those who seek a more in depth answer turn to science.

I have no doubt that science will eventually provide more answers as to how God went about creation but there will always be questions that science can't answer. For those answers, we will have to be content with God did or we just don't know.

And that may well speak for most who consider the question. There seems, IMHO, no conflict between the scientific explanation of evolution and the likelihood of God's part in it except among those who insist it can only be one (God) or the other (science). Certainly we have the capacity to scientifically explain many (but not all) of the gifts we have been given.

Where religion is based on faith, science is based on doubt and it is that doubt that gives rise to new knowledge. A hypothesis grows into a scientific theory once there is enough supporting evidence but it will always remain a theory, always subject to doubt and change. For the scientist, doubt is the driving force. For the theologian, doubt is seen as failing. Areas of conflict will always exist between religion and science.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I find my faith going back and forth concerning God. We seem to demand an explaination of how we and our universe came to be. Many through faith beleive that God must have created everything due to all the complexities of the universe, yet accept that God has existed forever. Isn't God greater than his creation? If so, then by the same logic that people use to say that our complex universe must have been designed by an intelligent being, then that intelligent being must also have been designed by someone. When I dwell on this I get lost in the contradictions of this process of inductive reasoning.

I think maybe I should accept living in the here and now. It is very unlikely that a being as small and with such a short life span as myself will ever discover how the universe really began. The best we can do is make some SWAGs (Scientific Wild Ass Guesses ) which are impossible to verify.

God, by definition, is the epitome of perfection, lacking nothing, eternally self-subsistent and, therefore, uncreated. There's nothing logical about imaginary contradictions. You merely fail to apprehend the ramifications of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin.

We are here; therefore, something or another has always existed, and that something is the ultimate origin of all other things. The known potentialities in terms of being are two, and one of them is greater than the other: inanimateness or sentience.

Choose.

I'm really sorry that you feel conflicted, but it's really not a problem.

As for how the universe began. We already known that or least we know that it began as a result of an energy fluctuation in the quantum vacuum. As to ultimate cause, make no mistake about it, the universe screams God's existence. His fingerprints are all over it.

Prufrock's Cave

If we can assume that a God has always existed, could the universe also have always existed?

Thanks you.

Yes, of course, those are the alternatives.

I talk about that here: Prufrock's Cave

Which is an excerpt from this article: Prufrock's Lair: Objectivism: The Uninspired Religion of "Reason"

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Your post is good example of why people look to religion for answers to questions that no man can answer. For many people the simple answer that God created the heavens and the earth and that God is eternal is sufficient. Those who seek a more in depth answer turn to science.

I have no doubt that science will eventually provide more answers as to how God went about creation but there will always be questions that science can't answer. For those answers, we will have to be content with God did or we just don't know.

And that may well speak for most who consider the question. There seems, IMHO, no conflict between the scientific explanation of evolution and the likelihood of God's part in it except among those who insist it can only be one (God) or the other (science). Certainly we have the capacity to scientifically explain many (but not all) of the gifts we have been given.

Where religion is based on faith, science is based on doubt and it is that doubt that gives rise to new knowledge. A hypothesis grows into a scientific theory once there is enough supporting evidence but it will always remain a theory, always subject to doubt and change. For the scientist, doubt is the driving force. For the theologian, doubt is seen as failing. Areas of conflict will always exist between religion and science.

I can only speak of Christianity in this wise: it's not based on faith, it's based on reason and truth. Faith is the means by which one apprehends that reason and truth.

As for science, it's either based on an ontologically factual metaphysical presupposition or it's not. The science of those who are not cognizant of that inescapable fact of reality or are not cognizant of the respective alternatives is the stuff of sheer faith.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The problem with the "intelligent design" argument that Christians postulate is that even if they are correct, it doesn't mean the intelligent designer is a Christian God.

It could be some other God completely hostile to Christianity.

Thank you, Toro.

Well, objectively speaking, sure. Why not?

However, He ain't.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

That will surely win over the Atheists!

Obviously your little rant is for persuading believers, not Atheists.

Obviously, my interest in this instance is to expose the ignorance and arrogance of atheists, not win atheists over. . . .

And on both counts you’ve failed, and have only succeeded in exhibiting the ignorance and arrogance of most theists.

Well, coming from you, Jones, the allegation of ignorance and failure, given your penchant for the ol' drive by without a shred of substance that we might weigh the veracity of your allegation, well, that is to say . . . *yawn*.

Let us know when you have something of substance to add to our knowledge about the findings of abiogenetic research. For your information, while most of the leading lights of the same would undoubtedly argue that my assertion, though it be obvious to me, regarding the necessity of an intelligent designer is scientifically premature, they would not deny the general accuracy of my presentation and evaluation of the peer-reviewed research and its findings.

Typically, the charge of my supposed ignorance comes from those who cannot distinguish the difference between abiogenesis and bioengineering, or from those who fail to recognize the fact that the latter supports intelligent design for the origin of life, whether it be, objectively speaking, ultimately true or not.

What I'm getting at here, Jones, is where is your article on the topic?

Do you have a link?

Might we know your actual criticisms of my presentation and evaluation of the research and its findings anytime soon, or will we just continue to hear those proverbial crickets chirping from your side of the fence?

*chirp chirp, chirp chirp*