Why abiogenesis is not viable

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by M.D. Rawlings, Jun 27, 2011.

  1. M.D. Rawlings
    Offline

    M.D. Rawlings Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,123
    Thanks Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Heavenly Places
    Ratings:
    +1,715
    Abiogenesis: The Holy Grail of Atheism
    By Michael David Rawlings
    March 6, 2011


    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 composition of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation. 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 readily 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.

    The Rest

    Warning: this article attempts to address the philosophical/theological implications of what is currently known from the findings of research in the field of prebiotic chemistry; hence, it is posted in the religious forum rather than the science forum. On the other hand, with regard to the scientific aspects of the article, the research was vetted by experts in the fields of biochemistry and microbiology, by friends, both ID scientists and evolutionists. Naturally, the latter would not necessarily agree with my thesis regarding the deleterious effects of Darwinian naturalism on scientific methodology and what I hold to be the only viable explanation for the origins of life and the process of actualization, but the presentation of the science itself is objective, accurate and sound. In other words, because this work unabashedly posits, albeit, based on the findings of scientific research, that life could not and did not arise in the primordial world via the processes of natural causality, it is not strictly a scientific work, but one that evaluates the potentialities of ultimate origins of which we are all cognizant whether we acknowledge them to be pertinently valid or not.

    Scientifically, as things stand now, we cannot say with any certitude how life began. We can only consider what scientific research has shown about the monomeric, chemical precursors of life, the extent to which they were available and the apparent conditions under which they travailed. I submit that the evidence strongly indicates the necessity of an intelligent designer; that is to say, I go beyond the Pasteurian law of biogenesis: all live is from live.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Dr.Drock
    Offline

    Dr.Drock Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    9,680
    Thanks Received:
    940
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +940
    Those first 2 sentences gave me all I needed to know about the brains of the author.
     
  3. Lonestar_logic
    Offline

    Lonestar_logic Republic of Texas

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    24,318
    Thanks Received:
    2,193
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,505
    In other words you're not intelligent enough to engage him in a debate.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,692
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,758
    And you proved him right.
     
  5. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    40,001
    Thanks Received:
    5,328
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +12,444
    Abiogenesis is a fancy word that scientist invented to explain to origins of life.

    But when translated into the vernacular of the average person means:

    " We ain't got a clue " :cool:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Gadawg73
    Offline

    Gadawg73 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    14,426
    Thanks Received:
    1,603
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,677
    So everyone that believes in abiogenesis is an atheist?
    And every atheist believes in abiogenesis?
    That is what we call a WHOPPER.
    About as whacked out as claiming everyone that believes in evolution is anti God.
    When you hear folks writing books on what OTHER FOLKS BELIEVE it is Exhibit A that they have very little faith in what they believe.
     
  7. M.D. Rawlings
    Offline

    M.D. Rawlings Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,123
    Thanks Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Heavenly Places
    Ratings:
    +1,715
    Calm down, Gadawg, I didn't say that. Of course, a theist or an agnostic can embrace abiogenesis and many do. A few of the folks who advised me on the more complex aspects of the science were theists who believe that God may have set the Cosmos up from the beginning to produce life on its own. These guys were evolutionists, too. And one of the ID scientists, a microbiologist, was an agnostic. Hello!

    You're saying that I made a whopper when I didn't. But in any event, among other things, this article challenges the science of materialism, the default position of the atheist.

    I suppose it's possible that an atheist could reject abiogenesis, but how exactly does he account for the existence of life by doing so? Ultimately, abiogenesis is the notion that life arose from non-life. What other recourse does the atheist have but some kind of chemical evolutionary process, whether you call it abiogenesis or not. A rose by any other name. . . .

    It doesn't appear that you're making any sense here, but perhaps you have something in mind that I've never considered before. If so, please share.

    Uh . . . actually, quite the opposite is true. The genesis of this article goes to a number of opinions that began popping up on the Internet, apparently, as a result of recent advances in biotechnology and discoveries of biotic material in space debris. I was seeing claims all over the Internet, beginning with Yahoo Answers, that abiogenesis had effectively been proven or near proven. A rash of insanity. That was about a year ago. A few of the writers claimed to be scientists who insisted that we were very close. What?

    Look. I've been following the findings of abiogenic research and the advances in biotechnology for years with the clear understanding that in fact all evidence pointed away from natural causation of life as we currently understand it; nevertheless, I had always taken the position that determining whether or not abiogenesis did occur was a matter of time and information. I hedged my bets.

    The question came to me. If ignorance and confusion were so widespread, what's to say that I didn't have a number of things wrong as well? I spent the next six months studying the matter in depth. I read volumes of direct research, peer reviews and scientific articles.

    So what did I learn? Lots. I had a few of the details wrong, minor stuff really, and in some respects my understanding was a bit screwed. But what was the biggest thing learned of all?

    I didn't need to hedged my bets. The prospects of abiogenesis are so remote as to be nonexistent. Hence, I wrote an article rejecting it with the confidence of a lion.

    I prefaced the article with a response to yet another outrageous claim on Yahoo Answers, which became the vehicle through which the thesis could be readily expressed.

    Do not be daunted by the article's length. It's about a 30 minute read. But consider this: it covers the pertinent concerns and developments in abiogenic research from Miller-Urey (1951) to the present. That's a big topic in a space that is less than the length of a single blog page. Not bad.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2011
  8. Dr.Drock
    Offline

    Dr.Drock Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    9,680
    Thanks Received:
    940
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +940
    He spends his first few sentences bashing atheists then expects atheists to read this with an open mind and respect his opinion?

    :cuckoo:
     
  9. Lonestar_logic
    Offline

    Lonestar_logic Republic of Texas

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    24,318
    Thanks Received:
    2,193
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,505
    No he expects you to be as obtuse as a pile of bricks. And you met his expectations.
     
  10. Dr.Drock
    Offline

    Dr.Drock Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    9,680
    Thanks Received:
    940
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +940
    Yes because I'm absolutely certain if I presented an article that bashed christians for a paragraph then after that tried to make a point you'd be totally open-minded and welcome the author's opinions.

    :cuckoo::eusa_liar::cuckoo::eusa_liar:
     

Share This Page