Why abiogenesis is not viable

[uscitizen]

Yep that is gentile and the teachings of christ shows his acceptance of non jewish people applies to us accepting non christian folks and such as well.
Jesus was a Jew, remember that.

to be a Christian means to live a christlike life.

You stated a gentile was being non-American.

Christian was only used three times in the Bible, Acts 11:26, Luke writes "...The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." In Acts 26:28, King Agrippa tells Paul; "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian." And, in 1 Peter 4:16: "...but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God." In each case, the Greek word Christianos (khris-tee-an-os') is used, which is translated "follower of Christ."

Being a Christian means you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, by accepting Him as your personal Lord and Saviour.

Simply believing in God is not enough. Being a good person is not enough. Nor is going to church, being baptized or taking communion, although all of those things are done by Christians.

Yes what you posted is correct. But you still do not understand.
Seriously study the new testament more about how Jesus lived.
Christians were the followers of Jesus after his death. Prior to his death, Jesus and his deciples were Jews. Jesus taught them a more humanistic way to live, Peter put down thy sword.
I live a more christian life in my actions than most self avowed christians do. I do not however believe in any god, or afterlife.

I know the bible and pentecostal religion. I was forced to attend church until I was 16.
The christian lifestyle stuck, but the mystic beliefs did not.

 

[Wiseacre]

I see reason to believe that the concepts of abiogenesis or evolution cannot be the means through which God created and evolved life forms on this or any other planet. Abiogenesis may have been a natural spontaneous event, but whatever the truth is does not falsify the possibility that God was the cause.

Similarly, the theory of evolution does not mean that that all of the events and factors which lead to the evolution of humans was not by God's design. The methods that were used may have been misinterpreted by those who wrote the bible (Genesis), so evolution may in fact be the process of intelligent design that God used.

 

[uscitizen]

Yep that id =s what ID attemps to do. Co opt abiogeneisis and evoloution as gods plan, just like they have co-opted the pagan holidays over the years.

 

[Gadawg73]

I would read the article then make an argument based on the facts (or lack thereof) as they are presented.

Bashing Christians is nothing new, I've seen it done my enitre life and I do not take it personally. Jesus knew it would happen. He said in Matthew 5:11 "Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."

And I see Christians bash others all the time also.
Who did Jesus bash?
In fact Jesus defended the very folks that modern day so called "Christians" bash all the time.

Who exactly did Jesus defend? If you could point to a specific chapter and verse it would be most helpful.

The poor, everyone.
If you do not what being Christlike is start over.
Take a hard look at the folks Jesus ran with.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yep that is gentile and the teachings of christ shows his acceptance of non jewish people applies to us accepting non christian folks and such as well.
Jesus was a Jew, remember that.

to be a Christian means to live a christlike life.

You stated a gentile was being non-American.

Christian was only used three times in the Bible, Acts 11:26, Luke writes "...The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." In Acts 26:28, King Agrippa tells Paul; "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian." And, in 1 Peter 4:16: "...but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God." In each case, the Greek word Christianos (khris-tee-an-os') is used, which is translated "follower of Christ."

Being a Christian means you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, by accepting Him as your personal Lord and Saviour.

Simply believing in God is not enough. Being a good person is not enough. Nor is going to church, being baptized or taking communion, although all of those things are done by Christians.

Yes what you posted is correct. But you still do not understand.
Seriously study the new testament more about how Jesus lived.
Christians were the followers of Jesus after his death. Prior to his death, Jesus and his deciples were Jews. Jesus taught them a more humanistic way to live, Peter put down thy sword.
I live a more christian life in my actions than most self avowed christians do. I do not however believe in any god, or afterlife.

I know the bible and pentecostal religion. I was forced to attend church until I was 16.
The christian lifestyle stuck, but the mystic beliefs did not.

Try telling many Christians here in Georgia that Jesus and his disciples were Jews!
They flip out.
Doesn't mesh with their ideology. Facts be damned.

 

[uscitizen]

You stated a gentile was being non-American.

Christian was only used three times in the Bible, Acts 11:26, Luke writes "...The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." In Acts 26:28, King Agrippa tells Paul; "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian." And, in 1 Peter 4:16: "...but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God." In each case, the Greek word Christianos (khris-tee-an-os') is used, which is translated "follower of Christ."

Being a Christian means you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, by accepting Him as your personal Lord and Saviour.

Simply believing in God is not enough. Being a good person is not enough. Nor is going to church, being baptized or taking communion, although all of those things are done by Christians.

Yes what you posted is correct. But you still do not understand.
Seriously study the new testament more about how Jesus lived.
Christians were the followers of Jesus after his death. Prior to his death, Jesus and his deciples were Jews. Jesus taught them a more humanistic way to live, Peter put down thy sword.
I live a more christian life in my actions than most self avowed christians do. I do not however believe in any god, or afterlife.

I know the bible and pentecostal religion. I was forced to attend church until I was 16.
The christian lifestyle stuck, but the mystic beliefs did not.

Try telling many Christians here in Georgia that Jesus and his disciples were Jews!
They flip out.
Doesn't mesh with their ideology. Facts be damned.

Yaah, I know get the same reaction on these boards too.

Jesus was trained in the temple. christianity did not exist until after the death of Jesus.
And the concept of Christ being a follower of himself???

 

[daveman]

Abiogenesis is not viable because it's a violation of entropy: Things tend to go from state of order to a state of disorder.

 

[Wiseacre]

Yep that id =s what ID attemps to do. Co opt abiogeneisis and evoloution as gods plan, just like they have co-opted the pagan holidays over the years.

Merely saying one does not exclude or falsify the other. Abiogenesis and evolution can co-exist with God.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Study the new testament if you want to be a true Christian.
Or I can put you in contact with some true Christian pastors I know personally.
Not ones that preach fear, hatred and politics from the pulpit.

I have read the New Testament. And I don't think I'll take any religious advice from an atheist. But we both know you're not really an atheist or you wouldn't be here arguing over something you don't believe in.

I believe that Jesus was a good kind man and like his teachings in that area.
People who follow those teachings create a better world for us to live in.
That is reality.
What is fantasy is the one allpowerful god thing and heaven, hell, etc.

People who use Christianity to propogate fear and hatred are not Christians.

I do believe in the humanistic aspects of Jesus's teaching. Those are proven to work for the betterment of mankind.

So you're not an atheist.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And I see Christians bash others all the time also.
Who did Jesus bash?
In fact Jesus defended the very folks that modern day so called "Christians" bash all the time.

Who exactly did Jesus defend? If you could point to a specific chapter and verse it would be most helpful.

The poor, everyone.
If you do not what being Christlike is start over.
Take a hard look at the folks Jesus ran with.

English.

Learn it!

Since you don't have any specifics. I'll conclude you haven't the faintest idea what your talking about.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The moment people let everyone live their lives by not forcing ID into public classrooms, we'll quiet down about the subject, however I'm doubting that'll happen.

Behold the bizarre and incoherent thinking processes of the fascist mindset. . . .

Forcing? You mean it is your intent to go on imposing your worldview in the schools on millions and block the free expression of theirs.

No, it's my hope that science is taught in science classes. I never thought that was a high expectation, yet when so many are desperate to have things with zero science backing put into science classes, I sadly learned I was mistaken.

You used the term "forcing". Talk whatever sophistry you want. It doesn't change the fact that it is your intent to go on imposing your worldview in the schools on millions and block the free expression of theirs in the same. And this thread is about abiogenesis. The established first principle of biology, the Pasteurian law of biogenesis refutes it, so does the scientific expression of irreducible complexity. Moreover, the findings of the research in prebiotic chemistry refutes it. So where's the science?

Are you guys even going to discuss it? I'm still waiting for Gadawg73 to explain how an atheist would account for life without some hypothesis of chemical evolution.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Behold the bizarre and incoherent thinking processes of the fascist mindset. . . .

Forcing? You mean it is your intent to go on imposing your worldview in the schools on millions and block the free expression of theirs.

No, it's my hope that science is taught in science classes. I never thought that was a high expectation, yet when so many are desperate to have things with zero science backing put into science classes, I sadly learned I was mistaken.

You used the term "forcing". Talk whatever sophistry you want. It doesn't change the fact that it is your intent to go on imposing your worldview in the schools on millions and block the free expression of theirs in the same. And this thread is about abiogenesis. The established first principle of biology, the Pasteurian law of biogenesis refutes it, so does the scientific expression of irreducible complexity. Moreover, the findings of the research in prebiotic chemistry refutes it. So where's the science?

Are you guys even going to discuss it? I'm still waiting for Gadawg73 to explain how an atheist would account for life without some hypothesis of chemical evolution.

Wrong, I've stated dozens of times on this board that ID and even christianity (and other religions) should be taught in public schools, just not in the science class.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Wrong, I've stated dozens of times on this board that ID and even christianity (and other religions) should be taught in public schools, just not in the science class.

Okay. But I still don't understand. It goes without saying that Christianity, a theological system of thought, would not be taught in science class. You still behave as if you own science itself and the science classroom. What I mean is, why is ID not science? Are you a proponent of universal school choice?

 

[Marie888]

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.

Yes, there are alot of atheists who are out just to try to disprove God and/or mock Christians and seem to have their fingers plugged in their ears, saying, "nah nah nah, nah nah, nah,nah, I can't hear you", lol. However, I have seen a few people here on USMB though, that aren't like that at all. There are a few who just stay out of it.

M.D., if you'd like and don't know about it yet, I'd like to share with you a YouTube Channel called Thunderfoot. It seems to me, this guy is like the "king" of atheists (who mock God, etc) on YouTube. He has a huge and faithful following, it blows my mind away.
He's pretty educated in science, and I believe may hold a position somehow in the field.

Thunderfoot (TF) has dedicated alot of his videos to mocking God and Christians and Creationism, etc. He has a whole series of videos called "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists". (WDPLAC)

Here is one of TF's (WDPLAC) videos in relation to abiogenesis:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxtbcOEtpoE]YouTube - ‪Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 25)‬‏[/ame]

"In this episode Jonathan Wells of the creationist organization The Discovery Institute is taken to task over his bizarre assertions that the inability of a burst cell to spontaneously reassemble means that abiogenesis must be impossible.

I thought I'd share this with you, because you may be interesed as you have the knowledge and know how of the science to perhaps refute him. If you're not interested, please just disregard.

It personally blows me away that he's got 137K + suscribers and over 8million views and some of his videos have 10's of 1000's of views. There seems to be such a huge atheist movement in the last decade alone; atheists who are out to mock God or try to disprove ID, instead of just saying, "I don't believe in God" and letting it be and live their lives.

.

The moment people let everyone live their lives by not forcing ID into public classrooms, we'll quiet down about the subject, however I'm doubting that'll happen.

I understand why you would say that, as it's whats you believe for the time being. If we don't understand things spiritually, or look at them from a spiritual point of view, (God's kingdom first) the world easily leads us astray. We all are just learning, we all mess up, we learn from each other.

Teaching/learning is teaching/learning, no matter how we slice it. God willing, it's up to us to learn how to separate the truth, lies, and speculation (theory) from teachings.

As children to adulthood, one can grow up learning about the Bible and still never believe in God. They never call on His Name.

As a child to adulthood, one can learn and have an advanced education but also come to belief in God. They call on His Name.

So as for teaching ID in schools, I think it would only be fair to at least have it as an elective. I would respect and highly esteem any scientist who is able to say, "I don't know, ID could be possible" as opposed to saying, "There is no God." It is honest.

Even Einstein said:

"We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us.”

Pretty amazing quote there, a humble one at that. Alot of times, we don't know squat.

Evolution of man is a theory. The facts are that the birds are still variations of birds. The cows are still variations of cows. Horses and variations of horses are still horses, etc, etc. That goes directly with what the Bible says in Genesis. Everything is made after its kind.

I used to believe in evolution of man from monkeys because that is what I learned in school as a fact. Sadly it wasn't until I was in my 30's that I found out that it's never been proven. Blows me away. I thank the Lord so much He showed me differently. It was only through God and how He uses His people to share the truth that I came to understand that.

I realize you may not agree, nor even believe me, but we can agree to disagree, haha. However, if you like, please, one thing to consider: We all know that man is capable of lying, right? How do you know you are not falling into one the biggest lies ever by believing the "evolution" of man is a fact as taught by fallible man?

Satan is one intelligent tricky being. He'll try to can get us while we are young and plant lies upon lies and lead us astray. Anything to keep us from God, and learning to love one another.

.

.





.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Wrong, I've stated dozens of times on this board that ID and even christianity (and other religions) should be taught in public schools, just not in the science class.

Okay. But I still don't understand. It goes without saying that Christianity, a theological system of thought, would not be taught in science class. You still behave as if you own science itself and the science classroom. What I mean is, why is ID not science? Are a proponent of universal school choice?

No, I hate the department of education and think it should be done away with, in the mean time though in terms of science the scientific method is a good starting point.

 

[Marie888]

Wrong, I've stated dozens of times on this board that ID and even christianity (and other religions) should be taught in public schools, just not in the science class.

Okay. But I still don't understand. It goes without saying that Christianity, a theological system of thought, would not be taught in science class. You still behave as if you own science itself and the science classroom. What I mean is, why is ID not science? Are a proponent of universal school choice?

No, I hate the department of education and think it should be done away with, in the mean time though in terms of science the scientific method is a good starting point.

Hey Dr. ...I'm sorry but I'm confused as to the differences between your last quote which I replied to (my post #54 to your quote), and then these ones. Or maybe I'm missing something or am overlooking something? Is it ok to ask, what do you believe?
.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Okay. But I still don't understand. It goes without saying that Christianity, a theological system of thought, would not be taught in science class. You still behave as if you own science itself and the science classroom. What I mean is, why is ID not science? Are a proponent of universal school choice?

No, I hate the department of education and think it should be done away with, in the mean time though in terms of science the scientific method is a good starting point.

Hey Dr. ...I'm sorry but I'm confused as to the differences between your last quote which I replied to (my post #54 to your quote), and then these ones. Or maybe I'm missing something or am overlooking something? Is it ok to ask, what do you believe?
.

I'm an atheist who thinks highly of Jesus's teachings.

 

[Gadawg73]

Who exactly did Jesus defend? If you could point to a specific chapter and verse it would be most helpful.

The poor, everyone.
If you do not what being Christlike is start over.
Take a hard look at the folks Jesus ran with.

English.

Learn it!

Since you don't have any specifics. I'll conclude you haven't the faintest idea what your talking about.

Read Mark Lonestar. Then come back and tell us who Jesus defended.
And Psalm. Tell us what is said there.
And tell us who Jesus refered to, a large group of people-the majority in the area at that time, in Mark when he advised that certain person not to worry about what they had done.
If that is not defending people then nothing is.
Go do your homework yourself. I took Bible history in military school, mandatory.
Anyone with any training in the Bible knows that Jesus stated to defend the poor and fatherless and needy.
Tell us where that is Lonestar or do I have to continue to do your homework for you?

 

[Gadawg73]

Wrong, I've stated dozens of times on this board that ID and even christianity (and other religions) should be taught in public schools, just not in the science class.

Okay. But I still don't understand. It goes without saying that Christianity, a theological system of thought, would not be taught in science class. You still behave as if you own science itself and the science classroom. What I mean is, why is ID not science? Are you a proponent of universal school choice?

That is not how it is done in science with the scientific method.
YOU have to prove ID IS science.
Otherwise we would have 11,793 different religous beliefs claiming they are science.
And ID has been proven in court to be creationism repackaged, badly at that.
See the Dover case.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The poor, everyone.
If you do not what being Christlike is start over.
Take a hard look at the folks Jesus ran with.

English.

Learn it!

Since you don't have any specifics. I'll conclude you haven't the faintest idea what your talking about.

Read Mark Lonestar. Then come back and tell us who Jesus defended.
And tell us who Jesus refered to, a large group of people-the majority in the area at that time, in Mark when he advised that certain person not to worry about what they had done.
If that is not defending people then nothing is.
Go do your homework yourself. I took Bible history in military school, mandatory.

You said Jesus defended everyone. I asked for a specific example and you say read the Book of Mark. No, I prefer you provide proof of your claim, the Book of Mark isn't enough.

And advising people not to worry about what they had done is not defending.