Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ya know, you may avoid discussing the origin of life, but you either have to accept that life in our universe originated from non-life (since life did not always exists in our universe), or you have to accept that life originated from a living being outside of our universe.
Not really, just using it to make a point. That whole first cause/ william craig argument.
I have no idea how you reached that conclusion given what I was saying.
In the first place, life is chemistry. It is not a substance. It is not, despite the misinformation in the Bible, either blood or breath. It is a process. So yes, when carbon chemistry achieved a certain level of complexity, sequestered from the outside environment the chemical processes involved are called "alive" So, we do not have to accept that it originated from a living being. Following your logic, then physical phenomena must have been created by a physical being, which, I think, you probably deny.
Chemistry is a subset of physical processes, and life is a subset of chemical processes.
If that silly idea works for you, great!
Nope, the logic would be God-energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms.
See, I know what each of those words mean, individually, but the way you put them together, I just... Um...
If I was someone who came up after the evidence happened and only saw the naturalist scientist with a bat in his hand and ID scientist will a broken knee cap then that all I could testify truthfully in the court of law. There is no way to replay the past event so I couldn't prove absolutely the naturalist intentionally hit the ID scientist with the bat. For all I know the naturalist could have taken the bat out of the hands of another person who actually did the act. Now if there were two witnesses who testified they actually saw the naturalist hit the ID scientist with the bat then that would be strong evidence the naturalist is guilty.
Here's another reason why YEC thinking is so dangerous: even if you think evolution is useless (it isn't), the same reasoning leads many to completely abandon forensics.
Do you have any idea how many convictions have been made (or overturned!) using forensic evidence? The problem is that your reasoning is completely and utterly unsound.
Unless you can recreate the original cesspool with all the original chemicals within the original environment and then let nature take over, all abiogenesis will ever prove is intelligent design since intelligent humans are the ones doing all the work.
The whole point of abiogenesis is to demonstrate that life could possibly come about by natural means. That is to say, that given a set of starting conditions akin to those on an early earth, the chemical processes to produce simple single-celled organisms could happen without outside intervention. As a result, experiments in the field are done to mimick nature, and if these processes can bridge these steps, then it can be reasonably deduced that these steps could have happened in nature. Barring this, we lack a naturalistic explanation, and supernaturalistic explanations are not acceptable in science, for a variety of reasons.
I love this headline:
From that same blog you cited:
