Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Frank Robert]

Precisely. You mentioned the bible and you respected millers exegesis of abiogenesis.
But if you do not believe the bible holds any authority, how can you respect any exegesis of it?
That was sophistry on your part

Miller has credibility as a biblical linguist and professor, you have zero credibility. If you want to argue with Miller you can do so PS.

So called Shamanic "healings" are utterly irrelevant are a total straw man on your part.
Please keep to critical thinking

You fail to recognize that miraculous cures are not limited to Christians which was my point.

 

[Frank Robert]

1/ You said "creationist nonsense"
Do you consider all talk of creation "nonsense" or only young earth?

Not all. Just the large part of that is their denial of science w/o contradicting evidence or any attempts to do their own scientific studies. It is similar to what you are doing here. You make claims that you have not and can not backup. Apologetics is not evidence. Again if you are so sure of your claims hold up are not nonsense take my challenge and discuss it will the experts like Professor Miller at PS.

 

[Ophiolite]

I disagree. Throughout the history of science, there have been disagreements that have led to changes in what we believe today. To assume that what we know today is settled without argument is a bit on the arrogant side.

I was unclear. You claimed your question had not been answered. I demonstrated that it had been and that your disparaging comment of "dodging the question" was unjustified. I was not discussing the accuracy or otherwise of either position.

 

[Frank Robert]

Creation is about how the universe and life came to exist. So The two are not alternatives.

Christian Creationism is about the universe and life came to exist. Fixed it for you.

 

[Mountainmike]

Not all. Just the large part of that is their denial of science w/o contradicting evidence or any attempts to do their own scientific studies. It is similar to what you are doing here. You make claims that you have not and can not backup. Apologetics is not evidence. Again if you are so sure of your claims hold up are not nonsense take my challenge and discuss it will the experts like Professor Miller at PS.

Then Why do you present abiogenesis apologetics as evidence?
You do not know when, where, or how it happened. You have no postulated process for it or evidence it ever occurred .
so there are no “ scientific studies “ of it, just speculation over small parts of what might have happened, aimed at defending the belief that it did. Aka apologetics.

The forensic evidence of eucharistic miracles is forensic evidencr of events recorded in recent times.
Unlike abiogenesis we know that they happened. So the scientific evidence is scientific evidence of somethjng that clearly did happen.

You have no explanation Whatsoever of how the universe or life came to exist.
the “ laws” which are just patterns in observatins like gravity - you have no explanation or what or why they are or how they came to exist.

Since much of what you see is designed, it is clearly a possibility that all you see is designed.
you have no alternative explanation , only faith that such exists.

so do not pretend your case is stronger,
your lack of understanding of the philosophical underpinning of science is why you believe it.

FYI - I did not write the thread title, but you can reasonably assume that the word creationism used on a thread on a Christian forum was intended to mean Christian creationism.

 

[Bradskii]

Then Why do you present abiogenesis apologetics as evidence?
You do not know when, where, or how it happened.

The forensic evidence of eucharistic miracles is forensic evidencr of events recorded in recent times.
Unlike abiogenesis we know that they happened. So the scientific evidence is scientific evidence of somethjng that clearly did happen.

...the “ laws” which are just patterns in observatins like gravity - you have no explanation or what or why they are or how they came to exist.

I'm going to regret this, but...

Firstly, we do know where and when abiogenesis ocurred. Obviously here, and a few billion years ago. The how is still being debated. But if you want to go all in on betting that we don't find out...and we do, then there goes your faith. If I were you I'd step back from that precipice, show a little humility and grant that God could have done it any way He chose. It'll give you the get-out-of jail card you'll need.

Secondly, you are suggesting that someone testing some sample as being biological in origin (and the sample apparently hundreds of years old) without exhibiting the slightest indication of honest skepticism or even the slightest amount of doubt as to the veracity of the claims leading up to the tests, yet still accepting this as a slam dunk for proving what you must admit you wanted it to prove, is quite possibly the weakest argument you could conceive. People hardly exhibit a strong faith when it relies on so called miracles that could be faked so simply.

Thirdly, your other oft-repeated argument re gravity is no more than asking how come there's something instead of nothing. My guess is that you've read someone asking the same question, thought it a zinger and are simply repeating it. It's a meaningless question. It's like asking why 2 plus 2 equals 4, or where does the fire go when the fire goes out. Two plus two making 4 does not equal God. Neither does gravity. Or any of the other forces.

 

[Belteshazzar(Daniel)]

Then Why do you present abiogenesis apologetics as evidence?
You do not know when, where, or how it happened. You have no postulated process for it or evidence it ever occurred .
so there are no “ scientific studies “ of it, just speculation over small parts of what might have happened, aimed at defending the belief that it did. Aka apologetics.

The forensic evidence of eucharistic miracles is forensic evidencr of events recorded in recent times.
Unlike abiogenesis we know that they happened. So the scientific evidence is scientific evidence of somethjng that clearly did happen.

You have no explanation Whatsoever of how the universe or life came to exist.
the “ laws” which are just patterns in observatins like gravity - you have no explanation or what or why they are or how they came to exist.

Since much of what you see is designed, it is clearly a possibility that all you see is designed.
you have no alternative explanation , only faith that such exists.

so do not pretend your case is stronger,
your lack of understanding of the philosophical underpinning of science is why you believe it.

FYI - I did not write the thread title, but you can reasonably assume that the word creationism used on a thread on a Christian forum was intended to mean Christian creationism.

Reminds me of the book of Job when God asked where were you when I did......? So sir may I ask where all your wonderful knowledgable people of scientific evolutionary theory were when God did those things? Remember God uses the foolish things to confound the wise.

 

[zoidar]

The primary objection to evolution from creationists seems to be centered on human evolution specifically. For some reason the fact of sharing hereditary ancestry with other species causes creationists no end of grief.

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals? Especially in regards to our closest relatives (other primates), we share the same body plan, organs, cell structure, majority of our genetic makeup and so on.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique? Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance. Independent creation... not so much.

And before you say, "God just reused common parts":

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

I don't have a problem with evolution as such. If humans evolved from other species fine, but there is the question about the fall from grace. How did sin come into the world and how did the whole human race become sinners if we evolved from animals? The Bible explains it with the first humans bringing sin into the world, spreading it to all by inheritance. With creation I'm comfortable with a room for mystery. I don't need to know the how, when I know the why. That's my thoughts on the matter.

It's better to know you believe, than to believe that you know.

 

[Bradskii]

Since much of what you see is designed, it is clearly a possibility that all you see is designed.
you have no alternative explanation , only faith that such exists.

And another thing...

God is omnipotent. There's nothing he cannot do. So let me hit you with a monstrously simplified explanation of amino acids, proteins and dna. There's actually no need to read it. It's there just to show how unbelievably complex and involved even the most basic of cells do just as a tiny part of why they are there. Combine this infintesimally small aspect of life with the galactic amount of complexity and interrelatedness that allows a human body to simply exist and it would take countless individuals, expert in different aspects of biology any number of lifetimes to even document it.


"Nitrogen is provided by glutamate and glutamine. Amino acid synthesis depends on the formation of the appropriate alpha-keto acid, which is then transaminated to form an amino acid.

Critical acids are: Histidine, Isoleucine, Leucine, Lysine, Methionine, Phenylalanine, Threonine, Tryptophan, Valine

Enzymes are made from amino acids, and they are proteins. When an enzyme is formed, it is made by stringing together between 100 and 1,000 amino acids in a very specific and unique order. The chain of amino acids then folds into a unique shape.

There are hundreds or millions of copies of each different type of enzyme, depending on how important a reaction is to a cell and how often the reaction is needed. These enzymes do everything from breaking glucose down for energy to building cell walls, constructing new enzymes and allowing the cell to reproduce. Enzymes do all of the work inside cells.

A set of 10 enzymes allows a cell to perform glycolysis. Another eight enzymes control the citric-acid cycle (also known as the Krebs cycle). These two processes together allow a cell to turn glucose and oxygen into adenosine triphosphate, or ATP.

The amazing thing about DNA is this: DNA is nothing more than a pattern that tells the cell how to make its proteins! That is all that DNA does. The 4 million bases in an E. coli cell's DNA tell the cell how to make the 1,000 or so enzymes that an E. coli cell needs to live its life. A gene is simply a section of DNA that acts as a template to form an enzyme.

How do you get from DNA, made up of only four nucleotides, to an enzyme containing 20 different amino acids? There are two answers to this question:

An extremely complex and amazing enzyme called a ribosome reads messenger RNA, produced from the DNA, and converts it into amino-acid chains.To pick the right amino acids, a ribosome takes the nucleotides in sets of three to encode for the 20 amino acids."


Now God could have (and is noted to have) simply made Man from the dust of the earth. Made us from clay. And He could, with a thought, have animated that clay. Given it life. As rich and as compex as it is now. Perhaps simply given the clay a soul. But...He decided, no. Rather than animate the dust of the earth, rather than giving life to the clay, He set upon making the most complex and involved system known to exist. And you have no idea why. All you can say is 'Who can know the mind of God'.

You are telling us that He couldn't or wouldn't have allowed the evolutionary process to produce us. That He couldn't is impossible. And if you say He wouldn't then you are indeed telling us you know the mind of God.

And to follow that same line of thought, you say He made this planet for us. Fair enough. But the others? What use are they? Well, maybe they will come in handy. But a whole galaxy? Fat chance there'll be of even documenting it, let alone visiting any of it. And do you know how many galaxies He made. Countless. And they will only serve to be pretty lights in the sky, because there is zero chance of visitng any of them.

But wait. There's more. In His infinite wisdom He decided that the universe He made would expand. So that there is a limit to what we can even see - the observable universe. And what we can see gets less and less every second. So that before life even existed, parts of the universe simply left. They are no longer accessible. They never were. And never will be. But they are still there. You say He made them.

So beyond the observable universe is a small galaxy. With a nondescript solar system. With 3 or 4 dead planets. One with a small moon. Which has a dark side forever hidden even from its planet. And on that moon is a crater in which sits a small rock. Made by God.

Let me know when you find out why He Made it. Otherwise, don't waste my time with your interpretation of what science is and the implications of what it can and cannot show.

 

[Mountainmike]

I'm going to regret this, but...

Firstly, we do know where and when abiogenesis ocurred. Obviously here, and a few billion years ago. The how is still being debated. But if you want to go all in on betting that we don't find out...and we do, then there goes your faith. If I were you I'd step back from that precipice, show a little humility and grant that God could have done it any way He chose. It'll give you the get-out-of jail card you'll need.

Secondly, you are suggesting that someone testing some sample as being biological in origin (and the sample apparently hundreds of years old) without exhibiting the slightest indication of honest skepticism or even the slightest amount of doubt as to the veracity of the claims leading up to the tests, yet still accepting this as a slam dunk for proving what you must admit you wanted it to prove, is quite possibly the weakest argument you could conceive. People hardly exhibit a strong faith when it relies on so called miracles that could be faked so simply.

Thirdly, your other oft-repeated argument re gravity is no more than asking how come there's something instead of nothing. My guess is that you've read someone asking the same question, thought it a zinger and are simply repeating it. It's a meaningless question. It's like asking why 2 plus 2 equals 4, or where does the fire go when the fire goes out. Two plus two making 4 does not equal God. Neither does gravity. Or any of the other forces.

You have no evidence to say when where or how abiogenesis happened, you only have faith that it did, based mostly on not liking the alternative.

If I told you a miracle happened but I can’t tell you when where or how, I can’t even say what happened, you would rightly laugh at me if I tried to present it as evidence! But That is the state of OOL research!

You have no postulated process or intermediate structures to hideously complex present cells.. But you do have a serious problem with a leap to irreducible complexity on the basis of most accepted definitions of life. as a scientist used to quantum tunnels and leaps, how that could have happened when so unlikely interests me.

As for gravity I am simply demonstrating what science is. An empirical observation model based on limited senses of parts of the universe that interact with you. You do not know what gravity is or why it is, onlywhat it is observed to do. It is an empirical model. In Kant speak you observe phenomena not noumena. You observe Aristotles shadow world, not the real underlying one.

I could have picked a thousand examples.
Take the badly educated view,that ohms law is an equation. It isn’t! the often quoted equation is just a definition of resistance. Ohms law states that under a range of conditions and materials resistance is observed to be roughly constant. Many materials don’t obey ohms law. none obey it over wide temperature, so it is not so fundamental then. Scientifc model is an empirical observation model. All the concepts in it are models of reality not actual reality.

even hawking got there in the end with “ model dependent reality”.

I am an electronic physicist . I know these things!


Science is an empirical model.
Play a mindgame. There can be beings all around you observing you: if they don’t interact they Will not be part of your model - ask a blind cavefish if it is being observed? How can it know? you are limited by your senses.
Then read the testimony of veridical near death experience and see that people can be observed by a human consciousness separated from the brain.
Scary huh!

And that blows the idea that consciousness is a chemical process out of the water, and with it the idea that life is accounted for by chemistry or abiogenesis.

Etc.

On the final point you seem unaware:
Whilst lanciano is old, there are forensically investigated Eucharistic miracles in recent times ( 1990s and onwards)
Buenos airies. Tixtla. Sokolka. Legnica.
Different pathologist investigators. Different continents. Same conclusions.
These are people who do criminology as a day job. Expert pathology and forensic witnesses.
you cannot dismiss their testimony easily. Courts trust them.
read Serafinis book for example,

However strong you think that evidence is for creation of cells, it is far stronger than any evidence for abiogenesis for which there is none at all.

The evidence score is Creation 5 - abiogenesis 0

Thats not why I believe in creation which is faith. Happy to admit it.
But it’s good to know there is evidence too.

You are welcome to your faith that abiogenesis happened your way.
You have no evidence it did.
To explain the workd You have to explain all phenomena, not just those that fit easily in your model.

don’t get me wrong - I have been looking at protocell research since the 70s - and if ever anyone comes up with a credible process I will consider it. I might even become convinced , but for the present it is a void of other than speculation and wishful thinking. Even the supposition gets plausibility evidence of how it might have happened, it doesn’t mean it did happen that way and it does not explain all of life - ie consciousness.

 

[driewerf]

If you proclaim to be Christian

I don’t.

If you proclaim to be Christian then there is only one Word that is true all others are lies. There is only one God and One way to get to heaven.

I am not impressed with that statement. Imagine a religious believer that claims that is Holy Book is the only true one and all the others are wrong. No politician will say that the other candidate is better. No, every political hopeful will proclaim that (s)he is the best than all the others. No salesman will say that other brands are better. (S)he sales the best and don’t go look for something else. Every religionist will claim that )he worships the one true god and all the others are wrong. And his “Holy Book” is da Truth and all the other “Holy books” are lies. Without any other evidence, I am very unimpressed.

If the Bible is not true than Jesus was a liar; insane and a complete lunatic.

That’s an option indeed. After all, during humanity’s history many people have claimed divine status, like the Roman Emperors or the Egyptian Pharaohs, the emperors of Japan.
Or, just like others, Jesus have a direct link with the divines, like the prophet Muhammad, David Koresh, the Chinese emperors who ruled with a “Mandate from Heaven”.
Or the people have embellished the stories and reputation of Jesus more than suitable.

The other books you mention are not the Truth If you believe anything and follow anyone but Jesus then you cannot rightfully call yourself Christian you may have a form but deny the power thereof.

We are back at “I am right all the others are wrong”, see my comment above. Without any evidence or argumentation, this isn’t very convincing.

If Genesis is not true than the rest can be taken as a falsehood as well. Either God created or He did not, therefore if His word and salvation plan are also to be questioned where is Hope?

You realize that this all-or-nothing attitude is rising the stakes for you very high. Because a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong. Demonstrably wrong. And that attitude is one of the factors that drives young people away from (American) Christianity. They get the message and go from all to nothing.
Note, I don’t complain about this, I just point out the consequence.

 

[Belteshazzar(Daniel)]

I don’t.

I am not impressed with that statement. Imagine a religious believer that claims that is Holy Book is the only true one and all the others are wrong. No politician will say that the other candidate is better. No, every political hopeful will proclaim that (s)he is the best than all the others. No salesman will say that other brands are better. (S)he sales the best and don’t go look for something else. Every religionist will claim that )he worships the one true god and all the others are wrong. And his “Holy Book” is da Truth and all the other “Holy books” are lies. Without any other evidence, I am very unimpressed.

That’s an option indeed. After all, during humanity’s history many people have claimed divine status, like the Roman Emperors or the Egyptian Pharaohs, the emperors of Japan.
Or, just like others, Jesus have a direct link with the divines, like the prophet Muhammad, David Koresh, the Chinese emperors who ruled with a “Mandate from Heaven”.
Or the people have embellished the stories and reputation of Jesus more than suitable.

We are back at “I am right all the others are wrong”, see my comment above. Without any evidence or argumentation, this isn’t very convincing.

You realize that this all-or-nothing attitude is rising the stakes for you very high. Because a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong. Demonstrably wrong. And that attitude is one of the factors that drives young people away from (American) Christianity. They get the message and go from all to nothing.
Note, I don’t complain about this, I just point out the consequence.

You are exactly right it is American Christianity. The problem being that it has allowed other ideologies such as evolution and other known sin into the doors of the Church. If you were to take your foolish ideas of evolution to a true Church that follows Christ in a place like China they would not even bend an ear to the idea for they know the Truth and follow it under fear of persecution. If the Truth drives people away then they were not seeking Truth but a feel good about me and what I believe venue.
If Genesis cannot be taken literally what other parts of the Word are not to be taken as such? Should we throw out all the other things that we do not agree with because of a lack of scientific reasoning? Salvation should be tossed aside due to the fact that scientifically speaking and by reason of man no one who has been crucified could possibly come back to life. Where does the Truth begin and where can the literal start?
It is up to you and others to enlighten us? Let God be True and every man a liar. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord and stand on the TRUTH of his Word. Science is a way man tries to reason God away so that in the end he will be accountable to no one and live comfortably in Sin. Fortunately, the truth is not based on your opinions of it. It exist whether you choose to believe it or not and finds the wisdom of man to be foolishness, from Genesis to Revelation.

 

[Belteshazzar(Daniel)]

Jesus said there would be many anti-christ so why are you surprised there have been many who have claimed to be divine. Only one rose from the grave.

 

[driewerf]

You are exactly right it is American Christianity. The problem being that it has allowed other ideologies such as evolution and other known sin into the doors of the Church. If you were to take your foolish ideas of evolution to a true Church that follows Christ in a place like China they would not even bend an ear to the idea for they know the Truth and follow it under fear of persecution. If the Truth drives people away then they were not seeking Truth but a feel good about me and what I believe venue.
If Genesis cannot be taken literally what other parts of the Word are not to be taken as such? Should we throw out all the other things that we do not agree with because of a lack of scientific reasoning? Salvation should be tossed aside due to the fact that scientifically speaking and by reason of man no one who has been crucified could possibly come back to life. Where does the Truth begin and where can the literal start?
It is up to you and others to enlighten us? Let God be True and every man a liar. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord and stand on the TRUTH of his Word. Science is a way man tries to reason God away so that in the end he will be accountable to no one and live comfortably in Sin. Fortunately, the truth is not based on your opinions of it. It exist whether you choose to believe it or not and finds the wisdom of man to be foolishness, from Genesis to Revelation.

You realize I hope that you justed validated what I wrote in post #1251:

I am not impressed with that statement. Imagine a religious believer that claims that is Holy Book is the only true one and all the others are wrong. No politician will say that the other candidate is better. No, every political hopeful will proclaim that (s)he is the best than all the others. No salesman will say that other brands are better. (S)he sales the best and don’t go look for something else. Every religionist will claim that )he worships the one true god and all the others are wrong. And his “Holy Book” is da Truth and all the other “Holy books” are lies. Without any other evidence, I am very unimpressed.

and

We are back at “I am right all the others are wrong”, see my comment above. Without any evidence or argumentation, this isn’t very convincing.

 

[Frank Robert]

Then Why do you present abiogenesis apologetics as evidence?

I don't. Abiogenesis is not apologetics it is the study of the origins of life

You do not know when, where, or how it happened. You have no postulated process for it or evidence it ever occurred .
so there are no “ scientific studies “ of it, just speculation over small parts of what might have happened, aimed at defending the belief that it did. Aka apologetics.

That we live in a natural world and that there is life on Earth is evidence that abiogenesis is possible. I am surprised that you do not appear to know that the study of a natural world is science. Creationists' apologetics appear to be in denial of that fact.

The forensic evidence of eucharistic miracles is forensic evidencr of events recorded in recent times.
Unlike abiogenesis we know that they happened. So the scientific evidence is scientific evidence of somethjng that clearly did happen.

I do not deny that there are miraculous cures what I deny is that Christians have a lock on them.

You have no explanation Whatsoever of how the universe or life came to exist.
the “ laws” which are just patterns in observatins like gravity - you have no explanation or what or why they are or how they came to exist.

I am again surprised that you do not appear to know the study and exploration of these are in the domain of science. Creationists creationists' apologetics remind me of the ancient Greeks who did not understand lightening therefore Zeus.

Since much of what you see is designed, it is clearly a possibility that all you see is designed.
you have no alternative explanation , only faith that such exists.

As I told you twice before I am not denying the possibility that a deity did it. You believe that the Christian God did but deny the potential of science to find that he did it through natural means as most Christians believe. See: At the Frontiers of Evolution: Abiogenesis and Christian Apologetics.

so do not pretend your case is stronger,
your lack of understanding of the philosophical underpinning of science is why you believe it.

As I said before Philosophy plays a complementary role within science but Philosophy ≠ Science.

FYI - I did not write the thread title, but you can reasonably assume that the word creationism used on a thread on a Christian forum was intended to mean Christian creationism.

I am aware of that, it gets kind of cumbersome to continue writing Christian creationism every time we refer to creationism.

 

[kiwimac]

You are exactly right it is American Christianity. The problem being that it has allowed other ideologies such as evolution and other known sin into the doors of the Church. If you were to take your foolish ideas of evolution to a true Church that follows Christ in a place like China they would not even bend an ear to the idea for they know the Truth and follow it under fear of persecution. If the Truth drives people away then they were not seeking Truth but a feel good about me and what I believe venue.
If Genesis cannot be taken literally what other parts of the Word are not to be taken as such? Should we throw out all the other things that we do not agree with because of a lack of scientific reasoning? Salvation should be tossed aside due to the fact that scientifically speaking and by reason of man no one who has been crucified could possibly come back to life. Where does the Truth begin and where can the literal start?
It is up to you and others to enlighten us? Let God be True and every man a liar. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord and stand on the TRUTH of his Word. Science is a way man tries to reason God away so that in the end he will be accountable to no one and live comfortably in Sin. Fortunately, the truth is not based on your opinions of it. It exist whether you choose to believe it or not and finds the wisdom of man to be foolishness, from Genesis to Revelation.

The TOE is not sin; Genesis is not a literal history. Finally, the Bible is not God, it is fallible. There was a time in which it did not exist, it is transitory and fallible.

 

[Mountainmike]

I don't. Abiogenesis is not apologetics it is the study of the origins of life

That we live in a natural world and that there is life on Earth is evidence that abiogenesis is possible. I am surprised that you do not appear to know that the study of a natural world is science. Creationists' apologetics appear to be in denial of that fact.

I do not deny that there are miraculous cures what I deny is that Christians have a lock on them.

I am again surprised that you do not appear to know the study and exploration of these are in the domain of science. Creationists creationists' apologetics remind me of the ancient Greeks who did not understand lightening therefore Zeus.

As I told you twice before I am not denying the possibility that a deity did it. You believe that the Christian God did but deny the potential of science to find that he did it through natural means as most Christians believe. See: At the Frontiers of Evolution: Abiogenesis and Christian Apologetics.

As I said before Philosophy plays a complementary role within science but Philosophy ≠ Science.

I am aware of that, it gets kind of cumbersome to continue writing Christian creationism every time we refer to creationism.

You still appear to have no idea what science can tell you and what it cannot.


You are clearly trying to justify abiogenesis by use of plausibility argument because you believe it , not because of evidence because there is none, therefore no scientific analysis of it is possible, only plausibility arguments based on conjecture of what might have happened..

If you would care to look up the word "apologetics" you would find
"reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something"
Normally a belief, in your case a belief abiogesis in absence of evidence.
You are therefore an apologist for abiogenesis and your arguments are apologetics.
I used the word correctly

There is no shame in believing that. Many peope do..
However it is time you respected the lack of any evidence for what happened before the simplest cells we know. There is only conjecture.

I admit my faith is not based on evidence, although evidence helps, , but then neither is your belief in abiogenesis based on evidence..

There is on the other hand actual forensic evidence of created life. It clearly did not in those cases appear by evolution or small progressive change so potentially destroying darwins theory by his own test.

And regardless of any of that, evidence of veridical NDE demonstrate consciousness separate from brain, which potentially destroys the idea that life is just chemistry , in which case abiogenesis and evolution combined cannot account for life.

We have een round this loop enough times.

There is plenty of evidence that scientific laws are broken destroying the underpinning of the axiomatic scientific model in irreconcilable ways. Take Prophecy. No prophecy is possible within the constraints of the scientific model as it is constructed.

 

[dlamberth]

If the Truth drives people away then they were not seeking Truth but a feel good about me and what I believe venue.

For myself anyway, when it comes to the Genesis Creation story, I take what the Earth and Cosmos itself is actually showing us. It's not about feel good stuff or anything like that. I fully trust what God's Creation itself is showing us. Creation stories form the foundation of religions. And I understand that the Genesis Creation story formed the foundation of an ancient pre-Jewish middle-eastern tribe of desert dwellers. That ancient creation story is being replaced by what the Earth and Cosmos is actually showing us. And that is the truth of the matter.

 

[Frank Robert]

You still appear to have no idea what science can tell you and what it cannot.

Pure projection as you are the one trying to tell us what science is.

You are clearly trying to justify abiogenesis by use of plausibility argument because you believe it , not because of evidence because there is none, therefore no scientific analysis of it is possible, only plausibility arguments based on conjecture of what might have happened..

The evidence is that there is life on earth. It had to come from somewhere. Science can not investigate the supernatural but it can investigate the origins of life. Apologetics can not.

If you would care to look up the word "apologetics" you would find
"reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something"
Normally a belief, in your case a belief abiogesis in absence of evidence.
You are therefore an apologist for abiogenesis and your arguments are apologetics.
I used the word correctly.

You do not have a reasoned argument you have creationists' belief that abiogenesis is too complicated exactly like the ancient Greeks believing that lighting was too complicated.

There is no shame in believing that. Many peope do..
However it is time you respected the lack of any evidence for what happened before the simplest cells we know. There is only conjecture.
I admit my faith is not based on evidence, although evidence helps, , but then neither is your belief in abiogenesis based on evidence..

And there is no shame in believing that Zeus did it.

There is on the other hand actual forensic evidence of created life. It clearly did not in those cases appear by evolution or small progressive change so potentially destroying darwins theory by his own test.

There is belief in created life. Fixed it for you.
Forensic evidence ≠ scientific evidence for the simple reason that there is no scientific basis for most forensic procedures.

And regardless of any of that, evidence of veridical NDE demonstrate consciousness separate from brain, which potentially destroys the idea that life is just chemistry , in which case abiogenesis and evolution combined cannot account for life.
We have een round this loop enough times.

There is plenty of evidence that scientific laws are broken destroying the underpinning of the axiomatic scientific model in irreconcilable ways. Take Prophecy. No prophecy is possible within the constraints of the scientific model as it is constructed.

You are entitled to your creationists beliefs but if you want to argue against science why don't you do it with experts and scientists where you can make an impact?

I have seen arguments similar to yours discussed many times at Peaceful Science.

 

[Belteshazzar(Daniel)]

Empty rhetoric that goes against all empirical evidence.

It must give some comfort to be closed for all evidence.

Better a closed mind to the truth of the knowledge of God, than to be an open pit for the lies of man to corrupt. Apparently you do not believe in God or His Son Jesus. It takes a meaure a of faith to do so. Your faith seems to be based on science and fossils I hope you find joy and comfort in your belief. I will not waste anymore of your valuable intellect on my close minded nonsense. I will pray that one day you will find faith in the One who created all things and even gave man the ability to create science that loves to explain Him and His creation under different light