Abiogenesis evidence?

[npetreley]

Okay, since someone else demonstrated that we can stack the deck any way we like when we ask questions in a Christian forum on science, creation and evolution, let's balance his questions with equivalent questions and rules from the other side.

Can anyone provide any clear, irrefutable non-scientific Biblical evidence that abiogenesis occurred with absolutely no interference or direction from G~d or any other outside intelligent force?

Please - only people who can provide clear, irrefutable Biblical quotes and evidence may participate here, otherwise this thread should die a lonely death.

 

[npetreley]

*** crickets chirp ***

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

This is a science forum. Who cares about "irrefutable non-scientific Biblical evidence"?

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Those crickets will evolve into kangaroos by the time someone comes up with "clear, irrefutable Biblical quotes."

 

[Jerry Smith]

Or by the time anyone starts caring about whether there is "Biblical" evidence for abiogenesis. Whoever cares about that probably cares about the "Biblical" evidence for solid-state physics, super and semi- conductors as well. They may be left waiting for a while.

 

[Morat]

  I'm also considering a new car. Is there any Biblical evidence on whether a hybrid is a better buy, and if so, should I buy this year or wait for the new crop of American hybrids to hit the road?

  I'm also considering switching long-distance providers. Anyone know which chapter and verse is best at choosing between Sprint and Southwestern Bell?

 

[seebs]

I think Nick's point was to attempt to show that the Bible can't be used to support scientific theories, thus, science shouldn't be expected to support creationism.

This would be a really clever point if it weren't for the observation that creationism is being offered, not as a moral theory, outside the scope of science, but as a *scientific* theory, similar to the *scientific* theory that all diseases are directly caused by evil spirits.

As a result, the germ theory of disease has the same problems that evolution does, or would if the position were internally consistent.

 

[Morat]

  Hmm. May I offer a "No duh!" to this? Nick's point isn't new. Heck, I can't count the number of times I've said things like "if you want to say your YEC views are a matter of faith, and not of physical evidence, more power to you, and this conversation can end happily now".

   I don't care what a Christian believes about the origins of anything. The only time it's of any importance is when they claim their answers are "Scientific".

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
This is a science forum. Who cares about "irrefutable non-scientific Biblical evidence"?

This is also a Christian forum, and a similar question was asked with the condition that no Biblical evidence would be accepted. So what's good for the goose...

 

[Jerry Smith]

hee hee.. you are right.. for a purely scientific theory, we cannot expect to find biblical evidence. You proved your point well.

I suppose you will probably accept the proposition of the seebs' thread about "creation" evidence: for a purely theological idea, we cannot expect to find empirical evidence... and the further idea that "creation" is such a purely theological idea, as reason would dictate from the fact that there is no empirical evidence to be found for it.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by npetreley

This is also a Christian forum, and a similar question was asked with the condition that no Biblical evidence would be accepted. So what's good for the goose...

Fallacy of false generalization. There is a reason for which scientific evidence is preferred to Biblical evidence *for scientific claims*. There is no reason for which Biblical evidence is preferred to scientific evidence for such claims.

 

[Received]

But I would still be interested in the NON-Biblical evidence for abiogenesis, for as the conundrum stands in the present, it is still a work of faith based on inductive thought. But what sort of premises does the argument rest? It would be extreme to claim we are machina, and we have no grounds to love or wonder, as well as the mammoth number of other things not mentioned that contradicts the idea of macine-like behavior. There must be a mind that placed our mind into being. Certainly it is something science will never figure out, for the only solution one must have for how things are in this universe is to claim the principle of sufficient reason is incorrect, which would take a great deal of evidence to support, but the irony is that it takes the denial of PSR in order to make a decent claim for the evidence - or lack there of. The argument rests on anti-induction, and this is not scientific by any means, though it is certainly logical. This claim will never cause the creationists to drop their guns, and even more ironic is the fact that creationists can use it themselves as the perfect reason for a young earth/universe. We are left with rational relativism if we deny our reason. We all know that every material object must have a cause, and so if it were to come to an advanced race as a solution to the problem of the origin of life, we would only beg the question to be content. Where did this group come from? And thus we continue until we are either content with our ignorance - which is not good science - or we make extreme claims of anti-induction or the limitation of PSR, only then to land in a worse trap then our ignorance.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by npetreley
Okay, since someone else demonstrated that we can stack the deck any way we like when we ask questions in a Christian forum on science, creation and evolution, let's balance his questions with equivalent questions and rules from the other side.

Can anyone provide any clear, irrefutable non-scientific Biblical evidence that abiogenesis occurred with absolutely no interference or direction from G~d or any other outside intelligent force?

Please - only people who can provide clear, irrefutable Biblical quotes and evidence may participate here, otherwise this thread should die a lonely death.

Go to the thread "Protocells: life from non-life"  It is back on page 4 or 5 of the forum by now.  If you can't find it, I'll repost the evidence. 

In the meantime, check out these websites:

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by seebs
This would be a really clever point if it weren't for the observation that creationism is being offered, not as a moral theory, outside the scope of science, but as a *scientific* theory, similar to the *scientific* theory that all diseases are directly caused by evil spirits.

But creationism is only sometimes offered only on Biblical evidence.  Notice that Morris' Scientific Creationism purports to support creationism without the Bible.  The entire ID movement doesn't even say (officially) that the ID is deity.

Nick is asking a nonsensical question, since he's asking that the Bible provide statements totally contrary to the thesis of the Bible: that God created, including life.

Creationism limits how God could have created life.  According to creationism, life could only come about using manufacturing processes not availabe on the earth.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by npetreley
Can anyone provide any clear, irrefutable non-scientific Biblical evidence that abiogenesis occurred with absolutely no interference or direction from G~d or any other outside intelligent force?

Huh?  Non-sequitor.  I just really parsed this sentence.  Why would you think the Bible would say this?  And if it doesn't, what does that have to do with whether deity exists or created life?  The thesis of the Bible is that Yahweh created the universe, including life.  Therefore to think that the Bible would say that abiogenesis happened without Yahweh is just plain silly.

It's like asking if Rush Limbaugh said that Bill Clinton was a good President and that Clinton can't be a good President unless Limbaugh says so.