Abiogenesis is a Lie

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

“Your eyes can deceive you. Don’t trust them.” – Obi-Wan Kenobi

 

[AV1611VET]

“Your eyes can deceive you. Don’t trust them.” – Obi-Wan Kenobi

"Obi-Wan Kenobi can take a hike." - Edwin Hubble

 

[Chriliman]

As someone who has actually made a new life like this, I can tell you that it was made from already living cells.

So claiming God did it from dust doesn't work, does it?

If your only ingredients are non-living, then you don't make them into a living thing.

I agree that concluding life from nonlife is illogical, which is why anti-God abiogenesis is not a viable conclusion for me.

I assume you are a logical person which is why I would think you would agree.

 

[Speedwell]

Theistic Evolutionists: Say they believe the Bible, but deny a third of it.

Or they just interpret it differently than you, while still regarding it as divine revelation.

 

[Speedwell]

I agree that concluding life from nonlife is illogical...

It depends on what you mean by "life." If life is an emergent property of biochemical complexity, then it is perfectly logical.

...which is why anti-God abiogenesis is not a viable conclusion for me.

There is no such thing. Naturalistic abiogenesis is entirely consistent with divine providence and though some may use it as atheistic rhetoric that is their private opinion, not science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree that concluding life from nonlife is illogical, which is why anti-God abiogenesis is not a viable conclusion for me.

I assume you are a logical person which is why I would think you would agree.

Your statement was not logical itself. How is abiogenesis "anti-God"? It may go against your false version of God, but that does not make it "anti-God". Life probably did arise naturally. That does not tell us that there were no gods. Of course it is creationists that tend to move the goalposts all the way to abiogenesis when they try to defend their Adam and Eve myth. Of course anyone that understands logic at all realizes why that is a terrible strategy in an evolution debate.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It depends on what you mean by "life." If life is an emergent property of biochemical complexity, then it is perfectly logical.

You beat me to it! Since nobody has provided a definition of what constitutes life and how to measure or recognise it this is a fairly pointless discussion.

 

[Chriliman]

Your statement was not logical itself. How is abiogenesis "anti-God"? It may go against your false version of God, but that does not make it "anti-God". Life probably did arise naturally. That does not tell us that there were no gods. Of course it is creationists that tend to move the goalposts all the way to abiogenesis when they try to defend their Adam and Eve myth. Of course anyone that understands logic at all realizes why that is a terrible strategy in an evolution debate.

If abiogenesis isn't anti-God then I'm open to it. It just seems if we assume life can arise randomly through complex biological structures then God isn't needed as an explanation and I can see how this might be an attractive thought process to an atheist.

 

[Speedwell]

If abiogenesis isn't anti-God then I'm open to it. It just seems if we assume life can arise randomly through complex biological structures then God isn't needed as an explanation and I can see how this might be an attractive thought process to an atheist.

Which is not a good reason to deny that it could have happened. In fact it is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad consequentiam. But how life arose and whether God had anything to do with it or not are two separate questions.

 

[Chriliman]

Which is not a good reason to deny that it could have happened.

That what could of happened? Life arising randomly? I understand there's an extremely small possibility for that and if it did happen then it would have been outside God's will.

In fact it is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad consequentiam. But how life arose and whether God had anything to do with it or not are two separate questions.

My position is that God was involved in the formation of life on earth as Scripture states.

 

[Speedwell]

That what could of happened? Life arising randomly? I understand there's an extremely small possibility for that and if it did happen then it would have been outside God's will.

Nothing is "outside God's will." Not only that, I think that's the way God willed it to happen.

My position is that God was involved in the formation of life on earth as Scripture states.

My position is that God was involved in the formation of life on Earth. I don't care what you think Scripture states.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If abiogenesis isn't anti-God then I'm open to it. It just seems if we assume life can arise randomly through complex biological structures then God isn't needed as an explanation and I can see how this might be an attractive thought process to an atheist.

Only creationists make the mistake of thinking that abiogenesis is random. The laws of chemistry are not random. And so far abiogenesis is the only idea that has any scientific evidence at all. I do not believe that there is any reliable evidence for the involvement of any sort of god.

But then gravity works just fine without the interference of a god. Is gravity "anti-God"? If not you are not being consistent.

 

[Kylie]

Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Once again I shall tell you that quotes from the Bible are not actually evidence.

 

[Kylie]

I agree that concluding life from nonlife is illogical, which is why anti-God abiogenesis is not a viable conclusion for me.

I assume you are a logical person which is why I would think you would agree.

Except that the question of where God came from is an even bigger problem.

Self replicating molecules have been proposed, and are a plausible idea for the development of life.

 

[Kylie]

If abiogenesis isn't anti-God then I'm open to it. It just seems if we assume life can arise randomly through complex biological structures then God isn't needed as an explanation and I can see how this might be an attractive thought process to an atheist.

I have lost track of how many times I have had to say this on this site...

EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM!

 

[Kylie]

"Obi-Wan Kenobi can take a hike." - Edwin Hubble

Citation needed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Once again I shall tell you that quotes from the Bible are not actually evidence.

Sorry about your luck then.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that the question of where God came from is an even bigger problem.

God is self-existent.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Ah, so.. magic man done it.

Nope, God done it....Magic man was busy creating the universe for the Atheist.

 

[Chriliman]

Nothing is "outside God's will." Not only that, I think that's the way God willed it to happen.

I think there's a difference between what God allows and what God actually wills or desires to happen. Maybe God does allow random stuff to happen, but it would seem if those things were truly random then they would happen irregardless if he allowed it or not.

My position is that God was involved in the formation of life on Earth. I don't care what you think Scripture states.

If you're putting His word and His will first then good for you! I'll do the same