abiogenesis---non-living dust becoming living organisms--- is exactly what the Bible describes.
The above statement is a contradiction of principle.
Perhaps for you, but I consider the Genesis 2:7 a reliable record of origins:
"the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
Abiogenesis is living matter coming from non-living ingredients. God created the human one (HADAM) from the dust of the ground (HADAMAH). Life from non-life. You don't have to believe it but that is what the Bible says.
Abiogenesis includes such things as the RNA world view
Huh??? I have never heard of a "RNA world view" despite two science degrees. Sorry I can't help you with that one.
.... and maybe self replicating proteins
NOT GOD.
It sounds like you are confusing the scientific method with theology. Theology explores the ways of God. But the scientific method explores natural processes. (For the Bible-believing Christian, science explores the natural processes which God uses to accomplish his will in the universe. It sounds like you are simply frustrated that non-theists haven't redefined the scientific method to fit your theology and to suit you.)
God created life as He put forth in Genesis chapter 1
From non living matter
That's what I just said! Life from non-living ingredients (i.e., the basic chemical elements of dust/soil.)
Break the word down: "abio" [non-life] + "genesis" [origin, the beginning].
Living things come from non-living ingredients. That's what the Bible says and that is what science says. Perfect harmony between God's two books.
If your complaint is that science doesn't add the commentary "And God did it!", you are confused about the purpose and methodology of science. When you read about photosynthesis in a biology book, do you protest and say, "This book is wrong and I deny the theory of photosynthesis because it does not mention that God created photosynthesis!" ?? It sounds like you don't understand the definition of science nor how it works.
I do not usually comment on other believers points concerning evolution right or wrong.
That is wise because you clearly have a poor understanding of evolution, Genesis 1 & 2, and the nature of the scientific method in general. Silence is always the best course until one adequately understands the topic.
I do think it is a sad state of affairs for the believer to even consider the concepts behind evolution to be true.
Excellent! You have summarized your problem perfectly! As you admit,
you won't even CONSIDER the scientific evidence which God has placed within his creation. If your mind is totally closed to the evidence, how do you expect God to answer your questions about his creation and to understand basic scientific truths?!
I believe evolution died its own death by the evidence currently available in science.
Really??? I know I've been too busy to follow the news lately but I've not heard ANYTHING about the "death" of the theory of evolution. (Or are you the only one who "heard" this special revelation?)
Abiogenesis has been given up by the evolutionist because it is simply untenable.
I'm not sure why you assign abiogenesis to the "evolutionist" but your "simply untenable" newsflash is yet another memo which the rest of the world somehow missed. (Do you often "hear" things which nobody else has heard?)
In any case, I'm quite willing to affirm the general concept of abiogenesis (life from non-living ingredients) because God has made that fact clear in both his Scriptures and his Universe. Sorry to hear that you are not a Bible-believer.
Only those ignorant of the problems of both abiogenesis and evolution are even able to support the new evolution synthesis let alone the Christian.
Do you really think complaining about the "ignorant" is going to dig you out of the hole you've dug for yourself?
(And by the way, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are two different topics. Some scientists have used the term "chemical evolution" in discussions of abiogenesis hypotheses but it has not become a universally adopted term, largely because of the confusion it tends to promote. Sadly, "creation science" advocates have multiplied the general public's confusion about the term "evolution".)
Maybe it is my naïve beliefs that no one can truly support evolution if they only understood the problems; maybe in the case of the believer the Holy Spirit is the only solution.
I think you are headed in the right direction when you talk about "naïve beliefs." (But I have great empathy because I spent many years ignoring the evidence.)
I also heartily agree with you that "in the case of the believer the Holy Spirit is the only solution." It was not until the Holy Spirit convicted me of my elevating the cherished man-made traditions of my church over what God tells us in the scriptures (AND what Gods tells us in his creation) that I repented of misleading my Christian brethren. God showed me that I was unwittingly deceiving non-believers into thinking that my "creation science" pseudo-science could be blamed on the Bible itself. I was promoting a false dichotomy: that one must choose either the Bible or Science, and that one must therefore ignore or deny (or confuse through straw-man arguments) the answers which God has provided through the massive volumes of scientific evidence for an "old earth" and for the theory of evolution.
I do agree with your reference to an Intelligent Designer. God is the master designer who created the physical laws of the universe in such an amazing way that His evolutionary processes have wonderfully adapted life to changing environments and have produced the tremendous diversity of life we see around us. Praise God! If you think that this kind of majesty, omniscience, and omnipotence on the Creator's part is denied by the scriptures, I challenge you to read Genesis again and ask the Holy Spirit to free you from the shackles of the man-made traditions which have for so long hobbled the Church. I'll be praying for you.
