Exploring the Harmony Between Faith and Science in Understanding Life

Hans Blaster said:

Since this is the science section, I will correct some of your scientific errors.

A cell with 3 billion years of evolution from its ancestors has complex biochemical systems -- so what? That doesn't seem strange at all.

1. 1 in 10^79000000000 is not a "fact". It is an unjustified calculated guess. It is built around (false) premises about spontaneous generation randomly from nothing at all.
2. James Tour is *NOT* a biologist of any kind. He is a (well regarded) synthetic organic chemist who make nanomachines.

It really isn't if you don't frame it as "yeast cells arise from nothing" or some similar generation of modern single-celled lifeforms.

The "evidence" against it seems only to be these "big number probability" calculations with no basis in reality.

Significant progress in origin of life research in recent decades. Much has been learned about natural processes making all of the needed building blocks of simple life forms.


In rejecting the evidence from recent progress in OOL research are you then suppressing the truth in the matter?

Click to expand...

tdidymas said:

You may be right in my not being much interested in researching the abiogenesis idea, because I regard it as atheistic mumbo jumbo. Nevertheless, I took some time in googling OOL and came up with this article: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsob.120190

in which it says "...the process of abiogenesis was governed by underlying physico-chemical principles..."
Now, just exactly where did those principles come from? Since no one ever gets order out of chaos, nor does anyone get a governing principle from randomness, someone will have to explain how such a principle came into existence.

To volley back to you, can you please read chapter 3-5 of this book:

Amazon.com

and then tell me exactly what you think is wrong with either the information or the logic concerning the fine tuning of the universe?

Click to expand...

tdidymas said:

You may be right in my not being much interested in researching the abiogenesis idea, because I regard it as atheistic mumbo jumbo. Nevertheless, I took some time in googling OOL and came up with this article: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsob.120190

Click to expand...

tdidymas said:

in which it says "...the process of abiogenesis was governed by underlying physico-chemical principles..."
Now, just exactly where did those principles come from? Since no one ever gets order out of chaos, nor does anyone get a governing principle from randomness, someone will have to explain how such a principle came into existence.

Click to expand...

tdidymas said:

To volley back to you, can you please read chapter 3-5 of this book:

Amazon.com

and then tell me exactly what you think is wrong with either the information or the logic concerning the fine tuning of the universe?

Click to expand...

Gene2memE said:

Is a simple yeast cell the earliest cell?

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

That article looks interesting. I will look at it later.

Abiogenesis/OOL is just as interested in religion/gods as any other branch of science, no more no less -- zero. Science does not concern itself with such things.

The laws of physics aren't chaos. What are you talking about.

I don't know what Metaxes would have to say about science. He has demonstrated no expertise in the field. He writes about religion. I don't see any point in a discussion of a book by such an author.

Click to expand...

Astrid said:

Yet you claim.to know more than any researchers on earth.

Click to expand...

tdidymas said:

Just what I thought.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

What does that mean?

Click to expand...

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

That you don't want to read the book that may or may not actually talk about the subject in question and therefore... something something intellectual integrity.

Click to expand...

frienden thalord said:

many shcolars are full of pride and dont really even know the bible .
And the so called iconsistencies if Old test and torah and etc , That was their own misunderstanding .
Some of us by grace have read that bible for hours daily and done so over eighteen years now .
What might sometimes seem as a contradiction or etc , It aint . its lack of understanding on our part .
The more we read it for ourselves , the more it will come together . only MOST Wont do that . they had
rather heed men and scholars .

Click to expand...

​

Valletta said:

​

Click to expand...

Valletta said:

​

1 Corinthians 13: 4-7 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Revised Standard Catholic Edition

Click to expand...

mmittcheljohnsons said:

Hi there,

As a believer, I've often pondered how science and faith intersect,, especially when it comes to understanding life itself.

How do we reconcile scientific discoveries with our Christian beliefs: ?? For example, the theory of evolution or the Big Bang--concepts that seem to challenge the biblical account of creation. Yet,, many Christians find that science enhances their faith,, revealing the intricacies of God's creation.
How do you approach this balance: ?? Do you see science as a tool to better understand God's work,, or do you find certain scientific ideas conflict with your faith: ?? Let's explore how we can embrace both faith and science in our journey to understand the world and our place in it. You can also read this https://medium.com/@pkajjohnson/science-and-faith-in-harmony-contemplations-on-a-distilled-doxology-cissp/

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and experiences on this fascinating topic...!

Thanks,
Mitchel Johnsons

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

Start with the soul.

much of neuroscience is convinced the mind is not produced by the brain, it is a filter not a producer of the mind, even going back to nobel laureate neurosurgeon sherrington and wilder penfield

There are too many other anomalies for it to be so.

veridical near death experiences ( of which there are now too many to doubt it ) show consciousness can be elsewhere than the body.

So the soul is real, in which case the chemical only narrative on life is FALSE despite all the flannel, nobody Has the first clue of what preceded the minimum cell we know which is hideously complex.
The narrative on abiogenesis is pure unsubstantiated conjecture.

Darwins so called theory is not even a theory - it is a set of limited empirical observations in an age he knew nothing about genotype, so his presumption of progressive small change of phenotype is clearly negated, since small change in genotype can make big change in phenotype. So by Darwin’s own falsification criterion, there is no reason to presume progressive small change.

Add in the transcendental experience on NDE , life reviews against objective good, beings of love etc is much as faith suggests.
Evolutin of Ethics on survival of fittest cannot account for many aspects of morality , take Universalism

you wont like the last part.

Forensic proven Eucharistic miracles show the catholic interpretation is correct.

Click to expand...

Astrid said:

So good that Christianity is not dependent on such twaddle.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

Translation: science can take a hike?

Click to expand...

Astrid said:

So good that Christianity is not dependent on such twaddle.

Click to expand...

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

No.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

So she mentioning two Nobel laureates, then saying she's thankful that Christianity doesn't depend on their "twaddle," isn't the same thing as saying their science can take a hike?

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

Science you mean. I realize most of you here think actual science is twaddle!

I wager you know none of it, yet you comment. So your comment is your atheist faith hoping it is twaddle.

ever read wilder penfiekds book on neurosurgery? i thought not.

Click to expand...

Astrid said:

Woo woo then. Some are attracted to it.
Its ok, the westerners “ culture” can decay all it likes.

Click to expand...