Exploring the Harmony Between Faith and Science in Understanding Life

[tdidymas]

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?

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

www.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?

 

[Astrid]

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

www.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?

And when order emetging from chaos is demonstrated to you, will.yiu learn or deny ,it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

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.

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.

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

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

Amazon.com

www.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?

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is a simple yeast cell the earliest cell?

No.

 

[tdidymas]

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.

Just what I thought.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Psalm 119:100 I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Just what I thought.

What does that mean?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What does that mean?

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.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Hmmm.. I only know the book is related to Metaxes (author?) because I saw his name in that 800ish character link. I certainly did not click on it. (It had more trackers than the FSB.) I would seem the poster does not understand intellectual integrity. Metaxes has no knowledge relevant to this discussion and if they'd like to claim otherwise it is up to them to make the case that doesn't require me to read several chapters of a book I am definitely not going to buy an put in the hands of such a man.

 

[Valletta]

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 .

​

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

 

[Astrid]

​

​

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

That is all very good advice / guidance, and covers some of the same ground
as we do in Chinese culture

 

[Mountainmike]

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

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.

 

[Astrid]

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.

So good that Christianity is not dependent on such twaddle.

 

[AV1611VET]

So good that Christianity is not dependent on such twaddle.

Translation: science can take a hike?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Translation: science can take a hike?

No.

 

[Mountainmike]

So good that Christianity is not dependent on such twaddle.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

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?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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?

No. It was just her pointing out that the user she responded to just talks a lot of guff.

 

[Astrid]

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.

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

 

[Mountainmike]

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

That is the problem with atheists. The bits of science they don’t like they call “ woo woo”
because atheists dont accept science at all , they only look to science to cherrypick bits that seem to reinforce what they already believe. They don’t even believe in scientism , if they did they would accept all of science even the bits they don’t like.

How dare you dismiss neurosurgery and neuroscience research as “ woo woo”

how are you fit to judge anyone on science? Or do you just mean it is woo woo to you because you don’t understand any of it? and from past experience you are unwilling to read or learn!