My Abiogenesis Challenge

[miknik5]

In that day.

Think about Nebuchadnezzar

Think about Job

and pray

 

[HitchSlap]

In that day.

Think about Nebuchadnezzar

Think about Job

and pray

Hopefully I'll remeber to do so.

Have a good one.

 

[miknik5]

Take care @HitchSlap

If you want to ask me about 2 Thessalonians 2

Let me know

 

[bhsmte]

Can you stop crying and provide your evidence that science somehow overrides GOD's sovereignty

LOL

 

[HitchSlap]

Take care @HitchSlap

If you want to ask me about 2 Thessalonians 2

Let me know

Likewise re: science.

 

[PsychoSarah]

God saw every inclination of the heart and the mind of man was turned to do evil and it grieved GOD that HE has made man. (Genesis)

And every man did what was "right" in his own eyes (judges)
FREE WILL

You know the statement from Judges is both incorrect in terms of human psychology and has nothing to do with free will at all, right? People could all view themselves as moral beings without having free will. Also, the statement from Genesis implies that Yahweh didn't know humans were going to do what it considered evil prior to making them, making the deity not omniscient. It also has nothing to do with free will. This is why not all sects of Christianity even hold that people have free will: Calvinists are a good example of such a denomination.

If you do what is right will you not be accepted. But if you do not , sin is crouching at your door it desires to have you but you must master it

A useless statement when thoughts are sins. People can't control what they think. If I could, then I would be a believer, not an atheist.

You shouldn't. HE knew from
the beginning that Adam/mankind/we would fall and yet HE still created us?

Again, morally questionable at best: remaking people from scratch is the obvious solution, though if you view the deity you worship as both omnipotent and omniscient, then it wouldn't make sense for the flaws people have to be anything but intentional. So, either the deity isn't that powerful, or it made beings with flaws it intended to punish them for.

Why?

Because while HE foreknew our fall GOD who can see into one day a thousand years, also foreknew more importantly THE VICTORY in HIS SON. HE knew HE would have a set apart people called by HIS NSME who would glorify HIM as GOD

Irrelevant: even if all but 1 person went to heaven, it would be morally questionable at best to have anyone undergo eternal suffering for a finite crime.

 

[miknik5]

You know the statement from Judges is both incorrect in terms of human psychology and has nothing to do with free will at all, right? people could all view themselves as moral beings without having free will

No I don't know that. Nor do I agree with your assumption. You have no idea what the time of judges was like Put people together in a time of profound evil and trouble and get back to me on your understanding of "every man "went to his own house" and did what was "right" in their OWN eyes"

, Also, the statement from Genesis implies that Yahweh didn't know humans were going to do what it considered evil prior to making them, making the deity not omniscient.

Again I do not agree with you. If GOD didn't already know whether we would or wouldn't eat from the tree, HE not only would have said IN THE DAY YOU EAT, HE wouldn't have had the TREE of LIFE present in the garden from the beginning either. Since before we sinned we were fully alive

It also has nothing to do with free will. This is why not all sects of Christianity even hold that people have free will: Calvinists are a good example of such a denomination.
A useless statement when thoughts are sins. People can't control what they think. If I could, then I would be a believer, not an atheist.

Again morally questionable at best: remaking people from scratch is the obvious solution, though if you view the deity you worship as both omnipotent and omniscient, then it wouldn't make sense for the flaws people have to be anything but intentional. So, either the deity isn't that powerful, or it made beings with flaws it intended to punish them for.

Its your logic that is flawed. Do you have siblings. Is one worse than or better than yourself? Better yet are you perfect having never done anything against your own father?
Consider a FATHER who has many children and all have done something that deserves discipline

What would you do? Would you pick one over the other?

: even if all but 1 person went to heaven, it would be morally questionable at best to have anyone undergo eternal suffering for a finite crime.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Does the theory of evolution include how life got started?

No.

If not, does the theory of evolution treat abiogenesis like it treats God?

Yes, insofar as it considers it separate and irrelevant to the process.

Evolution (By which we mean biological evoultion via natural selection) requires life to exist before it can proceed.

How that life originated -- be it abiogenesis, creatio ex nihilo, panspermia, or crafted from mud by Iggy the Magic Elf -- is unimportant. It exists, it has an imperfect mechanism of replicating itself, and those imperfections affect its chances of successfully reproducing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, insofar as it considers it separate and irrelevant to the process.

That's a pretty thin line.

Science will treat abiogenesis as a viable process (i.e., with respect), but won't treat God as having anything to do with life on the earth (i.e., with disrespect).

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's a pretty thin line.

Nevertheless, it exists.

Science will treat abiogenesis as a viable process (i.e., with respect), but won't treat God as having anything to do with life on the earth (i.e., with disrespect).

Earn your respect. Abiogenesis is viable because it is testable (i.e., respectable) whereas creatio ex nihio is not testable (i.e., not respectable).

Heck, even panspermia has some evidence which indicates it's possible -- we've discovered that there are microorganisms which are capable of surviving for long periods in space... that merits a certain degree of respect.

 

[AV1611VET]

Earn your respect.

Oh, please.

BC/AD, churches, hymns, iconography, holidays and martyrs don't mean anything to you?

Abiogenesis is viable because it is testable (i.e., respectable) whereas creatio ex nihio is not testable (i.e., not respectable).

Are you in the right thread?

The only life created ex nihilo are the angels.

Please read the OP and respond accordingly.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oh, please.

BC/AD, churches, hymns, iconography, holidays and martyrs don't mean anything to you?Are you in the right thread?

Insofar as science is concerned? Zip, zero, and ziltch.

Go peddle appeals to authority and tradition elsewhere.

The only life created ex nihilo are the angels.

Come back when you can test that.

Please read the OP and respond accordingly.

I did. You accepted my response, remember?

It was your follow up question that gave you a case of mock indignation.

 

[Strathos]

I'm disappointed that AV never responded to me, especially since I was the only one who actually gave the Hebrew and Greek words for 'organic'.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm disappointed that AV never responded to me, especially since I was the only one who actually gave the Hebrew and Greek words for 'organic'.

Disappointed, but are you surprised?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's a pretty thin line.

Science will treat abiogenesis as a viable process (i.e., with respect), but won't treat God as having anything to do with life on the earth (i.e., with disrespect).

Science treats abiogenesis as a possibility it can test and research. If you can't show how creatio ex nihilo can be tested through the scientific method, then you can hardly blame scientists for not testing it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Science treats abiogenesis as a possibility it can test and research. If you can't show how creatio ex nihilo can be tested through the scientific method, then you can hardly blame scientists for not testing it.

He wants to be given the respect that everyone else has to earn.

 

[Loudmouth]

He wants to be given the respect that everyone else has to earn.

That seems to be a common thread in today's culture. Some people seem to embrace post-modernism where all ideas are treated equally. Thankfully, there are still those among us who accept supported claims over bare assertions.

 

[lesliedellow]

Does the theory of evolution include how life got started?

If not, does the theory of evolution treat abiogenesis like it treats God?

Examples:

1. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
2. Take your discussion about abiogenesis elsewhere.
3. Leave abiogenesis at the front door.
4. Show me evidence of abiogenesis.
5. Abiogenesis can be taught after school, but not during.
6. Nonbelievers in abiogenesis know more about abiogenesis than believers do.
7. What's the Hebrew word for "organic"?
8. What's the Greek word for "organic"?
9. Books on abiogenesis were written decades after abiogenesis got started.
10. I don't believe in abiogenesis, so there's nothing to discuss.

Please note that I'm simply asking if abiogenesis is treated as "respectfully" as God is.

It's a simple YES or NO challenge.

Abiogenesis is a question about physical origins, and so is addressable through the physical sciences. God is not a physical something, and is therefore not addressable through the physical sciences.

 

[miknik5]

[
well that was very telling
And biased

Iggy the magic elf?

Are scientists allowed to push their own personal agenda by condescension

Does that always translate to proven TRUTH?

Or just a scientist pushing his weight by condescension

 

[miknik5]

Abiogenesis is a question about physical origins, and so is addressable through the physical sciences. God is not a physical something, and is therefore not addressable through the physical sciences.

Let's go way back before there was any physical evidence that a scientist could use to test his understanding of the physical world in which he lives

Can we do that