Of course life can come from non-life.

[Contracelsus]

If creationists have to move the goalposts it's only because the atheistic evo's have set them up on the wrong playing field.

FoeHammer.

No, I disagree.

What is the right playing field? Aren't they just supposed to show you the data and explain it?

I've seen creationists say "you can't reproduce evolution so it isn't science", now I see some creationists say "you shouldn't have to 'reproduce' anything in the lab for abiogenesis because then it is designing life and not creating life."

Which is it?

btw: I know that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, but since we're on this path...

 

[Contracelsus]

God gave man the capacity to develop science as a tool and now there are those who want to try to use it in an attempt to get rid of Him.

I think the difference is a bit more subtle. Scientists don't work to "get rid of God" like some kinda hitsquad. I think they simply can't use God in their work. That doesn't mean that many if not most of them don't believe in God. Many do.

What they can't do is use "God Dunnit" in their explanations because they don't think that explains anything.

If you walk up to a tree cut down in the forest. No one is around and you see a hammer nearby, do you guess that God came down and used a miracle to allow the hammer to neatly cut the tree or do you look around for the saw?

Is it rational to assume the lumberjacks who are no longer here used a saw and accidentally forgot and left their hammer when they left?

.. an extremly foolish and eternally deadly undertaking.

Not by most of the scientists I've talked to. Deadly? How so? Do you mean "soul-death"? Not really. I've met plenty of scientists who are Christians. They seem pretty alive spiritually.

Foolish? Nah. What would be foolish is to suggest when their experiment works that it worked because of a miracle that they can never re-create.

You could only understand how ridiculous that is were you willing to conform to His.

Which standards of his? The Jewish standards? The Christian Standards? The Islamic Standards? The Zoroastrian Standards? The Hindu Standards?

Have you not studied history nor looked at the world around you sufficient to have worked out that, for all his science, man cannot be trusted to care for man

God helps those who help themselves. If not me helping my neighbor, who's gonna do it? If not us looking out for the least among us, who's gonna do it?

Science and scientists have their limits... recognise and try to understand that simple fact

FoeHammer.

But who tells the scientists what that limit is? Is it you? Is it your pastor? Is it the Pope? Is it other scientists? Who determines what the limits are?

 

[FoeHammer]

By "we" I meant scientists. The holy grail of science is the unified theory in physics, but that aside abiogenesis is one of the goals of scientific discovery. Are you telling me that this scientific research should stop?[/quote]

Personally I couldn't care less what scientists research, It's what some may believe and promote as a result of that research that concerns me.

What would be a threat, or is your belief dogmatic?

I can't think of anything that could be a threat.

FoeHammer.

 

[Contracelsus]

Personally I couldn't care less what scientists research, It's what some may believe and promote as a result of that research that concerns me.

What if scientists found a case of life coming from non-life? Would that be a concern to you? What if scientists found a way that, assuming conditions like the early earth, life could spontaneously arise. And then that life could diversify totally without intervention.

Would that be a threat?

I can't think of anything that could be a threat.

FoeHammer.

Then you would be a lonely creationist. Because Creationism seems to be pretty much built on this fear that science does threaten their faith.

I don't understand why this threat seems real to them, but it does seem to be an issue.

Even you yourself say you would have a concern based on how the scientists dealt with information from their experiments.

So do the scientists need to hide their research if it happens to conflict with what you believe? Why?

 

[Loudmouth]

Personally I couldn't care less what scientists research,

Unless they don't invoke God, right?

It's what some may believe and promote as a result of that research that concerns me.

If that is what the research shows, where is the problem? If you disagree with the science show us how the science is wrong.