Of course life can come from non-life.

[Naraoia]

Believing that Goddidit does not prohibit any investigation into what He did and how it works.

FoeHammer.

Read what I've written. Again. Carefully.

"Yes it is, if you aren't interested in how God did it."

That was what I've said. Have you noticed it's a conditional? I've highlighted the 'if' just for you.

 

[LittleNipper]

Thats when you start burning witches!

People who believe that they have all the answers by themselves are the ones who are most likely to burn anyone. Oddly enough, the "witch" hunters availed THEMSELVES of all sorts of "scientific" contrivances to get the "witches" (victims) to confess. The same is true of all totalitarian societies where an elite group tells everyone else what is acceptable, educational and scientific, and what is not

 

[Contracelsus]

Oddly enough, the "witch" hunters availed THEMSELVES of all sorts of "scientific" contrivances to get the "witches" (victims) to confess.

Interesting. So putting a huge amount of stones on someone until they "confess" (he didn't) is "scientific". OK.

So what about the "science" of the Inquisition?

I think what you'll find is that the science folks will tell you is "forced confessions are exactly useless as data" since they are precisely applied to get whatever answer the questioner wants.

And unless I'm confused, I don't know many scientists who think that's how science gets done.

Actually, forcing the data to say what you want sounds a whole lot more like Creationism!

 

[Loudmouth]

"A science stopper"? Of course it isn't. You're peddling a myth.

FoeHammer.

Why would we try to find a natural mechanism if life just magically poofed into existence. They only hope that creationists have is that scientists quit their jobs.

 

[Loudmouth]

Whose goalposts? As I have said previously for anyone who may be looking for a natural explanation of "abiogenesis" it can’t, by definition, be found in a man made laboratory. If anyone has shifted the goalposts it is the scientists.

FoeHammer.

Why are results from labs thrown out?

Besides, we have found amino acids in meteorites. We have observed simple sugars in nebulae. Organic compounds do arise through abiotic processes in the lab and in nature.

 

[LittleNipper]

Interesting. So putting a huge amount of stones on someone until they "confess" (he didn't) is "scientific". OK.

So what about the "science" of the Inquisition?

I think what you'll find is that the science folks will tell you is "forced confessions are exactly useless as data" since they are precisely applied to get whatever answer the questioner wants.

And unless I'm confused, I don't know many scientists who think that's how science gets done.

Actually, forcing the data to say what you want sounds a whole lot more like Creationism!

Was the Inquisition CHRISTIAN or AUTHORITARIAN? Is torture scientic or arbitrary?

 

[Naraoia]

Was the Inquisition CHRISTIAN or AUTHORITARIAN? Is torture scientic or arbitrary?

Two sentences, two false dichotomies. Congratulations.

 

[Blayz]

The same is true of all totalitarian societies where an elite group tells everyone else what is acceptable, educational and scientific, and what is not

That does sound horrible. Imagine being a part of a group that wants to force people to live to their standards. Sounds downright evil to me.

 

[FoeHammer]

Why not? If we can create artificial life in an environment similar to that found in nature (like a continuation of Miller-Urey and Bada experiments) how is it not evidence that abiogenesis is possible?

Should this be the case then all you will have succeeded in doing would be to show that it took intelligence to "create" life.... in a lab.

I guess I should have realized that there is no evidence you would possibly accept. I'm not sure why anyone bothers debating you.

There is no man made evidence I would accept. You want a natural explanation then go find it in nature and stop wasting my time with this artificial nonsense.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

Read what I've written. Again. Carefully.

"Yes it is, if you aren't interested in how God did it."

That was what I've said. Have you noticed it's a conditional? I've highlighted the 'if' just for you.

There is no way to test "how " God did it. That doesn't mean that God didn't do it it simply means that as the created and not the creator you are limited.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

Why would we try to find a natural mechanism if life just magically poofed into existence.

The atheists quest for their holy grail, a "natural" mechanism for abiogenesis, and you're asking me why "we" would try to find it?

They only hope that creationists have is that scientists quit their jobs.

"They"?
Why? They're no threat to a belief in creation.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

Why are results from labs thrown out?

Besides, we have found amino acids in meteorites. We have observed simple sugars in nebulae. Organic compounds do arise through abiotic processes in the lab and in nature.

WOW! Problem solved then.

FoeHammer.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Should this be the case then all you will have succeeded in doing would be to show that it took intelligence to "create" life.... in a lab.

Not if we merely replicate the conditions and life forms without our influence.

 

[Naraoia]

There is no way to test "how " God did it. That doesn't mean that God didn't do it it simply means that as the created and not the creator you are limited.

FoeHammer.

See, that's where science stops. Science is interested in mechanisms, magic is not a mechanism.

It is true that our not knowing how God did something is not proof that God didn't do that thing. Even our knowing how something did it is not proof that the something wasn't ultimately God. Science cannot say for certain whether the how can be known. However, when you don't even attempt to come up with a how you are not doing science any more. If God does things in ways we can't explain then he is outside the scope of science.

 

[FoeHammer]

Not if we merely replicate the conditions and life forms without our influence.

"We" shouldn't need to replicate anything.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

See, that's where science stops.

No, that is where science begins.

Science is interested in mechanisms,

Science is a tool, it can be used to make or it can be used to break, it depends whose hands it is in and I, for one, do not trust it in the hands of atheists.

magic is not a mechanism.

Magic is for men not God.

It is true that our not knowing how God did something...

Genesis tells us how God did it.

... is not proof that God didn't do that thing. Even our knowing how something did it is not proof that the something wasn't ultimately God. Science cannot say for certain whether the how can be known. However, when you don't even attempt to come up with a how you are not doing science any more. If God does things in ways we can't explain then he is outside the scope of science.

I don't have to come up with a how, Genesis has already given me that.

FoeHammer.

 

[Contracelsus]

No, that is where science begins.

But science can't "begin" with "God didit". That's a game stopper.

Science is a tool, it can be used to make or it can be used to break, it depends whose hands it is in and I, for one, do not trust it in the hands of atheists.

Really? Why not? Do you think an atheist will "misuse" science? If I am not mistaken, if some evil atheist came in and published false or wrong data it would be other scientists who figured out the data was wrong or false.

I don't see a role for religion there anywhere.

It wasn't Creationists who figured out Piltdown Man was a hoax. It wasn't Creationism that figured out N-Rays didn't exist. It wasn't Creationism that disproved Phlogiston. It wasn't Creationism that put the kibosh on Cold Fusion.

Creationism and religion had nothing to do with any of the great overturnings of science.

Magic is for men not God.Genesis tells us how God did it.

Well, then, perhaps you could explain it in "non-magical terms"?

I don't have to come up with a how, Genesis has already given me that.

Do you really think "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." is a valid explanation of anything? Really?

You don't hold much value for science then do you? Because that explanation doesnt' do anything for science.

If that is what "religious science" gets you, I think I'd trust atheists a bit more.

 

[Naraoia]

"We" shouldn't need to replicate anything.

FoeHammer.

If life needs conditions fundamentally different from those present on the modern earth to form from simple chemical precursors (a reducing atmosphere immediately jumps to mind) then it simply cannot spontaneously reappear on the modern earth.

Besides, even if life could form on something like earth today, there might be too much competition from existing organisms for newly formed, inevitably more inefficient organisms or proto-organisms to survive.

If you want to observe abiogenesis, you can't just sit by a lake and wait for it to happen. You must find or yourself provide very specific conditions, preferably ones similar to the original conditions under which life on earth first appeared.

Would water boil in your kettle if you never heated it? Does that mean that water requires an intelligence to boil? No. All it means is that water requires specific conditions to boil.

 

[Naraoia]

No, that is where science begins. Science is a tool, it can be used to make or it can be used to break, it depends whose hands it is in and I, for one, do not trust it in the hands of atheists.

I protest in the name of all scientists. Science looks for explanations that explain something, explanations you can understand and apply. Useful explanations. The only use of Goddidit is reassuring yourself. It can make no predictions, it gives us no tools to advance our knowledge of the world, not applications in technology. Not even a real understanding. You don't understand miracles, that's why they are called miracles.

Magic is for men not God.

Then what do you call the supposed mechanism God used to create stuff?

Genesis tells us how God did it.
I don't have to come up with a how, Genesis has already given me that.

Really? Then pray explain. Somehow I didn't think I understood how it happened when I read Genesis.

 

[Contracelsus]

If life needs conditions fundamentally different from those present on the modern earth to form from simple chemical precursors (a reducing atmosphere immediately jumps to mind) then it simply cannot spontaneously reappear on the modern earth.

From Foe's cryptic comment and other Creationists, it sounds to me like Creationists are preparing to move the goalposts. Since they know that science will likely ultimately come around to figuring out how life does arise abiogenetically, they are pre-emptively attacking the methods by decreeing that reproducing the events in the lab doesn't count.

Note how this differs from their usual "you need to be able to replicate evolution" tactic many creationists use to argue against evolution.

Whatever serves their needs, sounds like to me.

Apparently the end does justify the means for Creationism!