The Nano Robots and Machines Inside You,

[HitchSlap]

If we follow this line of thinking then we must conclude that the watch wasn't designed either, it's also a product of evolution because humans are a product of evolution. You begin to see how this line of thinking leads irrational thoughts - of course a watch is designed by people, evolution should not get the credit for the design of a watch because evolution can't think like humans can.

Yes, I see how your line of thinking leads to irrational thoughts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...If evidence comes out in time, to show abiogenesis is a well supported theory, the suicide rate of fundies would sky rocket.

Some might say that would be a win-win scenario - they get their dearest wish, and they're no longer around... I couldn't possibly comment

 

[Chesterton]

Here is the deal;evolution is scary enough for the fundy types, but abiogenesis would be a complete game stopper for them. If evidence comes out in time, to show abiogenesis is a well supported theory, the suicide rate of fundies would sky rocket.

I can't speak for fundies, but just to be clear, abiogenesis would not be a game stopper for belief in a Creator. You still have the more preliminary problem of the finely tuned constants which allow anything to exist at all. And if God chose to have life created by some abiogenetic means, then that's what He did.

 

[bhsmte]

I can't speak for fundies, but just to be clear, abiogenesis would not be a game stopper for belief in a Creator. You still have the more preliminary problem of the finely tuned constants which allow anything to exist at all. And if God chose to have life created by some abiogenetic means, then that's what He did.

I agree. Most religious believers modify their creator belief to accomodate for well evidenced science. My comment was in regards to fundies, which are not in the habit of modifying beliefs based on new evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

I can't speak for fundies, but just to be clear, abiogenesis would not be a game stopper for belief in a Creator. You still have the more preliminary problem of the finely tuned constants which allow anything to exist at all. And if God chose to have life created by some abiogenetic means, then that's what He did.

From a theological position, it does seem foolish to put a barrier around what God is allowed to do and not do. A good parallel might be the discussion within the Catholic church when it came to Galileo's dangerous ideas about the solar system. A letter written by Cardinal Bellarmine is especially illuminating:

Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless. Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can support that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek….

Third, I say that, if there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true.
Letter from Bellarmine to Father Foscarini
​

They were facing the same type of existential threat to their views of the Bible and God. In one moment they were absolutely sure about what the Bible says, but then doubt creeps in. What if Galileo is right? What if this new fancy science thing is able to prove things in a definitive way? What then?

The best position would seem to be openness.

 

[Chesterton]

I agree. Most religious believers modify their creator belief to accomodate for well evidenced science. My comment was in regards to fundies, which are not in the habit of modifying beliefs based on new evidence.

Honestly I can't think of a single bit of science which has caused Christianity to modify its Creator belief. The only change I've personally experienced is that new science makes me more in awe of something I was already in awe of.

 

[bhsmte]

Honestly I can't think of a single bit of science which has caused Christianity to modify its Creator belief. The only change I've personally experienced is that new science makes me more in awe of something I was already in awe of.

You honestly dont believe as the evidence for evolution mounted over time, it hasnt changed how many christians view the role of the creater they believe in?

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Thread closed as per OP's request.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Thread Reopened per OP Request

Please remember the site rules when debating.​

 

[Radrook]

I can't speak for fundies, but just to be clear, abiogenesis would not be a game stopper for belief in a Creator. You still have the more preliminary problem of the finely tuned constants which allow anything to exist at all. And if God chose to have life created by some abiogenetic means, then that's what He did.

Abiogenesis means that the resulting life cannot be traced back to a living source.

 

[Speedwell]

Abiogenesis means that the resulting life cannot be traced back to a living source.

Correct. It describes life brought into existence from non-living materials.

 

[Radrook]

Correct. It describes life brought into existence from non-living materials.

Replication of life via chemical interactions in a laboratory accomplished via human intervention would not prove the theory of abiogenesis because it would have needed human intervention or a living thing with a planning, purposefully controlling and directing mind to bring it about and abiogenesis demands that it have absolutely no connection to a prior living thing.

 

[KCfromNC]

Replication of life via chemical interactions in a laboratory accomplished via human intervention would not prove the theory of abiogenesis because

because scientific theories are never proven. They are either consistent with and supported by the evidence or disproven by the same. Read up a bit on the problem of induction and get back to us.

 

[Speedwell]

Replication of life via chemical interactions in a laboratory accomplished via human intervention would not prove the theory of abiogenesis because it would have needed human intervention or a living thing with a planning, purposefully controlling and directing mind to bring it about and abiogenesis demands that it have absolutely no connection to a prior living thing.

In a laboratory it would need a human, that is true, to establish the conditions under which the necessary chemical reactions would occur spontaneously. Just like any other chemical synthesis, it is the correct conditions, whether naturally occurring or arranged by humans, which bring about the reaction--not direct manipulation of the chemicals.

However such an experiment would not prove "atheistic" abiogenesis, because divine participation of exactly the kind involved in the original emergence of life could not be ruled out.

 

[Radrook]

because scientific theories are never proven. They are either consistent with and supported by the evidence or disproven by the same. Read up a bit on the problem of induction and get back to us.

Please note that I aced my cogent reasoning course and have absolutely no reason to seek any clarification as to what induction and the inductive leap involves. Your claim that it is impossible to prove a scientific theory is ridiculous nonsense. If a theory is consistent with reality it is proven to be true. That is why NASA can count on the reliability of gravity when planning its space exploration missions.

 

[KCfromNC]

Please note that I aced my cogent reasoning course and have absolutely no reason to seek any clarification as to what induction and the inductive leap involves. Your claim that it is impossible to prove a scientific theory is ridiculous nonsense. If a theory is consistent with reality it is proven to be true.

Nope, that's not how science works. Like I said, do some reading on the problem of induction. You might actually learn something. Or not. Doesn't matter to me.

 

[bhsmte]

Please note that I aced my cogent reasoning course and have absolutely no reason to seek any clarification as to what induction and the inductive leap involves. Your claim that it is impossible to prove a scientific theory is ridiculous nonsense. If a theory is consistent with reality it is proven to be true. That is why NASA can count on the reliability of gravity when planning its space exploration missions.

You keep demonstrating over and over, you don't understand science.

 

[Radrook]

You keep demonstrating over and over, you don't understand science.

Trashing cogent reasoning isn't science-it's quackery.

 

[quatona]

So much so that atheistic evolutionists don't even ask "who" anymore.

Even if science were willing to start with the question "who?" (which, as has been pointed out, comes with many problems), I fail to see how it could possibly arrive at an answer that goes beyond:
"Who designed the universe?" - "The entity that designed the universe."

I see no need to suppress a "who" as a possible cause for biological life. In fact, suppressing that possibility is a sign of willful ignorance.

There´s no need to suppress it. It´s a question that - seeing the candidates - isn´t scientifically investigable.

 

[Radrook]

One compelling reason behind their objections is described by this atheist scientists.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

10 Lewontin, Richard, Review ofThe Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.