The more we learn about life, the worse it looks for the theory of abiogenesis. We now know the minimum requirements for life to exist, and scientists haven't got a clue how it could have happened. The only reason people believe in abiogenesis is because they want to. Because the alternative is abhorrent to them. A Creator who they will one day be accountable to. Here is an article that explains it all. And it uses science, not the Bible. https://creation.com/origin-of-life
LOL ... more like the more scientists learn, the worse it looks for creationists. Only a matter of time till science definitively solves the origin of life issue. Meanwhile, creationists are still out in the wilderness twisting in the wind ... as there is ZERO evidence to support their childish fantasy/delusion of a creator god. Just LMAO @ the fools...
Your hate of a Diety has naught to do with the likelihood of an all powerful Diety responsible for life, it is a sad sort of Rebellion, not wanting to be held accountable for ones actions. Ergo, there can be no G-d, because if there is one, I have many sins to account for. Remember in any case, man gets lots of things wrong. And all recorded events will be tainted by the bias of that era, computers would have been thought witchcraft, as well as other bits of technology.
Talk is cheap, especially on the 'net, Doc. Too bad you don't even have a speck of credible evidence to support that opinion. At any rate, I like my chances of being correct in believing that your god is nothing more than a product of the human imagination. After all, the really, REALLY smart dudes (Hawking, Einstein, Sagan, Dawkins, et al) are on my side ... and a lot of dummies are on yours... https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...e-religious-people-generally-less-intelligent Before we understood science, it was natural to believe that God created the universe, but now science offers a more convincing explanation. ... Stephen Hawking
What opinion ? I have given no opinion on the Origin of Life or the Universe, or the existence of a Diety, other than to say You fear the possibility of being held accountable for the loads of Really crappy stuff you have likely done in denial of a Diety that might find you sadly lacking. Science as a basis does not preclude infinitely power being(s) that used powers and sciences beyond our understanding, to "create" everything we see. What others called Magic, We now call Science, primitives often called ordinary Mortal Men, gods.
Argument from personal incredulity dismissed however, your god of the gaps is shrinking by the hour; why do you want to make him look like the Wizard of Oz?
Yes, there are no atheists, just believers in rebellion! Not heard that one much more than a hundred times before. Because we might be perceived as gods by our ancestors does not mean that we are gods. If you have gods, produce them. This apologetics nonsense has become such a cringe worthy joke that I would lower the bar just to help you guys out and just ask that you simply produce some evidence but, even that never appears. You know that reality is what it is, why are you in rebellion about it?
Your words, not mine. I care less if you want to believe the Universe came to exist in the aftermath of two chocolate lorries smashing at a roundabout, your need to kick & scream and whine about it, is really quite telling, especially when you lie and put words falsely on others.
Are you familiar with Pascal's Wager? I used to buy into this crap. You only have one life. Don't throw it away on fairy tales. I had to put a gun to my head before I figured it out. - Mark Twain
Oh yes, and Pascal was wrong. It is a bet between the god of fairy tales [biblical god, or the Hindu God, or the Islamic God...], something that can't be imagined [a god but not a biblical god], as well as there being no God at all. There is no such a thing as "A" god. Which religion do you pick? No two agree. Hell, no two people agree. By Pascal's logic, one should live by the Gospel of Jim Jones. After all, he could have been right! But then by the Gospel of the Four Square Church, you're going to hell. But live like that and the Catholics have you going to hell. It isn't a bet. It is a lottery ticket. At best, one in a million might be right.
What I have found indeed humorous after observing cheeky Terrans for far too long, the adamant behaviour and loquacious attitude, and then stooping to low talk and insults when logic fails to answer. Religion is a product of Man, and henceforth, fallible, all Men transcribe according to Culture and Other factors. Established Science works on known constants and Maths, so any Scientist can build a standard Laboratory and say, separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. You can believe anything you like, just stop have spasms over someone else's belief in what you colloquially refer to as Fairy stories. After all, do you pass your days correcting errant children not your own at play in the street ?
Yes, we need to be minimizing the number of things humans get wrong. imho, the conflict becomes important when it forms a justification for denigrating education and for excluding science from public policy decision making. We're not minimizing the number of things humans get wrong when we fail to support education and when we actively exclude scientific results related to the many questions before us. Our economy is moving toward industries involving high tech, innovation, information, etc. We can not afford to be having elements within our nation assaulting honest scientific progress. Yet, we still have schools that are teaching that science (in the form of evolution, for just one example) is an atheistic affront to the known absolute of religion. That's seriously bad news for America both in industry and in public policy decision making. We do a disservice when we attach science to atheism, too, of course. The idea that science can show that there is no deity, or whatever, is nonsense. And, it encourages people to see science as the thing that is the enemy of their religion. That's more bad news for America.
What a strange comment. I did none of those things. I just suggested that the differences of opinion could be semantics. Calm down.
I am calm. The point is, Logic, we are here now, rather than quibble over how we came to be, why not rather figure out how people might not have to starve ? Or control communicable diseases better and more efficiently. Science is something I rely on, it predicts how electronics apparatus works, especially a radio transceiver, if I build it accordingly, it works based on scientific principles. Evolution has not done so to the best of my knowledge, too many holes and gaps.
The theory of evolution does not predict nor should it be reasonably expected that all gaps will be filled. History is imperfectly preserved. It does predict that gaps will be filled over time, that as we gather new information they will fit the missing pieces of puzzle. Not having a perfectly complete fossil record is NOT evidence against evolution. All the evidence still fits exquisitely into an evolutionary pattern.
Ahhh, I see, you have Faith in your new Religion, Evolution. I believe in solid science, if I connect 2 wires to a light emitting diode, correct polarity, it lights up, some diodes will light up indicating polarity, different color LEDs. Science is not some ambiguous collection of postulation of unproven theories, science and chemistry and biology is all based on solid proven facts and principles. A computer works because of proof and facts. Science is based on experiments and notes and research that can be duplicated in any standard science Laboratory by any Scientist. Evolutionary theory has yet to provide proof, even some evidence of how life Evolves.
You can believe as you like. Nobody can take away your beliefs but you are pretty lonely with the best of your knowledge. If you don't like to quibble about how we came to be, don't do it. Just engage in other subjects. These things are mysterious. You choose a religious explanation, others choose a scientific one. The choice is yours.
But here is the deal. In trying to understand the processes of evolution, and the origin of life, using science, formulating theories, what else is there? What would replace this theory? The belief in a God, as portrayed in the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, or the gods portrayed in Hinduism? Or the gods of many other past religions? And while science is still fairly young, at least science tries to understand this subject, using the scientific method any time that it can. I am afraid all that religion can do is to state what it thinks is a fact without any proof whatsoever. Or rather, evidence as science does not deal in proof like math does. And understand, if not for science we would still be living as stone age people. Religion cannot by its nature solve the problems that science has addressed and solved. What the more reasonable religious people have done is to accept evolution as viable and then just say that this is how God accomplished the mission. Of course that contradicts what the bible says, but only if you see the bible as being completely literal, and must be taken literally. But no one knows with certainty what literary instruments were used in the writing of that bible. IMO, the more intelligent religious people would just believe that God created a universe in such a manner as to insure life would rise, without him directly doing it, micro managing. And that it would also evolve homo sapiens sapiens. That the universe was destined to evolve a self aware being which could behold and think about the wonders of the universe. And even celebrate it. I just do not see how there needs to be such a contention between religion and science. It has become something like one sees in politics with different ideologies. Science could actually help the religious to understand how God worked it out, and that he didn't have to micro manage anything. That would seem more Godly to me, to create a universe which was destined to have life arise and then to evolve into a self aware being which could discover science and use it to understand his universe. All that I can discern directly is this. I do not see a God micro managing anything. I can entertain the idea that he created a universe which was programmed to evolve itself, and also in that evolving universe to see life arise, and evolve, by laws put into place to insure it happened. What is wrong with that, other than it would mean that the bible was not meant to be interpreted literally with with metaphor, with symbolism, with allegory, and even with myths, archetypes etc. Surely if God exists the mind of man came from him, and intelligence is there to be used, as science has used it to make the lives of humanity better. Is that not what a loving God would want, and he gave man the intelligence to accomplish that?
No arguments from me. I Iike to do stuff with electronics and electricity, there are hard facts, and high voltage does not care, I have gotten electric shocks that have killed others, anybody can build a kit radio if they follow the instructions. Many things in science can be duplicated if you follow a formula. I believe in proof, lowering the bar on necessary objective evidence in order to make a theory more palatable is improper and unsound.
No arguments from you regarding evidence for evolution because apparently you can't make any. Evolution has what any good scientific claim has,...evidence, and lots of it. It's supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.
I do not have to know crap, I just do not blindly accept anything because some bloke said it is so. Screw theory, give me facts, and Science has plenty of facts. Evolution is a theory, so My theory is good too. An advanced civilization planted life here on Earth over millions of years...