The creator did it.

[Truly Enlightened]

I wanted to add, that your questions make me...I am not sure the proper word here, not confused, but something like that. I know a lot of scientists that are Christian. I do not know any of them to publish their personal views as the cause of the observations they make or to disregard findings because of a personal distaste for them in light of their personal beliefs. Are you under the impression that scientists are only atheists?

I think the word is "conflicted", or just having mutually inconsistent opinions. I mean no disrespect to you as a person. I am only commenting on the validity of your assertions, and the rationality of your assumptions. Even very rational people can have irrational thoughts and beliefs. Our brain is not a rational brain. It is an incomplete irrational brain. It can only gives us its best-guess-interpretation to perceptualize what our true reality really is. Just enough to navigate through it to survive.

I am not claiming that any scientist would let their religious beliefs(or any personal beliefs) cloud their judgement, and cause them to ignore/disregard their own findings, observations and results. That is an assumptive remark that you are claiming. How scientist behave in the lab, has little to do with their religious beliefs. Scientists are hardwired(if you will) to find tangible evidence to support tangible hypotheses. Their results are always subjected to peer review, Institutional oversight, other fellow researchers, and senior project leaders. Competition for research grants, far outweighs personal beliefs. I think that you are creating a paranoid assumption(or straw man), based on the false assumption that ones religious beliefs can adversely effect the outcome of ones scientific research. You must first establish if your claim is valid or not valid, and then ignore all the simple checks and balances in place to prevent that from happening. Compared to the general population, it is true that there are more scientist that do not believe in God. This would be the expected outcome for those trained in the discipline of critical thinking, and objective scientific inquiry. It seems irrelevant to me what any scientist disbelieves in.

Maybe you can give me a relatively recent example(not during the Dark Ages) of where any scientific findings or results were skewed or ignored in any way, because of the researchers religious beliefs? Or, was passed through peer review because of it religious underpinnings?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here, this is for you Subduction Zone and anyone else that is interested...

Many of their peer-reviewed scientific publications are cited among the references below.

References cited:
Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, 1-21 (2004).

Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

a. Douglas D. Axe, “The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds,” Bio-Complexity, Vol. 2010).

b. Douglas D. Axe, “The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(4):1-10.

Michael J. Behe & David W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13:2651-2664 (2004).

Chiu, David K.Y., and Lui, Thomas W.H., “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 4(3):766-775 (September, 2002).

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, Vol. 98: 155-166. (2005).

a. William Dembski, “Intelligent Science and Design,” First Things, Vol. 86:21-27 (October 1998).

b. W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).

a. William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, Vol. 39 (5):1051-1061 (September, 2009).

b. William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Bernoulli’s Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics San Antonio, TX, USA, 2647-2652 (October 2009).

Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).

Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics San Antonio, TX, USA, 3047-3053 (October 2009).

Winston Ewert, George Montanez, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II, “Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle,” Proceedings of the the 42nd Meeting of the Southeastern Symposium on System Theory, IEEE, University of Texas at Tyler, March 7-9, 2010, pp.290-297.

Ann K Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F Fahey, Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010.

Guillermo Gonzalez et al., “Refuges for Life in a Hostile Universe,” Scientific American (October, 2001).

D. Halsmer et al., “The Coherence of an Engineered World,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics , Vol. 4 (1):47-65 (2009).

Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, “Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis, and the origin of irreducible complexity,” in Dynamical Genetics pp. 101-119 (Valerio Parisi, Valeria De Fonzo, and Filippo Aluffi-Pentini eds., 2004).

Casey Luskin, “Human Origins and Intelligent Design,” Progress in Complexity and Design, (Vol 4.1, November, 2005).

Stephen C. Meyer, Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson & Paul Chien, “The Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang,” in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (John A. Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer eds., Michigan State University Press, 2003).

a. Stephen C. Meyer, “The Cambrian Information Explosion,” in Debating Design (edited by Michael Ruse and William Dembski; Cambridge University Press 2004).

b. Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004).

a. A.C. McIntosh, “Information and Entropy — Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems?,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(4):351-385 (2009).

b. A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of Design in Bird Feathers and Avian Respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2): 154-169 (2009).

Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic bacteria,” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature,

Rhodes Greece (M.W. Collins & C.A. Brebbia eds., 2004).

Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells, “Homology in Biology,” in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, (Michigan State University Press, 2003).

Albert D. G. de Roos, “Origins of introns based on the definition of exon modules and their conserved interfaces,” Bioinformatics, Vol. 21(1):2-9 (2005).

Albert D. G. de Roos, “Conserved intron positions in ancient protein modules,” Biology Direct, Vol. 2:7 (2007).

Albert D. G. de Roos, “The Origin of the Eukaryotic Cell Based on Conservation of Existing Interfaces,” Artificial Life, Vol. 12:513-523 (2006).

Josiah D. Seaman and John C. Sanford, “Skittle: A 2-Dimensional Genome Visualization Tool,” BMC Informatics, Vol. 10:451 (2009).

Michael Sherman, “Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution,” Cell Cycle, Vol. 6(15):1873-1877 (August 1, 2007).

Richard Sternberg and James A. Shapiro, “How Repeated Retroelements format genome function,” Cytogenetic and Genome Research, Vol. 110: 108-116 (2005).

Richard v. Sternberg, “On the Roles of Repetitive DNA Elements in the Context of a Unified Genomic- Epigenetic System,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 981: 154-188 (2002).

Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).

J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel, “Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life,” Cell Biology International, Vol. 28: 729-739 (2004).

J. T. Trevors and D. Abel, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3: 211–228 (2006).

Oyvind Albert Voie, “Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent,” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol. 28:1000–1004 (2006).

Jonathan Wells, “Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research” Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (Vol. 3.1.2, November 2004).

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?,” Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, Vol. 98:71-96 (2005).

It is a known lying source. That is why it is not accepted. Anyone can abuse the work of others. But none of the work that they site actually supports I

Do you understand the concept of evidence? To have evidence in the sciences one must first have a falsifiable test. And the test must be reasonable. Tell us what the hypothesis is and how it could be falsified.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I am a Christian. I believe in God. I do not view the Bible as inerrant nor do I consider Genesis to be relating stories that actually occurred. The Bible was written by man and it has flaws, but it does form the basis of my theological views. I tend to view much of it allegorically. Where events, people or places have been verified, I accept that as fact. I am also a scientist. An entomologist. I could not be much of a scientist if I disavowed most of my learning and experience because it made me uncomfortable. Where would the logic and reason be in that. Besides, it is against my beliefs to bear false witness, even if it were delivered to myself. I take a practical approach to my beliefs. I do not use them as scientific evidence. They are not. They are evidence only that I believe. In a scientific discussion, I stick to what is hypothesized, known and demonstrated.

I do not believe any of it. Not as I believe in God. I accept the evidence, knowledge and the theories that explain all this to be the case, though.

I appreciate your choice of words in your sentence about specialization and primitive condition. I almost used parasites and parasitoids to rebut that, because they are not primitive in that sense, but have a reduction in structures over their ancestors. However, you said 'specialized' and that makes the difference. Parasites and parasitoids are very specialized.

As to your last sentence here, I am not sure that I agree with it. Life is an emergent property and we may be greater than the sum of our parts, but I will have to give that some thought.

I did not.

You brought in new material that was not necessary for me to provide in order to answer the question of the OP. Your comment about 'freedom from religion' was not required part of my response to the OP. The statement I provided was sufficient to answer the question asked in the OP. I did properly address it in my response to you. I agreed with you that, in the US at least, it also protects people from religion being forced on them. Not in so many words though. I think I simply stated that I agreed.

As an addition to what I said, they were relevant, but they were not relevant to my answer to the OP as you seem to be saying. I was not non-response to you either and I agreed with your comment. You misunderstood the placement of the relevance I was referring to.

No. I was just paralleling a bit of the Genesis story that illustrates that even God is considered to have made man from non-living matter. So the creationists quibble about abiogenesis is somewhat hypocritical, given they believe the Genesis account literally. You are reading way to much into this and missing much of my words as well.

You are bringing your own bias into this and giving my words way too much credit for things they were not addressing. It would be special pleading if I claimed that Genesis was correct and the origin of life or man was from the actions of God and not from natural processes. I did not do that, so we are all good.

I have never said that I do not want people addressing my comments. If I did not want that, I would not be here at all. But I also cannot stop people from bringing their own bias in and rewriting what I wrote and addressing it as if it was what was written, either. Pointing out that the inclusion of your comments was not relevant to my response to the OP is not trying to divert away from the comments of others. It is clarifying the fact that I did not need to include your additons in my responses to someone else. They needed to be considered in my responses to you and they were.

Since, this is not a thread about my Christian views, I will just say that I believe in God. I do not ask or command anyone else to believe. I do not use it to address or as an answer to what is observed in nature. That should be enough of a reason for you. Unless you can demonstrate that God does not exist. If you can do that, I would be interested in reading that. I am not closed-minded.

No offense, but you are just repeating what I said. Perhaps worded a little differently and then claiming that I did not say what you are saying.

I will repeat. Spontaneous generation was mentioned by the author of the OP. I explained that spontaneous generation was a creationist concept. A belief. I did not go into the details like cheese and mice, but I do not see that I needed to. I explained that it was a view that existing living things popped magically into existence fully formed. I explained that science had shown this was not the case. I correctly identified it as different from abiogenesis as it is hypothesized today. I do not recall if I mentioned precursors or just chemistry, but either would be sufficient. I did not have time or room to write a detailed dissertation on the subject.

Thank you. I am not doing it for appeal. Claiming something I believe, but cannot demonstrate, is evidence for a natural phenomenon is ridiculous. I am not going to do something ridiculous.

I have no burden of proof. I am not making a religious claim. I am saying that I am a Christian and I believe in God. My word on that is my proof. Unless you are claiming that you can show that I am lying about that. Lots of luck with that, but it is the only claim I am making and it can be proven. You'll have to meet me at the church and talk to a lot of old friends to verify that I went to church with them. You'll have to foot the bill. I accept the burden of proof on the claims I made, but not the bill for running the experiment.

I appreciate your posts, but I do want to say that I think you read too much into what I said and ignored a good deal of it as well.

So, in conclusion, I am a Christian and believe in God. My evidence is that I am a Christian and I believe in God. Do you see any problem with that logic? Since you are claiming that you believe in a Son of a God, and a God, you have no burden of proof. But if you claim that you know your beliefs are true, then you DO have a burden of proof.

You admit that,

You believe that the Bible is errant and inconsistent.
You believe that the Bible is not a science or history book, especially its reference to flying insects.
You do not disavow the logic and reasoning of your academic training.
You accept the evidence, explanations, and knowledge derived from science academia
You claim, "Claiming something I believe, but cannot demonstrate, is evidence for a natural phenomenon is ridiculous. I am not going to do something ridiculous". Yet you clam a belief in God.
You believe life is an emergent property towards sentiency, but don't accept that those very properties are emergent.
You do not believe in the Creationist concept of Genesis, or in magic.
You believe in cause and effect, and the consistency of the laws of logic
You criticize the clearly scientific and logical inconsistencies that believers posit.
You don't believe that the Bible is the word of God.

This is not the resume or the characteristic of someone that avoids critical thinking, or the rules of logic. One might also consider you an Atheist, or maybe an Agnostic or a Pantheist? I'm sure how a Christian can not believe in the Bible as the word of God, and still be a Christian.

Your answer was that you did not know if a virus was classified as living or non-living. But that you had learned more since. I simply answered the question for you. You are certainly correct, that I am biased on the side of reason, and tend to read more than is necessary into a post. But unfortunately that is also part of the my human condition. It is how Spontaneous generation was being used by Creationist that was my concern. It is NOT a creationist belief or a creationist concept. it is simply the terms they use to discredit abiogenesis(something from nothing). Their own cognitive dissonance prevents them from seeing how that affects their own beliefs. I usually respond to the person, not the thread, but ok.

I also appreciate your posts. They are refreshingly different.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Tell us more about those ribs.

They are dry rubbed with secret ingredients overnight. They are brown sugar, bourbon, and pineapple based. And they have supported me though most of my academic career.

 

[Polymath257]

Start counting up from infinity until you get to -1. I think when you have reached -1 we will all have been long dead an infinite time ago.

PS I should get a like from you and others for this response...really...I should.

But there is no negative infinity. Again, that is the point: There is no start. Tell me which specific negative number to start with and I will show it is only a finite distance to -1.

 

[Polymath257]

What about the many NDE (near death experiences) of police officers, doctors, lawyers, plumbers, school bus drivers, etc, etc. Many of them, after leaving their body see things which later are verified, like seeing a red shoe on the roof of the hospital, relatives in other rooms talking on the phone, etc. experiencing what cannot be explained within the scope of natural means.

First, such OOBE can be artificially induced by getting different regions of the brain out of sync with each other.

Second, that is exactly what we expect in near death situations.

Third, no verifiable account of 'seeing' something that nobody in the room was aware of has ever been established. There are stories, yes. But in all cases, there was someone to clue the 'dead' person into what to say.

 

[Polymath257]

You get an A for humor. But an F for lumping the historical Jesus, the Son of God, with your belief in the spaghetti monster, which is a figment of your (and others) imagination. I did not create Jesus, Peter did not create Jesus, John did not create Jesus, Luke did not create Jesus.

Again, it is quite possible there was a wondering missionary named Jesus around that time. But it was Paul that promoted this person to God status, thereby 'creating' Christ. Prior to the arrival of Paul, the *Jewish* followers of Jesus did NOT think he was divine. Many *Christians* didn't either until later.

 

[Polymath257]

I gave you a like because you are right in regards to salvation. No Christian should expect any new believer to immediately understand or hold to every thing contained in the Word of God to be saved. Jesus saves us from our sin and Gods' wrath, not from our ignorance of origins. But once we mature as Christians we need to take into account how we are to view Gods Word. My avatar is this...


...it is a very dangerous stairway that takes the fist step down from the infallibility of Gods Word.

Well, the only issue is that the stairway should be in the opposite order.

 

[exchemist]

Thank you for that Hockeycowboy, great science site...even if other may show their dislike for the people on that site, they never seem to be able to refute the science that is on that site.

That will most likely be for two reasons: first, it is not science, and second, everyone got bored with debunking these ID charlatans about a decade ago. People like Behe, Axe and Wells, let alone Dumpski (he of the famous farting video) have no credibility at all.

 

[Rapture Era]

If you want to claim that life starting on its own the burden of proof is upon you. Many scientists, and definitely not all atheists, think that it is possible.

Can you support your claim? Odds arguments are usually amazingly easy to refute since they are almost always based upon false premises.

What do you have?

This is what is so hysterical, this whole thread between creation and evolution and the atheists who are basing his (or her) beliefs in science for the origin of life by natural processes, their science is telling them that the origins of life coming about by these natural processes is well, impossible with words like, awkward reality, speculation, effectively unfalsifiable, stupendously improbable, likelihood of virtual zero, may be, could be, serious limitations, problematic, regretfully will never be known, to the ultimate conclusion, we really cannot conclude that this is how life originated! Geeez, when are you guys gonna get a clue? They don’t want to say impossible because it would be a total and complete death blow! So they use the words above which is basically saying it’s impossible! Appears to me that this is enough proof to throw evolution as an origin hypothesis in the trash! But oh no! You guys are gonna keep clawing at the obvious facts that are right in front of your face repeatedly, but you are desperately hoping for a different result! You know what this is call this right?

It is clear you are unable to process truth from truthful information. Why? Look at your responses to the actual hopelessness of abiogenesis, the only pathway to evolution! You ignore and make excuses for your deliberate ignorance for the truth that life cannot come about from non-life, PERIOD! You give these ridiculous web sites as proof of your argument which is both hilarious and sad at the same time. In all these web sites you produce, the words above come out loud and clear and yet you continue to ignore what honest science is tell you. Are you starting to see how nonsensical your faith in evolution is? It’s unbelievable that so-called intellectuals are so incredibly ill-advised and then tell everyone it’s true! You are demonstrating the ultimate foolishness in the mind of human beings to follow something that is so untrue! The more you talk the more your droning thoughts are expressed with silly answers! Well, boys and girls, you won’t listen to reason, you refuse to acknowledge the undisputable facts of science that Evolution is impossible, and you refuse to concede to this absolute fact! What does this say about you? Your predictable response to this question will conclusively validate who you are. And so it goes . . . . . . . .

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is what is so hysterical, this whole thread between creation and evolution and the atheists who are basing his (or her) beliefs in science for the origin of life by natural processes, their science is telling them that the origins of life coming about by these natural processes is well, impossible with words like, awkward reality, speculation, effectively unfalsifiable, stupendously improbable, likelihood of virtual zero, may be, could be, serious limitations, problematic, regretfully will never be known, to the ultimate conclusion, we really cannot conclude that this is how life originated! Geeez, when are you guys gonna get a clue? They don’t want to say impossible because it would be a total and complete death blow! So they use the words above which is basically saying it’s impossible! Appears to me that this is enough proof to throw evolution as an origin hypothesis in the trash! But oh no! You guys are gonna keep clawing at the obvious facts that are right in front of your face repeatedly, but you are desperately hoping for a different result! You know what this is call this right?

You are projecting your flaws upon others. When scientists, not "atheists" say that life arising through abiogenesis appears to be possible that is due to observation and experiment. It is those on your side that claim it is impossible but never come even close to showing that it is impossible. They base their work upon falsifiable tests so your claim of not being falsifiable is clearly wrong.

If you claim that it is impossible for life to arise through abiogenesis you put the burden of proof upon yourself. Besides obviously false statements about scientists what evidence do you have?

It is clear you are unable to process truth from truthful information. Why? Look at your responses to the actual hopelessness of abiogenesis, the only pathway to evolution! You ignore and make excuses for your deliberate ignorance for the truth that life cannot come about from non-life, PERIOD! You give these ridiculous web sites as proof of your argument which is both hilarious and sad at the same time. In all these web sites you produce, the words above come out loud and clear and yet you continue to ignore what honest science is tell you. Are you starting to see how nonsensical your faith in evolution is? It’s unbelievable that so-called intellectuals are so incredibly ill-advised and then tell everyone it’s true! You are demonstrating the ultimate foolishness in the mind of human beings to follow something that is so untrue! The more you talk the more your droning thoughts are expressed with silly answers! Well, boys and girls, you won’t listen to reason, you refuse to acknowledge the undisputable facts of science that Evolution is impossible, and you refuse to concede to this absolute fact! What does this say about you? Your predictable response to this question will conclusively validate who you are. And so it goes . . . . . . . .

Once again this is projection. You are the one that cannot handle "truthful information". You have not been able to demonstrate how abiogenesis is hopeless at all. Once again what is your evidence against it? No arguments from ignorance, no special pleading allowed. The websites that I use agree with the peer reviewed evidence that they rely on. You have provided no such resources. But then there are no creationist sources that have made it through the process of peer review in a well respected professional journal. It is why creationists had to make up fake peer review.

And evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and you as much as admitted that it had been. You moved the goalposts to abiogenesis. Moving the goalposts is a way of conceding an argument. Also evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. You have been listening to creationist lies. You see if a god magically poofed the first cell into existence once it started reproducing and competing with itself that opened up the process of evolution. For evolution to occur the cause of first life is immaterial.

If you want to discuss evolution let's discuss evolution. If you want to discuss abiogenesis that is fine too, but it is a tacit admission that evolution is a fact.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are 3 explanations to the existence of our universe (there maybe more but they probably fall into these three categories or it is an explanation that cannot be explained or understood).
1. Can something cause itself to come into being?
answer- No, because it would have required itself to exist before it was.
2. Can the universe be eternal?
answer-No, because if the universe had no starting point we could never arrive at the present. Every moment in time can be measured because we have a point at which to start, but if the universe had no starting point then we could never arrive at any point in time because we never started.
3. Was the universe created by a being greater than itself?
Yes-The logic here is that everything that has begun to exist has to have a cause. The universe began to exist, therefor it follows that it was caused by something outside its own existence, i.e.,GOD.

Mmmmmm ... so what caused GOD?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The words that came from the mouth of Jesus prove the existence of God. Why is that? Logic. Jesus claimed to be God, His claim to deity was validated by Him healing the sick, calming the stormy sea, feeding the multitudes with a few fish and loaves, knowing what people were thinking, knowing the future, raising the dead and finally coming back to life after His body was dead for 3 days. These are the proofs of a person is that greater than any other in history. And our dating method is based on His birth.

You really don't get how this evidence thing works. All of these miracles and acts you mention are not evidence. They are CLAIMS. And unverified ones at that.

 

[Rapture Era]

You are projecting your flaws upon others. When scientists, not "atheists" say that life arising through abiogenesis appears to be possible that is due to observation and experiment. It is those on your side that claim it is impossible but never come even close to showing that it is impossible. They base their work upon falsifiable tests so your claim of not being falsifiable is clearly wrong.
If you claim that it is impossible for life to arise through abiogenesis you put the burden of proof upon yourself. Besides obviously false statements about scientists what evidence do you have?
Once again this is projection. You are the one that cannot handle "truthful information". You have not been able to demonstrate how abiogenesis is hopeless at all. Once again what is your evidence against it? No arguments from ignorance, no special pleading allowed. The websites that I use agree with the peer reviewed evidence that they rely on. You have provided no such resources. But then there are no creationist sources that have made it through the process of peer review in a well respected professional journal. It is why creationists had to make up fake peer review.
And evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and you as much as admitted that it had been. You moved the goalposts to abiogenesis. Moving the goalposts is a way of conceding an argument. Also evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. You have been listening to creationist lies. You see if a god magically poofed the first cell into existence once it started reproducing and competing with itself that opened up the process of evolution. For evolution to occur the cause of first life is immaterial.
If you want to discuss evolution let's discuss evolution. If you want to discuss abiogenesis that is fine too, but it is a tacit admission that evolution is a fact.

Hhr,
See what I mean?

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is what is so hysterical, this whole thread between creation and evolution and the atheists who are basing his (or her) beliefs in science for the origin of life by natural processes, their science is telling them that the origins of life coming about by these natural processes is well, impossible with words like, awkward reality, speculation, effectively unfalsifiable, stupendously improbable, likelihood of virtual zero, may be, could be, serious limitations, problematic, regretfully will never be known, to the ultimate conclusion, we really cannot conclude that this is how life originated! Geeez, when are you guys gonna get a clue? They don’t want to say impossible because it would be a total and complete death blow! So they use the words above which is basically saying it’s impossible! Appears to me that this is enough proof to throw evolution as an origin hypothesis in the trash! But oh no! You guys are gonna keep clawing at the obvious facts that are right in front of your face repeatedly, but you are desperately hoping for a different result! You know what this is call this right?

It is clear you are unable to process truth from truthful information. Why? Look at your responses to the actual hopelessness of abiogenesis, the only pathway to evolution! You ignore and make excuses for your deliberate ignorance for the truth that life cannot come about from non-life, PERIOD! You give these ridiculous web sites as proof of your argument which is both hilarious and sad at the same time. In all these web sites you produce, the words above come out loud and clear and yet you continue to ignore what honest science is tell you. Are you starting to see how nonsensical your faith in evolution is? It’s unbelievable that so-called intellectuals are so incredibly ill-advised and then tell everyone it’s true! You are demonstrating the ultimate foolishness in the mind of human beings to follow something that is so untrue! The more you talk the more your droning thoughts are expressed with silly answers! Well, boys and girls, you won’t listen to reason, you refuse to acknowledge the undisputable facts of science that Evolution is impossible, and you refuse to concede to this absolute fact! What does this say about you? Your predictable response to this question will conclusively validate who you are. And so it goes . . . . . . . .

Evolution is a fact. It happens. Sorry if that upsets you. It definitely is not impossible.

 

[We Never Know]

Mmmmmm ... so what caused GOD?

God is unproven. It's a faith based belief. I'm more interested in what caused the singularity and what caused it to heat up to expand. Science leads us to believe time didn't exist prior to the BBT. Without time heat can't exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hhr,
See what I mean?

That you can't support your claims and that you were merely projecting your faults upon others. Yes, that is obvious.

Do you realize how you admitted that evolution is a fact? Moving the goalposts is a way of admitting that you lost.

 

[SkepticThinker]

God is unproven. It's a faith based belief. I'm more interested in what caused the singularity and what caused it to heat up to expand. Science leads us to believe time didn't exist prior to the BBT. Without time heat can't exist.

Yes, I agree.

I was responding to the assertion that, "The logic here is that everything that has begun to exist has to have a cause."

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, I agree.

I was responding to the assertion that, "The logic here is that everything that has begun to exist has to have a cause."

Using the sciences, as far as we can look back, something has always existed. Did it have a cause? We don't know.
If everything needs a cause, you can go with infinty of questions with what caused that.
The question is can anything exist without a cause if something always existed.

 

[He has Risen!]

Using the sciences, as far as we can look back, something has always existed. Did it have a cause? We don't know.
If everything needs a cause, you can go with infinty of questions with what caused that.
The question is can anything exist without a cause if something always existed.

God is the uncaused mover of the universe. To include God along with His creation is to miss the point that is understood by those who believe in a being who is transcendent, eternal and self existing. By nature He is that He is and need not a cause.