Abiogenesis is the Scientific God

Status
Not open for further replies.

IceAgeCivilizations

Banned
Banned
Darwinists say that their dogma does not include how life supposedly came from non-life, billions of years ago, "plenty of time," which enables them to hide from the God question, what a surprise, it's the ol' shell game.

So the Darwinists tell us it's abiogenesis, saying "it's out of our perview, so move along," how conveeeeenient, but abiogenesis has no basis in scientific reality, they've made a few amino acids, but that is hardly life, they haven't even come close, so "abiogenesis" is the Darwinists' code word for the Scientific God, a way to avoid the historical God of the Bible, such desperation.

So why is the Scientific God more believable than the God of the Bible, who was worshipped in China 4,000 years ago as Shang Ti?
 
Science searches for naturalistic causes, not supernatural ones.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did you ever think that God knew naturalistic causes originating in the Big Bang would lead to life? It's possible.
 
I agree with you on this IAC,

Neo-Darwinists usually say that abiogenesis, panspermia, and anything about the origin of life has absolutely nothing to do with evolution per say. This is ofcourse only partially true, although it doesn't have anything to do with a change in species over time (evolution) it does have a lot to do with how we got here, since it is about the origins of life itself.

The simplest forms of life, like bacteria all have DNA, and complex molecular machines within them. DNA is the most condensed form of information in the known universe, the molecular machines within cells read this genetic information, interpret this information, translate this information, and carry out instructions based upon this complex genetic information. There are also many other molecular machines within cells with certain tasks. It is now found that you can reprogram bacteria in a similar way that you would reprogram a software program. During the times of Darwin, this was not known. Darwin and others thought of the simplest forms of life as nothing more than simple chemical reactions with no real order, design, or DNA.

Its been more than 50 years (since 1953) and there is no known undirected naturalistic cause for this overly complex seemingly designed system in the simplest forms of life. The only logical conclusions are that either the naturalistic cause is unknown, or that there is some intelligent cause. Just in the sameway you would conclude that Stonehenge or the Great Pyramids were not the products of an undirected naturalistic cause, but an intelligent cause, in the sameway you conclude that these molecular machines, genetic information, etc...are the results of an intelligent cause. Saying that these molecular machines just happened to form by chance (abiogenesis) is foolish, and there is no evidence to support this notion at all.

So basically to explain the origins of life, atheists and others just go with the "nature-did-it" explanation..."some how some way, by some unknown means nature just did it, and there is absolutely no chance that there was some intelligent cause for something with innumerable design features of which have no naturalistic explanation"
 
Last edited:
Yes, those pesky design features.

And if Darwinism is true, all life forms should be just a huge amalgam of "transitional forms," afterall, "everything is evolving ala Darwin all the time," so there should be no distinct kinds of animals, just a long line of "transitional forms."
 
Vitalone,

Saying that these molecular machines just happened to form by chance (abiogenesis) is foolish, and there is no evidence to support this notion at all.
Do you have any evidence or precedent for anything that was created outside of an evolutionary process to justify your speculation?

In other words I challenge you to demonstrate that anything has ever been created by an inteligence and not by an evolutionary process.
 
Last edited:
Vitalone,

Do you have any evidence or precedent for anything that was created outside of an evolutionary process to justify your speculation?
What do you mean? What type of evidence would indicate that something was created outside of an evolutionary process? I know nothing would, therefore you are using the typical atheist's logic, ask for evidence you know is impossible gather, then use it in your favor.
 
Since there is no evidence for abiogenesis, why teach it as the only possibility for the origin of life?

It's like saying "we don't know that it happened this way, but it happened this way."
 
Last edited:
Yes, those pesky design features.

And if Darwinism is true, all life forms should be just a huge amalgam of "transitional forms," afterall, "everything is evolving ala Darwin all the time," so there should be no distinct kinds of animals, just a long line of "transitional forms."

That is true. Every single life form is a unique prototype.
 
Species is a meaningless term, that's what you said.

Is there an alternative hypothesis for the origin of life? Are you willing to subject this hypothesis to the same kind of testing?
 
Last edited:
Vitalone,

What do you mean? What type of evidence would indicate that something was created outside of an evolutionary process? I know nothing would, therefore you are using the typical atheist's logic, ask for evidence you know is impossible gather, then use it in your favor.
The gist of your argument is that complexity requires a designer. This is your claim - so what is your evidence? I'm not twisting anything around.
 
Vitalone,

The gist of your argument is that complexity requires a designer. This is your claim - so what is your evidence? I'm not twisting anything around.

The evidence is all the design features in cells that cannot be explained by an undirected naturalistic cause. When you have information like this its always traced back to an intelligent cause. This is the evidence. Just like how it is not logical to explain the Great Pyramids or Stonehenge as the products of an undirected naturalistic cause, it is only logical to explain them as the results of an intelligent cause (a designer or some intelligent cause). Science cannot determine who or what this intelligent cause is and it is thus fully open to interpretation.
 
Iceage,

Since there is no evidence for abiogenesis, why teach it as the only possibility for the origin of life.
It's a hypothesis, do you have anything better?

It's like saying "we don't know that it happened this way, but it happened this way."
Except that science doesn't say anything like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top