Evolutionists: How did life evolve from non-living matter?

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by tracer *
**JThunder wrote:

*Originally posted by hansel *
What those experiments did was map out parts of the road from inert-chemicals to life, showing not just that life could have arisen from the chemical soup, but that there were many plausible ways for it do so.

Actually, it only shows how one of these steps might have arisen.

Um, we’re not just talking about the Urey-Miller experiment here, we’re also talking about the two follow-on experiments of Stanley Fox (which produced proteinoids and lifelike proteinoid microspheres, respectively), and the experiments of other folks which produced coacervates.

Not to mention the experiments with self-catalyzing RNA molecules. **

Even then though, that’s merely demonstrating a few of the possible steps (steps which are still matters of conjecture). This falls far short of demonstrating that “life could have arisen.” There are still too many gaps to even suggest that we’re even close to mapping the path from non-life to life.

[wevets]

*Originally posted by SenorBeef *

What do these people think - that if god used evolution as a tool to shape the world, that genesis would read:

Billions of years ago, I sculpted amino acids into tiny little micro-organisms that you couldn’t see, and over the years, eventually they became man?

I mean, are YOU going to suggest that you tell this to primitive cultures 2000 years ago?

Well, sure, why not?

It’s at least as incomprehensible to them as all this stuff about the Trinity, predestination vs. free will, and so on still are to us!

[glee]

*Originally posted by JThunder *

*Originally posted by glee *

***Originally posted by JThunder *
At any rate, the point remains. Someone can believe that the odds are overwhelming against abiogenesis WITHOUT being a “Christian creationist.” **

That’s not what I said!
I repeat: the only two types of people who ask ‘How did life evolve from non-living matter?’ are Christian creationists and slightly confused students.**

Once again though, I’d have to question that. If other people believe that the odds are against life emerging from randomness (without a Creator, that is), then why wouldn’t they ask the very same question?

Heck, when I was a Catholic, I certainly asked that question. Why wouldn’t others?

Are you reading my posts?

Do you not realise the difference between:

• ‘How did life arise from non-living matter?’
  = a polite enquiry suggesting that abiogenesis doesn’t exist

• ‘How did life evolve from non-living matter?’
  = either a simple mistake (using the wrong term)
  or a loaded question suggesting that one believes literally in the Bible (which means the world is about 5,000 years old) and that evolutionists are pawns of Satan who need to be challenged at every opportunity.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Opus1 *
I know that creationists get very excited at the “failures” of conventional science, because of course in their warped minds that proves creationism. But this type of argumentation is essentially a “god of the gaps” approach, which has fallen on its face many times before. Centuries ago, theists believed that angels moved the planets around, that God controlled the weather and caused natural disasters, that sickness was due to demonic possession, that the universe and all life was created by god, etc. Since then, scientists have found naturalistic causes for the movement of the planets, the weather, natural disasters, sickness, the universe, etc. But creationists now hang their hats on the origin of life as the one thing that scientists still haven’t adequately explained. This is a very dangerous basis for a belief system, because the next scientific discovery could completely undermine it. Of course, creationists avoid such danger by simply “jumping ship” to a new “unexplainable phenomenon” after each subsequent discovery.

I just wanted to repost this paragraph from Opus1 because it makes such a vital point. At any point in time, there are some things that science cannot explain and therefore there is some “room” for God. Over time, however, God is forced into a smaller and smaller space in terms of explaining natural phenomena.

Does it make sense, at any given time, to reserve that space that is still not understood for God? Well, it doesn’t make much sense to me given this track record, but at some level I cannot really argue against it.

Does it make sense to use what scientists don’t understand at any given time to imply that what scientists do understand well is somehow incorrect? No, unless you desire to propagate ignorance.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by glee *
**[- ‘How did life evolve from non-living matter?’
= either a simple mistake (using the wrong term)
or a loaded question suggesting that one believes literally in the Bible (which means the world is about 5,000 years old) and that evolutionists are pawns of Satan who need to be challenged at every opportunity. **

OR a loaded question by someone who does not believe in the literal truth of the Bible (e.g. a Catholic, a Mormon, a Hindu, a Moslem), but who does believe that it’s extremely unlikely for life to have come about from randomness.

You keep insisting that only a Christian creationist would raise that question… yet there are many, MANY other people who believe that the odds are tremendously against abiogenesis. I was one such person.