Bad News for Creationists: Plausible Abiogenesis Path Found

[_huckelberry]

I remain puzzled about why us theist should see any of this as bad news. So there is a theoretical set of steps from inorganic building blocks to living creatures. Even our little story book says people were made from the dust of the earth.

All living creatures are made up of the same elements that the inorganic world contains. A path from one to the other is absolutely guaranteed.As a theist why would I be bothered by science finding out moe about how that pathway works, or could work?

Now as a theist I believe that God created the inorganic elements so their developement into living beings is the natural expansion of the origal creation. It suggests that the basic order of existence is hormonious with life which to my mind suggeststhat the fundamental order is living. Fundamental order being livng is what the word God refers to.

That arrangement is not absolutely proven however. I can see the possiblity of there being no God. That possiblity though logically there, does not require me to think it true however. I like most believer believe for more personal reasons than the logic of first cause.(even if through the eyes of belief first cause clarifies what the idea of God is)

[_Kevin Graham]

Well, there is time scientists realized the universe had a beginning, thus implying the existence of a creator. But what was more interesting was a conspicuous cloud formation on that day:

[_Ray A]

Well, there is time scientists realized the universe had a beginning, thus implying the existence of a creator. But what was more interesting was a conspicuous cloud formation on that day:

This proves that God is a beer drinker.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I remain puzzled about why us theist should see any of this as bad news. So there is a theoretical set of steps from inorganic building blocks to living creatures. Even our little story book says people were made from the dust of the earth.

All living creatures are made up of the same elements that the inorganic world contains. A path from one to the other is absolutely guaranteed.As a theist why would I be bothered by science finding out moe about how that pathway works, or could work?

Now as a theist I believe that God created the inorganic elements so their developement into living beings is the natural expansion of the origal creation. It suggests that the basic order of existence is hormonious with life which to my mind suggeststhat the fundamental order is living. Fundamental order being livng is what the word God refers to.

That arrangement is not absolutely proven however. I can see the possiblity of there being no God. That possiblity though logically there, does not require me to think it true however. I like most believer believe for more personal reasons than the logic of first cause.(even if through the eyes of belief first cause clarifies what the idea of God is)

Okay, you didn't read the thread.

[_Sethbag]

I remain puzzled about why us theist should see any of this as bad news.

I can see how you would not regard it as bad news. I do not see, however, why you would be puzzled that any other believers would.

It is possible to believe in God for no reason at all, but I would guess it's far more common for people to believe in God for some sort of reason, or set of reasons, or another. The perceived "need" for a God's existence to explain the creation of the universe/the Earth/the species of animals, etc. is traditionally a very strong reason invoked by believer to justify their belief.

Explain these things in the context of naturalistic processes that do not invoke God, and you knock the wind out of this particular line of argument.

There are a great many believers who use this sort of God of the Gaps justification for belief, and for these people, this story is indeed something they ought to regard as bad news.

I have a hard time understanding why you haven't figured this out for yourself yet.

Or were you just writing rhetorically?

[_huckelberry]

Sethbag, I can see you are correct that there are theits who may be bothered. I am inclined to think that this particular bothering is for their good. It should emphasize the importance of working with natural processes to get from here to a better place. We cannot rely on slogans and Gods miracles to get to a better world. We humans need to be doing it. Darwin is Gods prophet correcting bad thinking.

[_Kevin Graham]

I'm not sure you get it Huck. If we ever generalize with the word "atheists" then EA is quck to call us bigots. However, they're free to tear down strawmen and tell us we should be afraid, as all "creationists" are one in the same. Even if we say we aren't worried about this silly "plausibility". We're probably just lying to keep from having to deal with our own fears. You're never going to win with militant atheists.

[_Ray A]

I think I said before I'm not interested in prolonged discussions on theism. I am theist because of personal experiences I've had throughout my life (which will remain private), and I haven't arrived at this position by logic only. If I used logic only, I'd probably be atheist.

I suppose in a way it's like Mormon testimony. I even remember the exact moment, when I was about seven years old or so, when I had this powerful "illumination" that God is real. Tarski has also talked about these "numinous" experiences, and he's atheist, so I'm not claiming anything special nor extraordinary, nor that I'm "right". Don't get me wrong there.

I think (believe) that God is in ALL of us (even Tarski - LOL). And I think that Mormonism with its exclusive "truth claims" is hogwash, but I believe God also "dwells" with them. That's why I'm able to separate "testimony" from God (perhaps they need that path now). I think exclusive religious beliefs actually widen the gap between many people and God. Note that I said "many", not all, and maybe not even most. I think the scriptures are "guides" wherein we can extract the good, and leave off the bad, but I'd never take them literally again.

Arguing for the existence of God is, for me, like arguing with someone to try to prove to them I love my children. I don't have to prove that to anyone. I know this sounds all emotionally based, because it is. And if I'm wrong, I really don't think I've lost anything in life. This belief has helped me through enormous emotional and physical hardships. I also have no objection when Mormons say the same about their religious experiences/beliefs, or any other religious person. It's only when such beliefs/experiences turn to bigotry it's a worry, and I think that's what the Jesus of the scriptures condemned.

I've learned, sometimes the hard way, not to project my "God beliefs" on others, and I regret doing so in a religious context at one time. So I'll stop there, lest anyone think I'm doing that. I'm only making a statement, and have no interest in posting on this any further on this thread. Maybe I'll even regret posting this.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I'm not sure you get it Huck. If we ever generalize with the word "atheists" then EA is quck to call us bigots. However, they're free to tear down strawmen and tell us we should be afraid, as all "creationists" are one in the same. Even if we say we aren't worried about this silly "plausibility". We're probably just lying to keep from having to deal with our own fears. You're never going to win with militant atheists.

Here's the difference between you and EA and me: you equate us with people who had a hand in the murder of millions of people, even though we have done no such thing; we equate you with people who have argued that the lack of a naturalistic explanation for something implies that God exists, which you have done dozens of times. See the difference?

[_JohnStuartMill]

Arguing for the existence of God is, for me, like arguing with someone to try to prove to them I love my children. I don't have to prove that to anyone. I know this sounds all emotionally based, because it is.

Experiencing a feeling that you love your children is good evidence that you love your children, because "love" is a feeling, and experiencing a feeling is all that you need to know that it exists. Experiencing a feeling that God exists, on the other hand, is NOT good evidence that God exists, because experiencing a feeling is not evidence for anything other than the feeling itself.