Bad News for Creationists: Plausible Abiogenesis Path Found

[_Calculus Crusader]

This points to something like a "God is Logic" or a "God is Mathematics" idea.
Is this good enough as a notion of God?

God has some properties in common with abstract objects but is not one Himself.

(You say God just is? Well, why not "The wonderful universe just is"???)

The universe is contingent, professor; that's the difference.

[_Kevin Graham]

For the lurker, while I'm skeptical that Kevin isn't just screwing with us here, there are fundamentalist Christians who make this argument. Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton come to mind. I mentioned them earlier in this thread in the context of being important creationist leaders.)

I guess you've decided to give into your fallacious tendencies, eh?

I've argued this point on many occasions, based on my non-creationist readings, along with a rudimentary grasp of the history of science; not because of any "creationist" arguments from anyone you just mentioned. It is hard to imagine how this would prove a "creationist" point in the first place.

Several authors come to mind off the top of my head. Robert Spencer, Thomas E. Woods and Dinesh D'Souza. None of whom have anything to do with creatonism.

You know you should really try reading books instead of playing connect the dots from internet commentary.

EDIT: Notice again that EA avoids the point by calling it creationism.

See Milkut, SEE??

[_Kevin Graham]

1) Victor Stenger isn't a radical atheist. He's an atheist. The term radical here is nothing more than a pejorative meant to poison the well against him.

2) I almost never reference Stenger and find the assertion that he's a favorite atheist of my as strange as it is baseless. On the subject of cosmological arguments on this very thread I explicitly mentioned my favorite philosopher more than once - Wes Morriston. And, for what it is worth, he is a theist.

I've seen you hyperlink articles written by this guy at least twice.

And anyone who has seen this guy debate in public, as he condescends to the theists in the vicinity and sneers at religion from every angle, would reasonably conclude he is a radical athiest.

Any atheist who invents his own science and tries to pass it off as the norm, for the sole purpose of proving an atheistic point, is radical by any definition.

EDIT: Notice EA cannot explain why Stenger would lie like he did about the universe always existing "according to modern cosmology."

[_Kevin Graham]

For example, if it were truly random, then we'd expect nubs (early formation of wings) to start growing "randomly" from all areas of the animal's body.

Did they?

My God. See Mikwut? See?

My God. See Mikwut? See? EA still can't grasp the basic differences between what I have argued and what he says is a fundamental "creatonist" argument. Maybe it has something to do with his refusal to actually read context. He's the snippet King if there ever was one. I already explained to JSM how my argument dffers from the "what good is half a wing"? argument. EA snags a sentenc e and runs with it.

The two arguments aren't even close, but don't expect EA to see this. He is too busy trying to justify his straw man. At this point, he has too much vested in it, so little surprise there.

[_marg]

Kevin if it was true as you say, that Christianity gave rise to science then science should have begun when Christianity began, but that is not the case. It really wasn't until the 18th century in what is known as the enlightenment age that science began and the scientific method was based upon the non-reliance of explanations for phenomena attributed to the supernatural.

[_EAllusion]

CC - There's no reason to think the universe qua the aggregate of all things must be contingent. If God is necessary, the universe can be just the same. Arguing the the temporal universe is contingent isn't the same as arguing that the universe in the grander sense of all the exists is. You're back to square one attempting to argue that only a personal cause can account for the existence of a temporal universe, which is as unjustified as ever.

JSM -

Natural selection has the capacity to weed out superfluous traits because traits take resources to produce and so its sometimes more efficient to just lose them rather than continuing to pool resources into them to the detriment of other possiblities. Natural selection involves tradeoffs. But the main problem in the argument here is a false dichotomy. Natural selection isn't the only mechanism of evolutionary change here. Neutral drift works just fine. But as far as natural selection resulting in the loss of relatively extraneous traits goes, I think this post can explain a classic example of how this goes well:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07 ... .html#more

[_EAllusion]

My God. See Mikwut? See? EA still can't grasp the basic differences between what I have argued and what he says is a fundamental "creatonist" argument.

You're argument with the slightly different nuance is also a classic creationist argument. It's also extremely ignorant with respect to biology. At least Paley had the advantage of not knowing much about biology due being alive in the 1700's. Knowing Mikwut, pointing it out is enough.

You should've taken the classic Mikwut gambit where he tries to suggest your reasons for belief are closer to what he likes to defend, which is more akin to Plantinga's sensus divinitus and warranted belief arguments.

[_Calculus Crusader]

CC - There's no reason to think the universe qua the aggregate of all things must be contingent.

I'll concede that the contingency of the various elements of the universe does not necessarily imply that the universe as a whole is contingent.

If God is necessary, the universe can be just the same. Arguing the the temporal universe is contingent isn't the same as arguing that the universe in the grander sense of all the exists is. You're back to square one attempting to argue that only a personal cause can account for the existence of a temporal universe, which is as unjustified as ever.

And exactly what is "the universe in the grander sense of all the exists?"

[_EAllusion]

I guess you've decided to give into your fallacious tendencies, eh?

I not sure you are serious here. I think this could be Devil's advocate Kevin speaking again. In any case, I find this argument so ridiculous, at the moment I'm considering it beneath reply. I mentioned Pearcey and Thaxton, because they wrote one of the two most significant works arguing your thesis (and could likely have influenced your sources.) I also mentioned it because I coincidentally already mentioned both in this thread. I'm not trying to argue this is wrong because it comes from dubious sources.

Several authors come to mind off the top of my head. Robert Spencer, Thomas E. Woods and Dinesh D'Souza. None of whom have anything to do with creatonism.

Dinesh D'Souza incorporates design arguments into is apologetic talk circuit, but if I recall he avoids organismic design arguments most notably associated with creationism. I know Thomas E. Woods for his shoddy historical arguments that are popular in the neo-confederate movement. He's part of the "paleolibertarian" crowd you can find at Lew Rockwell that annoys the heck of of libertarians like me. I wasn't aware he was into this argument, but it's not exactly shocking that he is. Smart money is on him being a creationist too, but I don't know. He's not a leader in the creationist movement, though. I'm not familiar with Robert Spencer.

You know you should really try reading books instead of playing connect the dots from internet commentary.

How do you think I recognized the argument so quickly Kevin? Do you think it might've been from reading books?

EDIT: Notice again that EA avoids the point by calling it creationism.

[/quote]
I didn't engage your argument. I laughed at it. To quote myself, "Ahahaha!" And when you suggested earlier that this was my MO, I did you a favor where I posted a thread where I spent thousands of words dismantling your arguments pretty thoroughly. So, no.

[_EAllusion]

And exactly what is "the universe in the grander sense of all the exists?"

The universe qua the aggregate of all things. Sometimes we need to distinguish between the temporal, physical universe - the post Big Bang universe if you will - and what else might exist such as metaphysical rules governing it, other universes, Loki, or whatever. Arguing that physical universe we know is contingent isn't to say there aren't modally necessary metaphysical rules leading to it. Once we go back to this point, we're back to square one of establishing a reason why a cause of the temporal universe must be personal in nature. If there's no reason to think this, there's no reason to conclude the existence of a grand personal cause from the fact of our universe.