Why does science always upstage God?

[Mister Agenda]

Are you saying that because it hasn't been demonstrated, it's unreasonable to think that it happened?

Think is too vague there. If you mean speculate, sure, knock yourself out.

Proof that you can't die from irony....or is it hypocrisy, or a combination...I was not an English major.

[Abaddon_ire]

There are dozens of starting points. None of them are particularly good until they lead to an ending point. We don't have any ending points.

That's an utterly pathetic attitude towards science.  Thank you, however, for letting me know that it's a waste of time sourcing documents for you.

It is. The simple fact is that we have multiple explanations for abiogenesis. And all may have occurred at various times bar the one of which we are aware. We are simply the result of the one which succeeded. There could have been many and likely were.

Why the god botherers think this is a killer argument is beyond me. They cannot know how many times abiogenesis occurred no more than anyone else, yet somehow, they claim to know that it happened precisely once only.

Putting the "fun" into "fundie", it takes some Hubris to make such a claim.

[John V]

It is. The simple fact is that we have multiple explanations for abiogenesis.

And the simple conclusion from that simple fact is that none of them have been shown to be correct.

[Abaddon_ire]

It is. The simple fact is that we have multiple explanations for abiogenesis.

And the simple conclusion from that simple fact is that none of them have been shown to be correct.

None of them have claimed to be correct, just plausible routes. Except one.

The only one with a claim to be correct is religion.

Why is that?

[John V]

None of them have claimed to be correct, just plausible routes.

Neither have they been shown to be plausible routes.

[The Grand Nudger]

Really?  The fact that life currently -is- a series of chemical reactions doesn't strongly suggest to you that the explanation of life's origin lies in an explanation of those chemical reactions?  

Regardless, mind you, of whether "goddidit" or they fell like tumblers in a biological lock?

I van;t help but ask what you think is being discussed here, and wonder whether or not you realize that the only alternative to abiogenesis on a fundamental level is the magical arrangement of every single molecule in living creature with no attendant identifiable physical process associated by a similarly magical and not in any way natural "creature" or result of any natural process. All other explanations, including "goddidits" not covered in that needlingly specific example....are examples of some form of abiogenesis.

If god used a natural process, any natural process, then this is an example of a natural process by which life can arise from non-life. If he used his magi to place the ingredients in contact with each other, it is the attendent process and not his fiddling around which explains life. If he fiddled around with the wrong ingredients the same reaction would not occur. It doesn't stop being what it is just because you think a god pulled a lever or pushed a button. There is a fact that, on this planet, life arose from a place in which there was and could not previously be any such life. There are hypothesis as to -what- that process might be, but no rational or factual disagreement on just what it is we're trying to explain.

The chemical route is the only known plausible route for the emergence of life because it is, currently, the only known way from which life still arises. Life -is- chemistry, as another poster so succinctly put it. Gods, otoh, are fairy stories we scare and/or amuse our children with.

[Abaddon_ire]

None of them have claimed to be correct, just plausible routes.

Neither have they been shown to be plausible routes.

One fail for you. 

You could have acknowledged that there are many routes and proposed your own, but no. To you, there is only your fairy tale. SAD.

[The Grand Nudger]

It shows a complete lack of respect and curiosity for both god and science.  You'd think that christians would be elated to know -how- their god did it.  They aren't. The prospect of any explanation and the possibility that the how just -might- conflict with their divine attribution of the who in the case of the shared what...... is clearly perceived as an existential threat to their beliefs.

[John V]

One fail for you. 

Prove me wrong.

So far we've seen that scientists can synthesize amino acids. That's it.

---

Proof that you can't die from irony....or is it hypocrisy, or a combination...I was not an English major.

Have you considered the title of the thread?

[The Grand Nudger]

So far we've seen that scientists can synthesize amino acids. That's it.

-and "god" can....what?  Find lost wallets?  Impressionist skyscraper soap art? Thanks, but I think I'm in with the chemists and biologists on this question of the origin of life....just like any religious chemist or biologist is.