(March 7, 2016 at 8:41 pm)AJW333 Wrote:(March 6, 2016 at 12:17 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: so you are declaring that life never came from non-life, and that is begging the question.Not at all. In the beginning God created life from the dust and then imbued all life with the capacity to reproduce after its own kind. This became the rule, or the law of how life was continued from that point on. There really is no conflict.
Tell me, if you believe in abiogenesis without there being any scientific proof of it, how is that not faith?
Perhaps someone should contact the accreditation folks and tell them that a university let one of theirs got away with a degree in science and a failure to understand the difference between tentatively accepting something as "most plausible" and a faith-decree. If you truly can't understand what "I believe this only to the degree it has been proven" means, then you're not a scientist, no matter what your degree says.
Abiogenesis seems to violate none of the principles we understand about the universe, while magical creation from the clay does violate several things we know about the universe. Your version literally requires magic (which you call divine creation, of course, but it's still magic), while ours is an attempt to offer a plausible explanation based on the physics/chemistry laws with which we are currently familiar.
When it is proven, then we will accept it as proven. Right now, it is merely suggested, and we're comfortable with that.
The "reproduce after its own kind" schtick is meaningless, and you would know that if you actually studied biology. In fact, it's a concept with so many grey areas that we have trouble actually defining what constitutes a species, let alone a new species or a divergence among a genetically-reproducing population.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.