Scientist Makes Organic Matter out of Inorganic Matter

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

I grant that the reality of complex organic molecules forming independently of life is not a direct step to the formation of life; but, if you were as charitable as you are with the idea of 'resurrections' and 'walking on water' which are unsubstantiated, you wouldn't see the connection as too far a 'leap of faith'.

Are you saying that given the reality of complex organic molecules forming independently of life, taking this as an indication that life formed via abiogenesis is a "leap of faith", although not too far a leap? If so, I am surprised that you would say so since most of the atheists I have met here seem to argue vehemently that faith has nothing to do with anything in their worldview. If not, I guess I misunderstood.

yeah... i would say that the connection I make between a-biological organic chemistry and abiogenesis may be considered a leap of faith but I wouldn't put it in the same category as miracles esp. events written about in the Bible such as walking on water, the resurrection, and a guy getting gobbled up by a fish.

It seems to me that whether or not resurrections, walking on water, and/or abiogenesis are much of a leap of faith would depend on your starting point. If one starts from the position that God exists and the Bible is the Word of God (as I do), then resurrections and walking on water is not as much a leap of faith as abiogenesis.

there's a big difference between believing events contradictory to physics and medicine happened 2,000 years ago when knowledge and communication was scarce and believing abiogenesis is consistent with complex organic molecules existing abiologically.

On the other hand, if one starts from the position of metaphysical naturalism, positivism, materialism, empiricism, monism, scientism, and a healthy dose of skepticism (as you do), I could see how you could take abiogenesis (or some other naturalistic explanation for the existence of life) as less of a leap of faith then ressurections or walking on water.

All the philosophies or methods I adhere to are productive, being of great value to our technological advance. The only priori I abide by is one should not believe in something for which there is insufficient or no evidence: I do not rule out the supernatural by a priori that the supernatural simply cannot exist rather I rule out the supernatural by lack of evidence (i am the flying skeptic). What's your priori? "God did it" I'm glad there are some people that don't limit themselves by "God did it" and continue to investigate possibilities that are relevant to facts (science). You believe that the Bible is the word of God? Why? What evidence do you have that a deity is responsible for the Bible? Actually, the Bible is inerrant and even contradictory: hardly the work of an all-loving, omnipotent deity. You'd think if a deity truly existed that he'd make sure the book that represents it was at least not contradictory.