Abiogenesis - In natural science, abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

How many times, throughout the history of mankind, have we ever observed life come from non-living matter? ZERO

Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

How many times, throughout the history of mankind, have we ever observed one species evolve into a completely different species? ZERO

Protestant Christianity accepts God by 'faith'. Believers are not delusional about this fact. What is striking, is that people who claim to be Scientific/Naturalistic, who claim they operate without faith, which is impossible for the very fact that axioms exist, claim very irrational conclusions are correct without evidence.

Are people 'religious' about anti-God world views, and this world view has blinded them to the truth of reality?

I answered most of this in other threads, sorry this was the last one I read. I don't know anything about Abiogenesis, so I can't really comment about that. Sorry, but wiki is not a source I can trust.

I really make it sound like you are a believer because axioms exist. Just because they exist, does not make them true. You must know this to be a fact. One of my other posts explains this better. But you need to seriously understand that axioms do not prove anything. If you can't cognitivley understand this, I probably should not have answered many of the prior posts, as nothing I answered will probably mean a thing to you. I hope I did not waste your time.

I am certainly not religious about anti-god views, at least no by my definition of religious. I believe in people taking care of people and superstition should be abandoned as it is not real. I call it eyes wide open, not blind. It's probably just semantics.

To say you do not accept wiki as a source, and then totally ignore my post, does nothing. There are many threads about religion, and this thread is about non religion. I presented something you are not aware of, and you refused to research, but then ended on claiming your eyes are open.

If you do not see that as contradictory, then I can not help you.

Fair enough, you are quite right sir! I will go look at the sources that wiki as listed and read those. I'll be back later to comment after that.

I have read a ton on Abiogenesis now. I must say thank you for exposing it to me. I did happen to know about this, but the name was foreign to me. I enjoyed what I read for sure. When you have answered my question on this thread, I will be prepared to continue this there. here

To answer your anti-god world views, I look at it like this:
Religion and dogmatic law is evil and is anti-god and should be removed from everyday living. A personal faith is fine, as long as it does not harm others. I believe in protecting humans and not letting some religion bully people or control their every move. I think people can have faith in things if that is what they choose, but they should not be told how to have faith, that is for them and them alone. Religion is about control, money, and power. It is not about the people.

Again, this thread is not about religion. In fact, every other thread is about religion BUT this one.

What we have going on here is the sound of one hand clapping.

You wish to point out holes of empirical evidence in a religion. What this thread is for, is exposing holes of empirical evidence in methodological naturalistic thinking/philosophy.

The ideas are irrational at best, and flat out nuts at worst.

First, to present life coming from non-living matter as anything other than a hypothesis is not true science.

Second, presenting one species evolving into a completely different species as anything other than a hypothesis is again, not true science.

Using fallacies like "Time of the Gaps", presenting immeasurable amounts of time as an answer is always at best, a hypothesis.

Presenting a fossil, when you can not empirically prove the fossil reproduced, as a common ancestor to any species, is again, not true science.

So why is "Scientific/Naturalistic" thinkers presenting such irrational ideas? ...and better yet, trying to pass them off as "FACT"?

I all be glad to continue this, but why won't you answer the question posed?

You are an angry person, who refuse to see the world as it is and only wants to live in a fantasy world where your views are the only thing that are real. You refuse to believe in scientific information and pose it as "irrational ideas", that is fine. Keep in mind, believing in things you can't prove is the very definition of "irrational ideas and thinking."

BTW, MAN HAS MADE LIFE FROM NOTHING! HERE IS THE PROOF!!! HERE

So keep telling others that believe you know what you are talking about. I won't take your word for it. Your 100% does not appear to be the same 100% everyone else uses.

Religion-bashing is so much fun, I usually come to the defense of the believers even though my personal jury's still out. Nevertheless, I now feel compelled to spout off a bit about science.

The Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, and other such notions are not, as you note, Studs, anything more than theories. However, according to the most recent thinking of which I am aware, they are theories that most conveniently and embracively explain a lot of the physical phenomena which we can objectively report today. They may not be 100% correct, but they're the best we've got right now.

Occam's Razor seems to apply here ...

First, lets look at the article.
3rd paragraph.
"Created at a cost of $40 million, this experimental one-cell organism, which can reproduce, opens the way to the manipulation of life on a previously unattainable scale"

This is a "synthetic cell". They did not "create life", they took a living cell and altered it's DNA.

Here is another article on the synthetic cell:
http://www.gizmag.com/first-syntheti...created/15165/
1st paragraph.
"transplanted into a recipient cell"

This life is still coming from an already living organism. Life is not coming from non-living matter... and lets also point out this is Intelligent Design, which would destroy Abiogenesis, not support it, anyways.

Now you asked why I did not answer a question, and it is simple, ask that question on "any" of the other threads, which is focused on "religion or God". But here, we investigate the hypothesis that is being passed off as "fact", but is far from being truly anything that would resemble a fact. I know you are used to seeing this issue on a one sided debate, but lets truly see the other side here. Asking me would it change my view on God if life could come from non-living matter is hypothetical. I wish to deal with reality, and that reality is life has never came from nonliving matter.

You have been told a fairy tale that has been passed off as a "scientific fact", and this thread exposes the irrational ideas presented.

bazillion "Nevertheless, I now feel compelled to spout off a bit about science."

Exactly what this thread is about.

"The Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, and other such notions are not, as you note, Studs, anything more than theories."

Hypothesis actually, Theory is too much credibility for ideas based on unobserved phenomenon over immeasurable amounts of time.

This is where Occam's Razor would apply.

Observed Life comes from life 100% of the time.
Life has never been observed to come from non-living matter.

Therefore, a unobserved phenomenon had to occur.

Either life came from non-living matter at one point.
Or a form that posses life produced life on the planet.

Occam's Razor would definitely side with life coming from life here.

Now our next great philosophical hurdle is infinite regression. How did the first life come into existence...


I can go on, but the point is, we do not have empirical evidence to be conclusive, we can only make hypothesis on what we observe and know to be true.

So why is text books filled with Abiogenesis and common ancestor garbage that is passed of to kids as "fact", when it is not sound in any way, shape, or form?