The embarrassing “science” of the origins of life: The missing piece of evidence that persuaded scientists to believe in abiogenesis

What comes to your mind when you hear or read the word science? To most the word science correlates with fact, proof or  even truth.

In my countless debates over the years with scientist and supporters of the origins of life (OOL) or evolution, I’ve often asked the question what convinced them so strongly about something, like abiogenesis. The answers I often got would be:

“…I believe it,  because I believe in science…”

Is it really science? 

No doubt to many, whether scientists or not, the word science is often paralleled with trustworthiness, credibility, reliability, soundness and even authority and influence.

”If something is dubbed as “science”, you’d better believe!” – many would say.

The word science is often used as a substitute for fact or evidence. If I asked bloggers on The Skeptical Zone why they believe in evolution, the most likely response would be that to them it is science, which to most it would equal fact or evidence.

Now, let’s ponder for a moment what answers  I would get,  if I were to ask the same question about the science of abiogenesis – the science of the origins of life (OOL) by random, natural processes. Would most, if not all who support abiogenesis, say that it is not science? Would any of them say that abiogenesis is junk-science or just pure nonsense?

What is the answer? What should be the answer?

Over the years many scientists I questioned about abiogenesis claimed that it is science. Some would claim that because to them there was no other, alternative explanation for the origins of life. So, whatever it was, something must have convinced them that abiogenesis should be at least considered as science. But when questioned further as to why they think that abiogenesis is science or should be considered science, most would likely offer some common theories as to how life supposed have originated on its own by some unknown, random processes.

They would not present any evidence for it, because, just as I stated in the theme of this post, no such evidence has ever been produced.

One of the popular notions about abiogenesis has been the theory of some under-oceanic thermo-vents “assembling” the lifeless building blocks of life into a self-replicating, living molecule… I’m not sure why thermo-vents would have more creative powers than say… intelligent scientists, like Jack Szostak or Craig Venter, who try to replicate OOL the thermo-vents  supposedly had done it somehow?

But where did the building blocks of life come from? This question still remains virtually unanswered. 

But some may related the famous Urey and Miller experiment as to where the building of life came form or why life could have originated by random processes because Urey and Miller created some amino acids in their lab, which are a few of the building blocks of life. To them this experiment seems to mean that creating few building blocks of life by two scientists who designed and carried out the experiments equals natural, random processes could have done the same,  just without using intelligence, because natural, random process don’t have it…

Also, to them the carrying out the experiment in the lab that led to producing a few of the building blocks of life must be the same as assembling them together with other necessary building blocks of life nobody has shown how to produce in the lab or elsewhere and saying; “…this is how the origins of life must have happened.”

The issue of how lifeless building blocks of life become alive is never mentioned…

To some this claim seems the same as the one where some lab experiments produced  building blocks of a robot – let’s say it was silicon, which could be the main part of the robot’s body – the artificial skin and flesh so to say. By claiming that life could have originated by random processes because few building blocks of life have been produced by the Urey and Miller experiment is the same as claiming that the lab experiment that led to the producing of silicon proves that the robot could have also originated by random processes because one or more of the elements of the robot’s main parts were produced in the lab experiment. This would mean that the robot’s  body, the electrical circuits, mechanical parts, motherboards, specific programming (information) power supply and so on would have to be produced, assembled and integrated by some unknown, random processes that would have to have foreknowledge and creative abilities always associated with  intelligence.

So far no one has proven otherwise…

And not just any intelligence, mind you, because I guarantee you that most intelligent humans would not be able to create even one building  block of the robot, like silicon, unless someone who knows how to produce it taught them first how to do it, or they would have to spend a lot of time, possibly many years, learning how to do…

So, all those who claim that random, natural processes produced even the tiniest building block of life are actually in fact ascribing the amazing, intelligent, creative powers to nature or random, natural processes…

Those who claim that all the building blocks of life somehow came together and became a living matter out of nonliving building blocks of life are substituting the amazing, engineering, creative intelligence and power of a superior to humans intelligence – since no human has been able to replicate abiogenesis supposedly accomplished by natural, random processes.

“Humans have not gotten even close”– as some of the supporters of abiogenesis admit when cornered to provide a valid answer. Of course, humans are not even close to replicating abiogenesis because how could you replicate life if you can’t  even define it or agree on the definition of life?

However,  all this aside, because this is not the main reason for my post.

As you can see the title of my post is:  “The embarrassing “science” of the origins of life: The missing piece of evidence that persuaded scientists to believe in abiogenesis“

What do I mean by this is although abiogenesis – the origins of life by random, natural processes is considered by many (mainly materialists, and those who have no choice but to teach or believe it ) as science, I’m yet to see or hear of one piece of evidence that persuaded those who insist that abiogenesis is science,  or should be considered as science.

I’m not just saying it… I have asked that question many, many times over the years and I’m yet to hear or see one piece of evidence that persuaded those who support abiogenesis as science to provide one piece of evidence that convinced them that it is science or should be considered as science. And I have asked and many others as well that question and never got the answer from many prominent scientists, including:

Richard Dawkins – “…I don’t know how life began, nor has anyone else…”

He is silent about what evidence persuaded him to believe in abiogenesis. He has a backup plan just in case…Panspermia

Jerry Coyne – “…Just because scientists don’t know how life originated (I guess that includes him), it doesn’t mean they will not know in the future…”

He is also silent about what evidence persuaded him to believe in abiogenesis now…

PZ Myers – “…We Now Know For Sure How Life Did Not Begin on Earth…”( guess that means he doesn’t know).

He is also silent about what evidence persuaded him to believe in abiogenesis.

Larry Moran – He doesn’t know. He is also silent about what evidence persuaded him to believe in abiogenesis. He is a fan of metabolism first but is silent on the many chicken-and-egg paradoxes leading to origins of metabolism.

Dan Graur – He is silent about the OOL and what evidence persuaded him to believe in abiogenesis.

John Harshman – He thinks the subject of abiogenesis is boring.

He is also silent about what evidence persuaded him to believe in abiogenesis. I guess he finds it boring too.

Nick Matzke – He seems to be a fan of RNA world.  He doesn’t seem to know how to explain the many chicken-and-egg riddles, such as:

Enzymes are required to produce ATP but ATP is needed to produce enzymes. DNA is required to make enzymes, but enzymes are required to make DNA. Proteins can be made only by a cell, but a cell can be made only with proteins… and so on…

He is also silent about what evidence persuaded him to believe in abiogenesis.

Jeffrey Shallit – Silent about what evidence persuaded him to believe in abiogenesis. I guess he must be working on a computer simulation of abiogenesis being a computer scientist…

Noble Prize winner and considered  OOL world leading expert Jack Szostak, Craig Venter and many more… Both are apparently working on it (replicating life) but have never heard them express themselves as to what evidence persuaded them to believe in abiogenesis…

Others have asked the same or similar questions about the evidence that persuaded scientists and supporters to believe in abiogenesis and got none; not even a promise of one.

How could this be?

Is it even possible that so many prominent scientists and promoters of materialism and the abiogenesis-OOL by random, natural processes would not even have one, tiny, minuscule piece of evidence that persuaded them to believe that life originated on its own?

If it is true, that there is not even one piece of evidence that persuaded scientists to believe in abiogenesis, what did?

If it is true, that there is not even one piece of evidence that persuaded scientists to believe abiogenesis, how could it be science or even considered science?

If it is true, that not even one piece of evidence exists, wouldn’t be embarrassing to those scientists who  claim abiogenesis is science?

Even worst, how could abiogenesis be found in textbooks and taught at schools and universities as science, if there is no shred of evidence for it?

Who approved it and why?

How is it possible that nobody has questioned it before?  And if someone has, what answer or justifications were given for promoting abiogenesis as science?

Who is behind it and most importantly why?

If no evidence exists that abiogenesis has ever happened, how could inscience, ignorance or dumbness be promoted as science in the world of real science? Who would do such a thing and why?

If scientists had at least one piece of such evidence supporting abiogenesis, they wouldn’t be hiding it would they? They wouldn’t be lying to us saying we don’t have it an yet they actually did have it, would they?

It seems that it is actually the opposite; scientists don’t have any evidence for abiogenesis but they promote it as if they did and bully others to accept  it or face consequences…

On the other hand, if scientists supporting abiogenesis don’t have a shred of evidence for abiogenesis why are they claiming that it is science? Why would they do that? They are not trying to deceive us into accepting something that is supposed to be science but it’s actually a lie, would they?

Well, if you think I missed some evidence that exists somewhere or the above mentioned scientists have the evidence for abiogenesis but they are hiding it, please let me know…

I will be glad to correct my views and apologize to any of the scientist mentioned by me or others and my word counts…

However…I’m more than convinced that such evidence doesn’t exist and I’m willing to say that because if such evidence existed, materialists would bore us to death with it…

So, what is going on here? Are we are living in a matrix where someone or something is controlling our sense of reality and we are prone to believing anything that is fed to us as long as the word science is attached to it… Is it possible?

Who would do such a terrible thing and most importantly why? I mean, nobody in the right frame of mind would deceive other human beings without any conceivable reason for it, would he?

Let’s just assume that some have  reasons to deceive others about abiogenesis. What would that reason be? They wouldn’t do it for spite or financial gain, prestige or because their over-inflated egos would suffer if they didn’t?

They wouldn’t be unemployed or teaching and promoting some meaningless nonsense nobody would give a damn about it would they?

If abiogenesis turned out to be a scam, baseless fairy-tale, they wouldn’t be worried about how other theories build on its foundation viewed as facts would fare would they?

How could the world’s minority of the supporters of abiogenesis influence what the large majority of the world is taught in schools about originis of life that the minority has not even one shred of evidence for? Can someone explain that?

If you have at least  one piece of evidence that persuaded you to accept or view abiogenesis as science or know of someone who has or knows about such evidence, this is your time to shine…

J-Mac

 

71 thoughts on “The embarrassing “science” of the origins of life: The missing piece of evidence that persuaded scientists to believe in abiogenesis

  1. That’s quite a mass of unattributed pseudoquotes, real quote mines, random boldface, and gibberish. It doesn’t seem at all suitable if your attempt was to start a conversation. And while abiogenesis may or may not be boring, that post certainly was.

    Your very premise is either confusingly stated or wrong. Abiogenesis is not science. It’s a term used to describe a concept. One could certainly do science to investigate abiogenesis (and science is indeed something one does, rather than a set of terms and concepts), and people have done so. You ought to talk about that rather than make up fictional opponents.

    If you want to claim that life was poofed into existence around 4 billion years ago and allowed to evolve on its own after that, I can’t think of any way to show that you’re wrong, just as I can’t think of any way, at least with current technology, to disprove Russell’s Teapot.

  2. I think we’re inadvertently onto something here. For most of us, science is a term denoting a process of investigation. It’s a method, not a result.

    And for some of us here, “science” is a laundry list of disputable pseudo-conclusions based on “worldview” and confirmation bias. No process involved.

    Science describes the sorts of procedures, reviews, null hypotheses, testing methodologies, etc. by which abiogenesis can potentially be understood or rejected.

    The interesting thing about the religious path to knowledge (repeat what you NEED to be true endlessly) is that those who follow this path can’t conceive of any other. Science MUST follow the same path, but must do so without the divine guidance necessary to NEED what religion knows is true.

  3. J-Mac

    If you have at least one piece of evidence that persuaded you to accept or view abiogenesis as science or know of someone who has or knows about such evidence, this is your time to shine

    I’m more interested in your opinion of the origin of life, and if that opinion is supported by science. If so, I’ll be happy to jump over to that idea. I’m a bit promiscuous like that. You say it, you support it over alternatives, I’ll adopt it.

    But as far as evidence goes, there is evidence that energy inputs into moderately complex chemical mixtures produce systems that are yet more complex, iteratively. A planet sized setup may produce interesting outcomes….

    Obviously, that’s not evidence.

    Who approved it and why?

    And that’s why I’m not providing any evidence. You seem to have entirely misunderstood the world. You’ve taken a system you know, with a strong leader who provides all the answers and applied it to the scientific endeavour. Dawkins is not really the Atheist Pope. But for everybody else, it’s an interesting article: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

  4. PopoHummel:
    Why did it take two weeks for J-Mac’s post to be approved?

    The entire Atheist council had to be summoned to deal with the existential crisis this OP is about to bring about. It took a bit of time to fly them all into the secret volcano base.

  5. However poor the scientific evidence is regarding the origin of life, it’s infinitely more detailed then the scientific evidence for any of the proposed theistic alternatives.

    0:0.000000000000001

    Put as many leading zeros there as you like J-Mac it’s still infinitely more then I’ve heard from you. And over time those zeros just vanish. But as I said, I’m more then happy to believe there was a non-natural non-chemical based origin of life. It’s just that nobody has given me an alternative I can get behind.

  6. PopoHummel: Why did it take two weeks for J-Mac’s post to be approved?

    It didn’t. It took around 1-2 minutes.

    It apparently took two weeks for J-Mac to get around to telling us that he had a post ready for approval.

  7. OMagain:

    But as I said, I’m more then happy to believe there was a non-natural non-chemical based origin of life. It’s just that nobody has given me an alternative I can get behind.

    “Get thee behind me, Satan.” — Jesus

  8. The real point of abiogenesis is that it’s a hypothesis that involves actual chemistry and physics, hence it is a question that can be investigated.

    Magical super-beings, not so much.

    Glen Davidson

  9. Neil Rickert: It didn’t.It took around 1-2 minutes.

    It apparently took two weeks for J-Mac to get around to telling us that he had a post ready for approval.

    So when he says “It has been waiting for approval [by TSZ moderators] for 2 weeks now…” he is mistaken?

  10. John Harshman:
    That’s quite a mass of unattributed pseudoquotes, real quote mines, random boldface, and gibberish. It doesn’t seem at all suitable if your attempt was to start a conversation. And while abiogenesis may or may not be boring, that post certainly was.

    Agreed. This whole opening post is an embarrassment to critics of evolution. It reads as if someone without much background in science discovered a few popular science blogs a few months ago.

    Your very premise is either confusingly stated or wrong. Abiogenesis is not science. It’s a term used to describe a concept. One could certainly do science to investigate abiogenesis (and science is indeed something one does, rather than a set of terms and concepts), and people have done so. You ought to talk about that rather than make up fictional opponents.

    The rather total misunderstanding of both science and abiogenesis is not even the worst problem here.

    If you want to claim that life was poofed into existence around 4 billion years ago and allowed to evolve on its own after that, I can’t think of any way to show that you’re wrong, just as I can’t think of any way, at least with current technology, to disprove Russell’s Teapot.

    That’s the problem with theology: once you allow yourself to posit an omnipotent God, you can get away with saying anything. It’s as tennis without a net.

    For those actually interested in hypotheses about abiogenesis, I remind you of this old post, “Competing Origin of Life Hypotheses, linking to “The Secret of How Life on Earth Began“.

    (As always, ignore the hyperbolic headline — the article is actually a really nice summary of the history of abiogenetic hypotheses, leading to the most plausible candidates we have on hand today.)

  11. PopoHummel: So when he says “It has been waiting for approval [by TSZ moderators] for 2 weeks now…” he is mistaken?

    He may indeed have been waiting. Perhaps he was expecting some divine intervention. But it would have been easy enough for him to post a request in the moderation thread.

  12. PopoHummel: So when he says “It has been waiting for approval [by TSZ moderators] for 2 weeks now…” he is mistaken?

    I’d also advise J-Mac to use the message system to alert an admin that a post needs approval. As this is a moderation issue, I’ll continue there.

  13. OMagain,

    However poor the scientific evidence is regarding the origin of life, it’s infinitely more detailed then the scientific evidence for any of the proposed theistic alternatives.

    How would you support this claim?

  14. colewd:
    OMagain,

    How would you support this claim?

    Probably by citing the abundant scientific literature on the origin of life, and then asking you to cite what, if the claim is false, would be the even more abundant scientific literature on the divine creation of life. Is there any? All I’m aware of, if we are being very charitable in our definition of “scientific literature”, would be attempts to show that natural abiogenesis is unlikely. But that isn’t evidence for creation is it? Surely you aren’t falling for the false dichotomy.

  15. John Harshman,

    Probably by citing the abundant scientific literature on the origin of life, and then asking you to cite what, if the claim is false, would be the even more abundant scientific literature on the divine creation of life. Is there any?

    The evidence for the divine creation of life, as J-Mac has claimed, is in the large chicken and egg problems that we observe in the simplest forms of life.

    Scientific evidence is one type of evidence. There is also historical evidence where the volumes of evidence supports creation over material explanations.

  16. colewd: The evidence for the divine creation of life, as J-Mac has claimed, is in the large chicken and egg problems that we observe in the simplest forms of life.

    That seems more like a God of The Gaps argument rather than scientific evidence

    Scientific evidence is one type of evidence. There is also historical evidence where the volumes of evidence supports creation over material explanations.

    Moved the goalposts, the claim concerned scientific evidence.

    Can you support the claim that volumes of historical evidence supports creationism?

  17. colewd: Scientific evidence is one type of evidence. There is also historical evidence where the volumes of evidence supports creation over material explanations.

    It isn’t clear to me what historical evidence you’re talking about here. Could you elaborate?

  18. colewd: Scientific evidence is one type of evidence.

    And it is in fact the type of evidence we were all talking about until you changed the subject just now. Is that shift an admission that there is no scientific evidence for creation?

  19. newton,

    That seems more like a God of The Gaps argument rather than scientific evidence

    A cell is evidence. The chicken and egg problem is strong evidence of design and design is evidence of creation. I think this then brings the historical evidence into a more positive light. Your comment about moving the goal posts is a fair criticism.

  20. John Harshman,

    And it is in fact the type of evidence we were all talking about until you changed the subject just now. Is that shift an admission that there is no scientific evidence for creation?

    There is scientific evidence that backs up the historical accounts.

  21. John Harshman,

    It isn’t clear to me what historical evidence you’re talking about here. Could you elaborate?

    The old testament new testament and secular historical documents that collaborate these accounts.

  22. colewd:
    newton,

    A cell is evidence.The chicken and egg problem is strong evidence of design and design is evidence of creation.I think this then brings the historical evidence into a more positive light.Your comment about moving the goal posts is a fair criticism.

    Why don’t you actually find evidence for intervention? You know, something known about the designer that is actually found in life. Furthermore, it would be nice if you told us why your designer is too stupid to use the same information across separate lineages, like an actually intelligent person would do.

    Just labeling the cell as designed is sheer nonsense. It would be nice if you ever acted as if you cared about a proper cause-effect investigation, rather than your sloppy, meaningless apologetic claims.

    Glen Davidson

  23. The organization and complexity of living cells is a fact to be explained by a good explanation. It is not itself evidence for or against any specific explanation of that fact.

  24. Glen, to colewd:

    Furthermore, it would be nice if you told us why your designer is too stupid to use the same information across separate lineages, like an actually intelligent person would do.

    Creationists are at least consistent in that regard. A God dim or careless enough to write the Bible would be unlikely to do a good job at design reuse.

  25. Kantian Naturalist,

    The organization and complexity of living cells is a fact to be explained by a good explanation. It is not itself evidence for or against any specific explanation of that fact.

    Can you support this claim?

  26. colewd:
    John Harshman,

    The old testament new testament and secular historical documents that collaborate these accounts.

    The fact that some events described in the Old and New Testaments have been corroborated by non-Christian texts and by archeological finds doesn’t establish that Genesis 1 has the same epistemic status as modern scientific theories.

  27. keiths,

    Creationists are at least consistent in that regard. A God dim or careless enough to write the Bible would be unlikely to do a good job at design reuse.

    Another claim about the world from the frogs in the well.

  28. colewd:
    John Harshman,

    The old testament new testament and secular historical documents that collaborate these accounts.

    Is there some reason you don’t want to say what you mean? What in the old testament, new testament, and secular historical documents provides evidence for creation? Please be specific and try to avoid ambiguous one-liners.

  29. colewd:
    Kantian Naturalist,

    Can you support this claim?

    It’s part of the logic of scientific practice that we distinguish between what needs to be explained and what is doing the explaining. The organization and complexity of cells is what needs to be explained. The question is whether theism or intelligent design can count as good explanations, sufficient to make it reasonable to prefer them to naturalistic explanations, turns on whether the evidence weighs in favor of those explanations. But you can’t take the observations to be explained as evidence in favor of some explanation. That’s just sloppy reasoning, and in fact is a form of begging the question.

  30. colewd,

    Another claim about the world from the frogs in the well.

    So as a fellow frog in the well, you make no claims whatsoever about God, correct?

    He might exist, or he might not. You have no idea, because you’re just a frog in the well.

    He might be good, or he might be evil. Again, you have no idea, because you’re just a frog in the well.

    Was Jesus the Son of God? How would some stupid frog at the bottom of the well know?

    LMAO.

  31. OMagain: But for everybody else, it’s an interesting article: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

    There’s also Chiara Marletto’s constructor theory of life, which is based on a radical rethinking of physics by David Deutsch.

    It’s long amused me that creationists regard it as scientific to say that the origin and/or evolution of life is rendered miraculous by physical law, when the scientific view is that the seeming miraculousness of life may well indicate a deficiency in physical theory.

  32. colewd: A cell is evidence. The chicken and egg problem is strong evidence of design and design is evidence of creation

    Bill still doesn’t know what evidence means, oh well

  33. colewd:
    keiths,

    Another claim about the world from the frogs in the well.

    Ah, but you can croak up a storm about the world outside when it’s “the cell” or the “chicken-and-the-egg problem.” Not evidence, of course, just your sense of how “magical” it all is.

    Croak, frog, while condemning those who actually bother to peer out of the well you’re content to squat in.

    Glen Davidson

  34. keiths,

    He might be good, or he might be evil. Again, you have no idea, because you’re just a frog in the well.

    Was Jesus the Son of God? How would some stupid frog at the bottom of the well know?

    Does the well contain enough evidence to make a judgement about this 🙂 rivet

  35. Kantian Naturalist,

    It’s part of the logic of scientific practice that we distinguish between what needs to be explained and what is doing the explaining. The organization and complexity of cells is what needs to be explained. The question is whether theism or intelligent design can count as good explanations, sufficient to make it reasonable to prefer them to naturalistic explanations, turns on whether the evidence weighs in favor of those explanations. But you can’t take the observations to be explained as evidence in favor of some explanation. That’s just sloppy reasoning, and in fact is a form of begging the question.

    I agree this is the argument. The cell and its organization and complexity needs explaining so it is in itself evidence just as a dead man with a knife in his back is evidence.

    I think design is a rational explanation the weakness from a scientific standpoint is that it is a dead end.

  36. colewd: The cell and its organization and complexity needs explaining so it is in itself evidence just as a dead man with a knife in his back is evidence.

    That’s not at all how science works.

    The rising and setting of the sun is not evidence for or against a geocentric or heliocentric model of the solar system.

    For the exact same reason, the organization of living cells is not evidence for or against design theory or complexity theory.

  37. John Harshman,

    Is there some reason you don’t want to say what you mean? What in the old testament, new testament, and secular historical documents provides evidence for creation? Please be specific and try to avoid ambiguous one-liners.

    Some of the details have been supplied in VJTs posts.

    Here is a source I found that discusses prophecies from the old testament that were fulfilled according to history.

    Luke and Isaiah

    Luke 2:32 Light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6, 49:6)

    Luke 3:4 Voice in wilderness (Isaiah 40:3)

    Luke 4:17 He anointed me to preach (Isaiah 61:1)

    Luke 8:10 Closed eyes and ears (Isaiah 6:9)

    Luke 19:46 A house of prayer (Isaiah 56:7)

    Luke 22:37 Numbered with transgressors (Isaiah 53:12)

    I will search for the source of secular collaboration.

  38. colewd: I agree this is the argument. The cell and its organization and complexity needs explaining so it is in itself evidence just as a dead man with a knife in his back is evidence.

    Yeah, except you don’t have a cause indicated in the first situation, only in the second one.

    So you don’t even analogize well.

    Glen Davidson

  39. Kantian Naturalist,

    The rising and setting of the sun is not evidence for or against a geocentric or heliocentric model of the solar system.

    For the exact same reason, the organization of living cells is not evidence for or against design theory or complexity theory.

    A scientific hypothesis is usually reached by collecting multiple pieces of evidence. A predictably rising and setting sun is evidence of movement of the planets or the sun which is part of both theories. It would support both competing hypothesis until additional information would then, hopefully, narrow it down.

    For the exact same reason, the organization of living cells is not evidence for or against design theory or complexity theory.

    You modified your argument here. Was that intentional?

  40. colewd:
    John Harshman,

    Some of the details have been supplied in VJTs posts.

    Here is a source I found that discusses prophecies from the old testament that were fulfilled according to history.

    Luke and Isaiah

    Luke 2:32 Light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6, 49:6)

    Luke 3:4 Voice in wilderness (Isaiah 40:3)

    Luke 4:17 He anointed me to preach (Isaiah 61:1)

    Luke 8:10 Closed eyes and ears (Isaiah 6:9)

    Luke 19:46 A house of prayer (Isaiah 56:7)

    Luke 22:37 Numbered with transgressors (Isaiah 53:12)

    I will search for the source of secular collaboration.

    You seldom reveal your creationism so clearly. Usually you just pose as a person who became convinced of some kind of nebulous ID based on the scientific data. Is the mask slipping a bit?

  41. John Harshman,

    You seldom reveal your creationism so clearly. Usually you just pose as a person who became convinced of some kind of nebulous ID based on the scientific data. Is the mask slipping a bit?

    I am learning as I go. The more I look into this the stronger the creation argument is looking. Three years ago I thought that there was very little evidence supporting religious faith. I just finished the book A case for Christ by Lee Stovel and I am just reiterating his argument. I would be very interested to see this book debated.

  42. colewd:

    The more I look into this the stronger the creation argument is looking.

    That, sadly, is a direct indication of the caliber of your thought processes.

    You are one extremely gullible dude.

  43. keiths:
    colewd:

    That, sadly, is a direct indication of the caliber of your thought processes.

    You are one extremely gullible dude.

    Actually, I think he’s quite right. Creation is the most powerful explanation of anything that I can think of. Consider: it cannot be disproved, it does not require evidence, or even understanding, no study or research makes any difference, and it “explains” everything imaginable, in full detail. That’s pure power.

    The trick is somehow getting from explanation to understanding. The best approach here is to regard understanding as either irrelevant or to redefine it as what the creation “explanation” provides.

  44. Flint:

    That’s pure power.

    Only if you regard unfalsifiability as a strength rather than as the profound weakness it actually is.

  45. colewd: The more I look into this the stronger the creation argument is looking.

    And yet you’ve never come up with the first piece of credible evidence for creation, just repetition of the false dilemma of either creation or evolution.

    Glen Davidson

  46. Wow. Any shorter and you would have a book here.
    Anyways I jiust want to add that indeed science means to most people PROVEN CONCLUSIONS.
    Thats why in origin issues evolutionists etc hijack the SCIENCE term for their conclusions and so opposition to those conclusions is opposition to sCIENCE.
    Then they march in the streets.
    Actually there are just humanoids figuring things out and getting it wrong and not figuring that out.
    There is no science. Just thoughtful people about things needing thought to figure them out.
    Creationism is just more successfully thoughtful based on presumptions that give a head start to accurate conclusions.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.