Biblical skepticism of the Origin of Life

[T.j_Runyon]

@r_speir

Let’s say I give you collection of chemicals that look like proteins. Now I give you two collections. Which one is prebiotic?

ANSWER THE QUESTION. This has nothing to do with biology. So stop bringing it up. One more chance. Or I will conclude you are a clueless hack

[r_speir]

@T.j_Runyon

This has nothing to do with biology.

And you are causing distractions. Your definition of evidence is irrelevant because it no longer matters - you don’t have any anymore.

[T.j_Runyon]

@r_speir

And you are causing distractions. Your definition of evidence is irrelevant because it no longer matters - you don’t have any anymore.

[r_speir]

What is that? Your new ‘evidence’? Tell us how it works.

[Faizal_Ali]

I swear, if someone created a fake account to make creationists look bad, they would write exactly the sort of stuff you do.

[r_speir]

To the contrary. I have evidence online that my comments make a positive difference in creationist thought.

[Faizal_Ali]

Oh, I have no reason to doubt that. Creationist thought (sic) is a breakneck race to the bottom of the barrel.

[T.j_Runyon]

@r_speir

positive difference in creationist thought.

That’s like being the skinniest person at fat camp. Congratulations

You have single handedly made me look at creationists in a negative light

[r_speir]

@T.j_Runyon

That’s like being the skinniest person at fat camp.

Yep I do have to navigate through a lot of fat.

[T.j_Runyon]

@r_speir

Yep I do have to navigate through a lot of fat.

Your snarky comebacks don’t even make sense.

[r_speir]

@T.j_Runyon

Your snarky comebacks don’t even make sense.

Oh, I think they do.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@r_speir

@T.j_Runyon

How do you define evidence?

Right now I define it as a distraction.

Truer words were never before spoken by a creationist.

[T.j_Runyon]

@Rumraket

Truer words were never before spoken by a creationist.

See @r_speir. That is a great comeback.

[r_speir]

@T.j_Runyon

See @r_speir. That is a great comeback.

Not at all. Kinda dumb

[Michael_Okoko]

I just stated that a protein is no longer a protein if it dies.

So inanimate objects can die. Amazing, you need a Nobel Prize for this discovery.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

@thoughtful

Yes, the question is then whether God gave humans the ability to animate non-living ingredients into a living organism, and if they will ever be able to do so in a lab. I would say it’s not likely and would tend to agree with @r_speir that it’s dabbling in the occult.

“Dabbling in the occult”? Seriously? The word occult refers to dependence upon magical, mystical, and/or supernatural practices. What is your evidence that leads you to imply that any scientist involved in OOL research investigating the synthesizing of life in the lab employs occult practices?

It is interesting that you are the one who is emphasizing the supernatural and yet you charge OOL scientists with “dabbling in the occult.”

During the Middle Ages those who engaged in scientific research had to be alert to those who would accuse them of occultism. People who were ignorant of science would angrily assume that anything they didn’t understand (such as bursts of sparks and flames from a chemical reaction) must surely indicate that demonic forces were involved. This became such a problem that university faculty in some jurisdictions were exempted from local law and the enforcement zeal of vehement constables. (All it took was some suspicious citizens accusing Professor Egbert of occult dabblings, and the local bailiff would arrest and jail the suspected “wizard”!)

Do you wish to rethink and amend your accusation?

I’m fine with anybody who simply thinks that synthesis of life in the lab is unlikely. But accusing scientists of dabbling in the occult is another matter entirely.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Faizal_Ali

God’s a living thing? Like with metabolism, reproduction, and all that?

Maybe you need to review the tenets of your religion. I’m pretty sure that’s not what they say…

Jesus was human, yes.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@AllenWitmerMiller

“Dabbling in the occult”? Seriously? The word occult refers to dependence upon magic, mystical, and/or supernatural practices. What is your evidence that leads you to imply that any scientist involved in OOL research investigating the synthesizing of life in the lab employs occult practices?

Read what I said carefully.

@thoughtful

, the question is then whether God gave humans the ability to animate non-living ingredients into a living organism

@thoughtful

it’s dabbling in the occult.

Are they employing occult practices now? No. Does it reek of the deceptions of the powers of this world? Yes.

[T_aquaticus]

@thoughtful

What evidence were you looking for that you didn’t find?

Evidence for the resurrection and the existence of God. What I found is that people believe through faith, not evidence.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@T_aquaticus

Evidence for the resurrection and the existence of God. What I found is that people believe through faith, not evidence.

It’s both. I believe you logically can deduce that God must be like the God of the Bible - we’ve already gone through Euthyphro here, etc. I believe also that the resurrection is the best explanation of the historical evidence and there’s a ton of books on that. But I’ve learned already it’s futile to convince someone that isn’t interested in examining or reexamining it. Believing does take faith. You do have to want to know God and want to submit to Him. But it’s worth it.