I am not trying to argue this. I am simply calling out an unsupported assertion.
If you will do me a favor and call out these unsupported assertions I will have no need to respond in the future. If you think we should just ignore these posts please send me a private message with your reasons.
Do us all a favor Bill and quit dishonestly hand-waving away all the scientific evidence you donât like as âunsupported assertionsâ. Like just yesterday you were complaining no one knows how some species lose their legs. I provided the scientific research on the mutations which stopped the expression of Tbx4 genes in cetaceans, genes which control hind limb development. You didnât even bother to look at the paper and hand waved it away as just âspeculationâ. 
I canât speak for anyone else but I got sick of your intellectual dishonesty long ago Bill. Thatâs why I call you out on it every time.
You canât ignore ATHEIST bombast? They are irrelevant to us.
This. 1000-fold.
This lack of faith also appears to produce a license for fabrication from them.
Itâs incredibly hypocritical that defending a religion that is pretty vague about the OOL justifies blatantly violating a commandment that is perfectly clear.
I think I used to be in that place. Early on as I was studying chemistry I avoided looking at OOL as I didnât want to âgo thereâ. What if science did show that was abiogenesis was possible? Doesnât that mean everything is wrong and Christianity is untrue? Doesnât science have to ultimately prove Godâs existence?
Somewhere along the line (grad school probably) two things started changing:
So, these days I think evolution and OOL are fascinating. Especially with OOL there is so much we donât know, it will be interesting to see what ultimately comes of it. My faith isnât dependent on the outcome, Jesus is bigger than all of it.
I was referring to this segment of the claims in the Berkeley article. Let me quote it again. It seems to refer to a process where the molecules become better replicators. How is that possible without a lot of fine-tuning?
Itâs there above with my detailed comments. Will link to the comments-
I have also linked to an article by Indiana.edu which says the same things when it comes to the science but ends up being much more honest. Just compare the two articles and you will see what I am talking about.
I guess itâs assumed because the initial conditions were simple and the end result is complex. So there âmustâ be some way this happened naturally.
The Indiana article is quite candid about there approach. They refer to theories of life arriving via meteor and point out and make the following comments.
Since these proposals of an external origin were made, however, we have accumulated sufficient knowledge to seriously entertain the notion that life on Earth also originated on Earth. If life arose spontaneously by natural processesâa necessary assumption if we wish to remain within the realm of scienceâchemical considerations suggest that once chemical synthesis started living structures should have arisen fairly quickly.
Its good when scientists lay out their reasoning and assumptions along with all the ifs and buts⌠itâs not difficult to do like @Jordan seems to think it is.
You may have confused U. California / Berkeley with Baylor U. Not a big deal but a bit confusing.
Ya seems I did. I will edit it.
I donât know who you are talking about. My worries are not about personal faith.
My worries are that scientists end up miscommunicating whatâs going on and laypeople walk away with a wrong impression.
This is mainly due to a deep commitment to positivism, naturalism etc by scientists imo.
I did say we can get better at it 
That is something Iâm personally invested in. I spend much of my time figuring out how to communicate science better and more accurately. I will also point out that most scientists just donât think about philosophy that much or consider these types of âassumptionsâ. They mostly are just getting on with the business of science. It would be similar to asking every patent lawyer to spell out their legal philosophy with every application.
That said, if people really want to make a dent in the problem, encourage kids to go into the sciences with an open mind, an attitude of humility, and desire to learn. Encourage them to write the next, better website, after theyâve spent the time to learn the science through and through.
This is not excuse. If our ignorance impacts our communication, we should learn. (This is true even for lawyers).
Did you read the Indiana article? Do you see how honest disclaimers can cut out unnecessary philosophical impressions from the piece and keep the focus on actual science?
Itâs a serious issue if people see science as consistently supporting a particular philosophical/metaphysical and ultimately theological position. It will recieve political, social and cultural pushback.
I am personally not convinced the kind of assertiveness and incomplete info in articles like the one from Berkeley are just because of ignorance. Itâs more of a Zeitgeist ingrained into their psyche imo. A little more self awareness never hurts anyone.
When was the Indiana textbook written? Many science texts are 5-10 years behind the most current research.
The actual scientific content in both articles are more or less the same.
Only difference being the Indiana one is more honest and hence more convincing when it comes to the science part.
Read it.
I did. It looks like your Indiana page isnât from a science textbook but are just course notes written by the instructor for the freshman Geology G105 course. I wouldnât expect him to have an accurate understanding of OOL research. It also looks like those notes are at least 10 years old.
ETA: After some searching the notes are from Feb. 2002, over 17 years ago.
Th scientific part of both articles are the same. Both point to the RNA world hypothesis as the cutting edge of OOL research.
Both point to Nucliec acids as the first bio molecules.
The only difference.is that the Berkeley article also makes a lot of assertions based on naturalism and claims very high certainty.
No theyâre not. The Indiana class notes are 17 years old. A heck of a lot of scientific knowledge on OOL scenarios has been gained since that Indiana page was written by a geology professor.
The content is the same in both articles.
Can you tell what is wrong with the science mentioned in the Indiana article? Is anything factually wrong?
Itâs a different issue whether OOL research has progressed further since 2002.
Itâs 17 years out of date. Why do you think it is a true representation of the state of OOL now?
How does that matter?
I am comparing two articles that say the same things and pointing out how disclaimers can add tot he honesty while blind assertions made based on naturalism take away from the honesty of the report.
If you have actual substantial points to make about how specific recent OOL research changes the picture. Pls share.
I am not debating against OOL here.