Hello CID,
I feel I need to clarify a few things here. Firstly, evolution does not hinge on the theory of abiogenesis. Evolution describes what happened to life after it had begun. There is much less evidence for abiogenesis, but there is still a good deal -- enough to make it an acceptable idea.
If abiogenesis weren't crucial, evolutionists would have no objection to ID. They do. It is. Although others are free behave as if this weren't so, I lack the motivation to do so myself.
One can break things down for purposes of discussion, and it's practiaclly a necessity in many circumstances. One can discuss "Natural Selection" as an element of evolutionism, and there isn't frequently any ruckus. I believe the desire to maintain good relations with "theological evolutionists" coupled with the overall weakness of the concept of abiogenesis provide sufficient motive for evolutionists to treat it as an external component of evolutionism.
Have you read RAZD's posts here? He said above,
it has always been a question of chemicals coming together and mixing - something rocks are incapable of but which soups do nicely.
We have also found that amino acids - those molecules that all proteins and other elements of life are made from - occur in space and frequently are carried to earth. That means we are really starting with chicken soup (complete with noodles).
The other end of the abiogenesis question is when you get a replicating system, one subject to copy error and selection, and thus evolution for better, improved and more stable replication systems. These do not need to be cellular life.
And we know of several replicating molecules.
Now you can either update you knowledge of reality or you can update your denial of reality, but just remember that denial of evidence is not faith.
This is not akin to spontaneous generation, which is a past idea -- now universally discredited -- that organisms appear out of nowhere. You will not find any serious scientists who claim this to be the case.
So the first step is for the rock to evolve into 'soup'? I think you all should jump for joy to see something that can be verified included in the story.
I also note that you misdefine spontaneous generation. A correct definition would show that it's the same thing as the a-word. Life from non-life = life from non-life. New proposed mechanisms don't make it something different. Anyone can imagine any mechanism they like and all will be equally wrong.
Redefining the term "life" doesn't change things either. This is just a very obvious trick to sell bogus claims.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />Tack on the big bang (cosmic evolution) to the front of abiogenesis and your get your version of spontaneous generation anyhow. Just thought that was funny...
You said:
The best scientific knowledge available indicates that life doesn't come from non-life. There's nigh on unanimity on this point.
On the contrary, you will find many people, including the majority of scientists, who take the theory of abiogenesis very seriously. We seem to keep discovering more steps between A and B, A being organic chemicals and B being self-replicating molecules. The gap between both continues to narrow. If you care to keep abreast of the latest news in this area you will discover this yourself.
Perhaps I should have said "indicated". It was a toss-up. I intended to communicate that my statement was true in the past when the first attempts to revive spontaneous generation under the guise of "abiogenesis" were made, and it remains true in the present. You yourself disavow spontaneous generation. In context, I was speaking about the burden of proof. Do you think it's been met?
In light of the context, do the "majority of scientists" agree that the burden of proof has been met? Or do they perhaps choose to believe in abiogenesis due to a lack of godless alternatives? Maybe they see it as a very appealing thing, but they're holding out for more evidence.
You say new steps are being discovered between A and B. I agree. Each "new step" is an obstacle, and B isn't even life. Life's at Z! I hope you can understand that discovering more difficulties getting up to the second floor of a skyscraper does not count the same as making actual progress toward the roof. But wait - that's just what I already said: their discoveries have not been working in their favor.
I'm not saying I personally believe that abiogenesis is the perfect description of how life arose. I find creationism far more implausible however. No one here has so far been able to point me to any actual evidence for it.
I'm sorry if nobody's been able to find evidence you'll see and understand. You know, Newton said his thumb would do, but there are plenty of people who don't get it. And to some, conservation of energy + any matter at all = all the evidence one could ask for a creator. But others just don't understand this.
BTW can I also ask you to refrain from using terms such as "evolutionism," which implies that evolution is a faith or religion. It is a way of describing how the world works. You can be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and still accept evolution as a working model. It boils down to there being truckloads more evidence for evolution than there is for a Biblical creation and a young earth.
I appreciate your polite request, but I must deny it. The doctrines and teachings of evolutionists are properly referred to as "evolutionism". I didn't invent the English language - that's just how it works. There is no better alternative term available. If there were even an equal term, I'd carefully consider your request. Does "communism" imply all communists are religious; does "capitalism" imply all capitalists are? I think not.
On occasions when I have chosen to indicate that evolutionists are operating on faith or delusion, I've been known to use better terms than "evolutionism" to communicate this. I do maintain that faith, often including relatively "blind" faith is an essential component of the teachings and doctrines of evolutionists. Point me to a thread if you'd like to discuss this. I shan't start one as I see you've got your hands full and may not have time. Shoot, postpone the whole thing and send me a PM or email when it's convenient.
On the other side, I'm not the only Christian who does not consider learning the truth and obeying God to be a "religion". It's the best, most reasonable course of action, and has nothing to do with religious systems invented by men.
