http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin...

We know that bacteria existed 3.5 billion years ago. The conditions on Earth then were somehow conducive to the formation of organic molecules. Scientists have created organic molecules in the lab from simple gases and sparks. Cell membranes have been created in the lab from amino acids.

Why? Because for many, "science" merely encapsulates fallen man's dream of total autonomy from God. By writing God out of the picture, humanists create a job opening at the top. This they hope to fill themselves, acting through their creature, the secular state.

In the absence of physical evidence, eyewitness testimony is all the investigator has to build a case. Biblical accounts have been supported or rejected by physical evidence. For example, stories of the flood and the exodus haven't been supported by the evidence.

Although there was a flood into the Black Sea a few thousand years before the Bible account, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood.

The exodus story is false on a number of points. The Egyptians who recorded everything have no record of this event. Also the Egyptians didn't have slaves. If the Israelites ever came to Egypt, they would have been rewarded with abundant work, good food, and the best medical care the ancient world had to offer.

On the plus side, the towns of Jerico and Sodom have been excavated and show signs of destruction. There are many stories in the Bible which are supported at least in part by the evidence.

No. You are free to assume as you please. I've "railed" at you because you expect *scientists* to accept your assumption about the Creation as recorded in the Bible -- or more specifically, your *interpretation* of the Bible, which you equate with the Bible.

<I see. Assume in a miracle, and then work backwards to it. I lack the scientific mind to understand that brilliance. And you have a problem with my assumption of how it all started? >

No again. I wish I had a nickel for each time you've misrepresented the position of scientists.

Science does not assume a miracle, it assumes only that there must be some *natural* explanation for it. YOU are the one who has a problem with this assumption by science.

And I don't think you lack the ability to understand any of this. You only lack the will.

<If you seriously believe life can come from nonlife, I think I have been wasting my time.>

Well, maybe that's a good thing, because *scientists* seriously believe life came from nonlife. Perhaps this discussion would be worthwhile if you at last realized that your battle with scientists has been a waste of time.

From the viewpoint of science, there is no difference between a miracle and natural phenomenon that is not yet understood. Well, maybe one difference: When you call it a "miracle", it means you've given up trying to understand it. You have given up, scientists have not. This makes you angry.

This again raises the question of why this bothers you so. I notice that you didn't comment on that question, so I'll ask it again:

<Why should they resign? Scientists have made moves before that produced understanding that once seemed impossible. In some of those cases, they were pestered by other religionists (like you) who wanted them to resign. Today, those religionists look foolish, don't they? <>>

THE most painful and revealing reasoning when evolutionary scientists enter conversation to shed light on still unanswered questions/problems is found in the absolutely fallacious assumption that "Evolution found a way to...", "Nature solved this problem [by]..."

This type rhetoric is quite un-scientific and it severely hurts the true evolutionist's cause. Yet it is very popular and used ad nauseum in "scientific" publications, discussions...

Rule number one for the scientist is to watch carefully to NOT attribute intelligent, problem solving qualities and "sense of direction" in transition and development to more complex organisms, to the process of a gradual evolution through adaptation by mutation and natural selection.

Of course within the genetic bandwith, there is room for mutations and chance meetings of a most unexpected nature, containing enormous potential dynamic energy.

Anyway, I may have overstated my point in addressing your post like this, but recently I was actually surprised to hear a evolutionary scientist admitting to, and addressing, this very point, where the scientist takes the easy- and fallacious- "way out" (Nature "took millions of years" to..), instead of checking the scientific density of his/her method, wording and conducting of argumentation.

Other than that I am quite with you on the value of relentless testing and experimentation, "in search of..", but keep putting it in perspective accordingly.

Point taken. Silly to imply that nature is some kind of creature.

I was hearing an impatience in some of the posts here. "Why hasn't science found a way to create life from non-life" to paraphrase. My point was this is a complicated problem which takes time to resolve. I'm sure there are better ways to say that.

<It was addressing the issue of "life" being created from "non-living" parts. This is a chemical process which doesn't need evolution to explain it.> You mean "make it happen"? Instead of or along with "explaining"?

Ok - there are some nuts and bolts to this assertion before I'd give it my support. Definitions, for one. And since Nature can't create like in create a chemical lab situation with a preset "purpose", then what is guiding the chemical process, other than chance/evolution?

Again I think I (too) am stumbling over, - or suffer from lack of- concise "definitions", to then be able to move further from there.

I agree.

<Boomie: Although there was a flood into the Black Sea a few thousand years before the Bible account, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood. >

What exactly would constitute evidence of a worldwide flood?

<Boomie: The exodus story is false on a number of points. The Egyptians who recorded everything have no record of this event.>

They didn't record an embarrasing military loss? Shocking. In general, I think arguments from silence qualify pretty high on the lame factor.

<Boomie: Eyewitness testimony has value. But we have learned in the justice system that it is not infallible. When physical evidence contradicts the eyewitnesses, their testimony is discarded. In the absence of physical evidence, the testimony must be considered but we know that it could be mistaken. Eyewitness testimony can never be considered proof of an event. It is suggestive of proof however.>

Before <You Rang> bites my head off, I do not say this applies to every scientist in the world. I'll even grant that there are honest scientists. Nevertheless, sinners are still trying to cash in on Satan's promise, "ye shall be as gods.">

I seem to be giving you the impression that I'm some angry snarling beast. :-)

I assure you that I'm not angry or upset at anyone. However, I will admit, in reading over some of my posts, that I can see why someone might legitimately get that impression. That is not my intent.

In your post, you seem to be ascribing to scientists this evil ulterior motive.

The only thing scientists are pre-supposing is that there is a *natural explanation* for life coming from non-life. They don't *know* that that there is a natural explanation, and they admit that they don't understand how it could have happened.

But the presupposition that a natural explanation exists is the foundation of all scientific work!

For example, people once thought that a rainbow was a miracle direct from God. However -- before they understood it -- scientists presupposed that there was a natural explanation for it . Eventually, they figured out that it was refraction of light within raindrops. (By the way, Christians at the time resented scientists for that discovery too).

Let me try to elaborate on this question (and of course <OhioChessFan> is welcome to answer too, if he so chooses):

Suppose you meet Bob, who dislikes Christianity. Bob makes the following claim: "Christians hate people of other religions because they say those people will go to hell for not believing Christianity. Therefore, Christians who talk about love are really hateful hypocrites."

I think your answer to Bob would be something like this: "No, the Bible tells us that we are all sinners, and faith in Christ is the only way for sinners to avoid hell. We Christians are actually showing our love by warning unbelievers about the consequences of their sin and unbelief."

Unfortunately, Bob will REFUSE to believe you, which means he is arrogantly making himself a higher authority of your motives than yourself!

What would say about Bob? Wouldn't you say that because he dislikes Christianity, he imagined that Christians are driven by an evil motive (i.e. hate) just so that he would have a reason to accuse Christians of being hypocrites?

~~~~

But have you (or <OCF>) never considered that Christians who hold to your views are doing the *exact* same thing to scientists?

You imagine that scientists have this evil motive (e.g. to "write God out of the picture") just so you have a reason to accuse them (i.e. to make themselves out to be God)?

Scientists will say "no" -- that their primary purpose is simply to better understand nature. Sure, some may have anti-Christian views and others may be Christians themselves, and in this respect scientists are no different from people in any other field. But they will tell these Christians that *as scientists*, all they are really after is to understand nature.

<The amount of speculation and lack of substantiation in the field of paleontology is exasperating. Words and phrases such as “may have,” “might show,” “possibly are,” “could probably show,” “there is no way to know for sure, but,” are the tell-tale signs of unsubstantiated opinion...>

Imagine you have a chess problem you want to solve. At first glance you form opinions about the position. "Maybe the knight belongs here." "Perhaps I'll get mated if..." "There's no way to know for sure but this looks promising." Then you start to work out variations and your opinions are refined or overturned. New ideas come to light as you uncover more details.

"Maybe I'll castle for the second time this game and he won't notice. After that, I have a fantastic 10 move combination."

<When scientists encounters a problem, they go through the same process. Opinions come first. They may interfere in a way with the search for truth or they may be a shortcut but in either case, they are a part of the mind. >

Heh. Well, chess does have rules and so does science. In science an opinion which is contradicted by the evidence is discarded. New data overturns theories everyday in science.

Evolution began as philosophical discussions. Lots of data has been collected since then and so far nothing contradicts the idea. That doesn't mean it is a proven fact. But the lack of contradictory evidence is strongly suggestive. Many apparent contradictions have been proposed. For example, bacteria flagella. But these objections did not hold up under scrutiny. Science thrives on such objections and it is always possible that there is a greater truth hidden in evolution just as there was in Newton's theory of gravity. So by all means raise as many objections as possible. They can only strengthen our understanding of nature.

<So they can offer unscientific opinions to build a foundation?>

Here's one: Life does not and can not come from nonlife.

<In the beginning, what else do they have but opinions? >

A science based opinion would be nice.

<"Really stupid ideas" have no future in science. >

I agree.> That's either kicking in an open door or really stupid; the future of an idea is determined later on by the ("automatic") refutation through testing, which means that really stupid ideas offer valuable contributions to the whole body of evidence and understanding, and in some cases even contain the unexpected answer to a long sought question.

As per "new data overturns science everyday".

[EXAMPLE]

<Here's one: Life does not and can not come from nonlife.> Are you now making it a hobby to not read or discard the previously made contributions on said subject?

What stupidity and a waste of time.

"Life is being created from non-life every day."