WSJ Column: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by FT897

Based on the responses I am beginning to wonder if some think life does not exist. But anything with a beginning is created. I am not addressing what or who did the creating but just looking for general agreement that life began. You would think that would be an easy thing to do. Seems some have an issue with the idea that life began. Else who so many objections to that claim?

What you DON'T seem to understand is that there is a difference between "began" and "created", so don't use them interchangeably. We all agree that life began, but we don't all agree that life was "created". Stating that life was created is assuming a creator, for which we have no evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by old_cold

Can you understand if it's put this way?
How and/or why life started and evolution are two different subjects.
Discussing evolution is talking about the development after the start of organic life.
This, of course, cannot include Adam and Eve as the Genesis idea of one time, one moment (our currently accepted idea of time) zapped fully formed humans.

I agree, but this is a pointless argument to put to a creationist. 'Evilooshun' in their mind is Darwinism applied to everything - Big bang, Cosmic origins, solar system, how life -started - everything. Thus saying that evolution - theory does not relate to abiogenesis cuts no ice with them and must look like an attempt to evade a question we can't answer.

This is why I 'play with their pieces' as I say. If you don't, they are convinced we are cheating. The only thing to do here is say that there are plausible explanations for the start of life so it is possible. It is a flat tyre for Creationists to say that it is impossible. It isn't.

What they are trying to do is apply the First Cause argument to abiogenesis, but it doesn't work because we don't have a plausible explanation for where, when and how matter (that we need to get a Big bang' out of) originated. With abiogenesis we can.

So we get 'we have no proof'. We don't need it. Like Cosmic origins, where we don't know, God or not is equally unknown and attempts to try to make a creator necessary (Using Lane Craig's long refuted arguments from Anselm, Kalam and morality) are pointless as they are merely variations on the old song of using a god to explain, lightning, thunder, volcanoes.

Thus, First cause doesn't really make a Creator necessary and Abiogenesis even less so.

And, as you say, that has nothing whatever to do with the debate about whether life developed through gradual adaptation (as the evidence strongly indicates) or whether it was all made pretty much as it is now (give or take the long vanished dinosaurs) as in the creationist view. Which has nothing whatsoever by way of supportive evidence other than the book of Genesis.

As we have seen on the Other thread, their only case is either ignorant or dishonest quibbling about evolution -theory or the evidence for it.