There is no evidence of Abiogenesis

[bilby]

Next on the list, The watchmaker argument for god.

You have never seen a watch You are walking along and find a watch and conclude someone or something had to have made it.

Sure. You would assume it was a designed object, because it looks very different from the rest of nature.

Paley's argument, in summary, is:

Nature doesn't look like it was designed.
Watches do look like they were designed.
Therefore nature was obviously designed, just like watches were.
And if you drop your watch on a heath, you will never find it because it is indistinguishable from the other complex and designed stuff thereabouts, like grass, ferns, and voles.

If that doesn't seem like a reasonable conclusion, then you are far too rational for religion.

Sorry, I was going to write more, but my wrist-vole says I am out of time.

 

[aupmanyav]

I wonder if they would admit this version of evolution?

Yeah, we all are versions which developed from Archaea.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea)

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Next on the list, The watchmaker argument for god.

You have never seen a watch You are walking along and find a watch and conclude someone or something had to have made it.

Sure. You would assume it was a designed object, because it looks very different from the rest of nature.

Paley's argument, in summary, is:

Nature doesn't look like it was designed.
Watches do look like they were designed.
Therefore nature was obviously designed, just like watches were.
And if you drop your watch on a heath, you will never find it because it is indistinguishable from the other complex and designed stuff thereabouts, like grass, ferns, and voles.

If that doesn't seem like a reasonable conclusion, then you are far too rational for religion.

Sorry, I was going to write more, but my wrist-vole says I am out of time.

I've always wondered why we'll immediately die in space without proper equipment if the Universe was made for us, and why there's so much dangerous radiation, why it's so goddamn inconvenient to get anywhere, etc. Doesn't seem... made for us.

 

[steve_bank]

Also 'the inverse is love', when we observe violence. Asteroid strikes, super novae, gamma ray6 bursts that can fry a planet.

The answer to vacuum space is obvious, god put planets in a vacuum and stars far apart to keep hostile creatures like humans from spreading around the universe.

 

[BH]

It is my understanding that RNA strands are formed when water interacts with basaltic rock. These RNA strands them connect together and have been observed to find a way to self replicate. That is a basic definition of life, a self replicating molecule.

I don't like using philosophy for theological arguments. One, most theological arguments are unprovable in a scientific sense and two, god or gods do not have to play the same way we do or have our limitations. What is logically fallacious for us may not be for him or them because our natures are different.

 

[Learner]

he problem with Christian Intelligent Design is the same question, where did intelligent designers come from.

Depending how one forms the language direction of the conversation or argument.

If the designer-entity does exist. Knowing or not knowing how or where a designer originated from doesn't actually matter.
It's not a problem at all!

(you got a like for highlighting this)

Positing a designer to explain where life comes from just pushes the problem back a step. Of course one would naturally desire to know where the designer came from.

But, since there is no designer, the issue is moot.

Having hypothetical questions from a modern perspective about designers, are valid questions in today's non-religious world.

I think the issues for atheists (specifically those who challenge the Christian creator belief) completely and automatically go against Intelligent Design, because of the implication that some individuals (not all,who are open to ID) use analogous parallels/similarities between the Intelligent Design concept and the God creator of the bible.

No, that’s not the issue at all. The issue is that intelligent design is empty. There is zero evidence for it, and zero evidence of an intelligent designer.

Just as I said. Your Auto-dismissal of the designer concept; even when it's not all about people who apparently make 'knowledge' claims but others who make these hypotheses.

Please stop misrepresenting what I say. It is not an ”auto-dismissal.” It is a dismissal based on the total lack of evidence for ID, and the massive amount of evidence for unguided evolution.

Ah ok, so you are not saying that such a thing is impossible? Not to mean possible as described in the bible.

(Sorry, it's been a while. I DO read the posts btw, usually through my phone because I'm often away a lot, and responding through the phone is quite a tedious task for me)

The theory of evolution fully explains, without any holes, how species arise.

It's an explanation yes sure.

Right.

The theory of evolution will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

Abiogenesis is a work in progress, but there are plenty of good hypotheses out there.

More than one hypothesis? But of course... as long as it doesn't hint of any Intelligent Design woo..

Right. Plenty of good naturalistic hypotheses, none of involving ID woo.

Designing and creating by conscious intellect exists.

That particular aspect of 'intelligent design' that exists in the universe is the mirrored aspect in human beings who do create and design things, although on a much smaller scale. Putting aside the biblical linguistic narrative for a moment and seeing from a modern view point, an alternative viewpoint, taking from the example when asking: How good would our technology be in a thousand years? What about several thousand years even, what would be the possibilites?

As Irony would have it: We are at the stage where there are people in labs trying to find ways to create cells/ life! Abiogensis if you will.

Yes, I know. I understand this and accept that's how it is.

Good.

No argument here, as I previously said.
The 'theory of evolution' will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

 

[pood]

he problem with Christian Intelligent Design is the same question, where did intelligent designers come from.

Depending how one forms the language direction of the conversation or argument.

If the designer-entity does exist. Knowing or not knowing how or where a designer originated from doesn't actually matter.
It's not a problem at all!

(you got a like for highlighting this)

Positing a designer to explain where life comes from just pushes the problem back a step. Of course one would naturally desire to know where the designer came from.

But, since there is no designer, the issue is moot.

Having hypothetical questions from a modern perspective about designers, are valid questions in today's non-religious world.

I think the issues for atheists (specifically those who challenge the Christian creator belief) completely and automatically go against Intelligent Design, because of the implication that some individuals (not all,who are open to ID) use analogous parallels/similarities between the Intelligent Design concept and the God creator of the bible.

No, that’s not the issue at all. The issue is that intelligent design is empty. There is zero evidence for it, and zero evidence of an intelligent designer.

Just as I said. Your Auto-dismissal of the designer concept; even when it's not all about people who apparently make 'knowledge' claims but others who make these hypotheses.

Please stop misrepresenting what I say. It is not an ”auto-dismissal.” It is a dismissal based on the total lack of evidence for ID, and the massive amount of evidence for unguided evolution.

Ah ok, so you are not saying that such a thing is impossible? Not to mean possible as described in the bible.

Of course it’s not impossible. We’d just need some evidence for it. We don’t have any. More, all the evidence goes the other way — to blind, undirected descent of species over time.

(Sorry, it's been a while. I DO read the posts btw, usually through my phone because I'm often away a lot, and responding through the phone is quite a tedious task for me)

The theory of evolution fully explains, without any holes, how species arise.

It's an explanation yes sure.

Right.

The theory of evolution will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

Right. Just like any theory. That’s science. Nevertheless, there are no current holes in the theory. But we will make new discoveries about evolutionary mechanisms, as we have been continuously since Darwin.

Abiogenesis is a work in progress, but there are plenty of good hypotheses out there.

More than one hypothesis? But of course... as long as it doesn't hint of any Intelligent Design woo..

Right. Plenty of good naturalistic hypotheses, none of involving ID woo.

Designing and creating by conscious intellect exists.

That particular aspect of 'intelligent design' that exists in the universe is the mirrored aspect in human beings who do create and design things, although on a much smaller scale. Putting aside the biblical linguistic narrative for a moment and seeing from a modern view point, an alternative viewpoint, taking from the example when asking: How good would our technology be in a thousand years? What about several thousand years even, what would be the possibilites?

As Irony would have it: We are at the stage where there are people in labs trying to find ways to create cells/ life! Abiogensis if you will.

Maybe we’ll create life in the lab. So? Life is just baroque chemistry, as P.Z. Myers once memorably called it, and we use chemistry for new inventions constantly.

Yes, I know. I understand this and accept that's how it is.

Good.

No argument here, as I previously said.
The 'theory of evolution' will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

Right, just like any science.

Meanwhile, creationism and especially the biblical account got nothin’ — less than nothin’, actually, in the specific case of Christianity, since the fact and theory of evolution shows that the biblical account cannot be correct. There was never any prelapsiarian state — no Garden of Eden — and no Adam and Eve. The first human population is estimated to have been around 1,500, give or take. Since there was no Eden and no Adam and Eve, and hence no original sin, the New Testament account of Jesus coming to atone for the sins of the first couple is null and void.

 

[steve_bank]

One of tge major hirfles for Cretionism is rthe folsil record in tghe kcean and on land..

A lot of fossils well before humans and many too hostile for humans to live with.

Dropping a net off the side of fishing boat would be hazardous.

One theory is when god created Earth he placed all the fossils where we find them.

I knew a Christian which insisted humans ran around with T-Rex, an interpretation of the OT.

Apparently T-Rex eggs were carried on the Ark.

 

[Learner]

he problem with Christian Intelligent Design is the same question, where did intelligent designers come from.

Depending how one forms the language direction of the conversation or argument.
If the designer-entity does exist. Knowing or not knowing how or where a designer originated from doesn't actually matter.
It's not a problem at all!
(you got a like for highlighting this)

Positing a designer to explain where life comes from just pushes the problem back a step. Of course one would naturally desire to know where the designer came from.

But, since there is no designer, the issue is moot.

Having hypothetical questions from a modern perspective about designers, are valid questions in today's non-religious world.
I think the issues for atheists (specifically those who challenge the Christian creator belief) completely and automatically go against Intelligent Design, because of the implication that some individuals (not all,who are open to ID) use analogous parallels/similarities between the Intelligent Design concept and the God creator of the bible.

No, that’s not the issue at all. The issue is that intelligent design is empty. There is zero evidence for it, and zero evidence of an intelligent designer.

Just as I said. Your Auto-dismissal of the designer concept; even when it's not all about people who apparently make 'knowledge' claims but others who make these hypotheses.

Please stop misrepresenting what I say. It is not an ”auto-dismissal.” It is a dismissal based on the total lack of evidence for ID, and the massive amount of evidence for unguided evolution.

Ah ok, so you are not saying that such a thing is impossible? Not to mean possible as described in the bible.

Of course it’s not impossible. We’d just need some evidence for it. We don’t have any. More, all the evidence goes the other way — to blind, undirected descent of species over time.

(Sorry, it's been a while. I DO read the posts btw, usually through my phone because I'm often away a lot, and responding through the phone is quite a tedious task for me)
The theory of evolution fully explains, without any holes, how species arise.

It's an explanation yes sure.

Right.

The theory of evolution will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

Right. Just like any theory. That’s science. Nevertheless, there are no current holes in the theory. But we will make new discoveries about evolutionary mechanisms, as we have been continuously since Darwin.

Indeed: That's saying, 'no current holes' as 'current explanations' become useless explanations tomorrow.

Abiogenesis is a work in progress, but there are plenty of good hypotheses out there.

More than one hypothesis? But of course... as long as it doesn't hint of any Intelligent Design woo..

Right. Plenty of good naturalistic hypotheses, none of involving ID woo.

Designing and creating by conscious intellect exists.

That particular aspect of 'intelligent design' that exists in the universe is the mirrored aspect in human beings who do create and design things, although on a much smaller scale. Putting aside the biblical linguistic narrative for a moment and seeing from a modern view point, an alternative viewpoint, taking from the example when asking: How good would our technology be in a thousand years? What about several thousand years even, what would be the possibilites?

As Irony would have it: We are at the stage where there are people in labs trying to find ways to create cells/ life! Abiogensis if you will.

Maybe we’ll create life in the lab. So? Life is just baroque chemistry, as P.Z. Myers once memorably called it, and we use chemistry for new inventions constantly.

So, nothing special but there is the hint in this case (life in the lab and what PZ.Myers memorably called it) - the hint that an intelligent-agency will be neccessary.

Yes, I know. I understand this and accept that's how it is.

Good.

No argument here, as I previously said.
The 'theory of evolution' will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

Right, just like any science.

Meanwhile, creationism and especially the biblical account got nothin’ — less than nothin’, actually, in the specific case of Christianity, since the fact and theory of evolution shows that the biblical account cannot be correct. There was never any prelapsiarian state — no Garden of Eden — and no Adam and Eve.

Yes of course I expect you to say that. I think personally It will have to be pure fact and not theory (that changes from time to time) that would show the bible accounts cannot be true.

The first human population is estimated to have been around 1,500, give or take.

According to the bible?

Since there was no Eden and no Adam and Eve, and hence no original sin, the New Testament account of Jesus coming to atone for the sins of the first couple is null and void.

Quite Interesting here. Funny enough... It was Jesus who vouched for the writings and prophets of the Old Testament, hence for me,I began to have a different view and understanding of the OT. If it wasn't for Jesus I would be saying the same thing about Adam and Eve and Eden and so on.

 

[pood]

Indeed: That's saying, 'no current holes' as 'current explanations' become useless explanations tomorrow.

Not true. SOMETIMES that happens. When continental drift was proposed, it was dismissed because there was no evidence for it. Then plate tectonics was discovered, and we had to overhaul our ideas of geology. But that does not happen often. Newtonian mechanics was supplanted at high velocities by relativity theory, and at small scales by quantum theory, But Newston’s “laws” are fine and dandy for everyday work, and are used by NASA to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to other planets.

In the case of evolution, it would be utterly perverse to suppose that the whole theory will prove false. What happens is that the theory grows and becomes more robust with new discoveries. At one time it was considered that natural selection was the sole, or at least prime, driver of evolution. Now we know about genetic drift and neutral evolution. We are also learning more about epigenetics. None of these discoveries/additions/amendments to the theory, however, overturn or in any way violate the basic idea of descent with modification over time. I’d add that even Darwin, that genius, predicted that natural selection was not the sole driver of evolution and other drivers would be discovered.

Abiogenesis is a work in progress, but there are plenty of good hypotheses out there.

More than one hypothesis? But of course... as long as it doesn't hint of any Intelligent Design woo..

Right. Plenty of good naturalistic hypotheses, none of involving ID woo.

Designing and creating by conscious intellect exists.

That particular aspect of 'intelligent design' that exists in the universe is the mirrored aspect in human beings who do create and design things, although on a much smaller scale. Putting aside the biblical linguistic narrative for a moment and seeing from a modern view point, an alternative viewpoint, taking from the example when asking: How good would our technology be in a thousand years? What about several thousand years even, what would be the possibilites?

As Irony would have it: We are at the stage where there are people in labs trying to find ways to create cells/ life! Abiogensis if you will.

Maybe we’ll create life in the lab. So? Life is just baroque chemistry, as P.Z. Myers once memorably called it, and we use chemistry for new inventions constantly.

So, nothing special but the hint in this case, that an intelligent agency was neccessary.

We haven’t made life yet, but if we do, so what that intelligent agency was required? If you want to argue, without a shred of evidence, that abiogenesis on earth was via intelligent agency, then doesn’t it follow that intelligent agency was responsible for the intelligent agency that made life on earth, and so on in infinite regress? But you might simplify and say Godddit, to supposedly eliminate an infinite regress of intelligent agents, but the argument does not go through. Who made God? If you say God didn’t need to be made, then by parity of reasoning life didn’t need to made, either. Nature blindly makes fires, through lightning strikes to take one example. Humans also have mastered making fire. Are you suggesting because humans can make fire, it follows that lightning strikes intentionally make fire? Are you arguing for the existence of Thor?

Yes, I know. I understand this and accept that's how it is.

Good.

No argument here, as I previously said.
The 'theory of evolution' will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

Right, just like any science.

Meanwhile, creationism and especially the biblical account got nothin’ — less than nothin’, actually, in the specific case of Christianity, since the fact and theory of evolution shows that the biblical account cannot be correct. There was never any prelapsiarian state — no Garden of Eden — and no Adam and Eve.

Yes of course I expect you to say that. I think personally It will have to be pure fact and not theory (that changes from time to time) that would show the bible accounts cannot be true.

You are mixing up facts and theories. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that organisms evolve and that there was no prelapsarian state, no garden. The theory of evolution explains this fact.

The first human population is estimated to have been around 1,500, give or take.

According to the bible?

Um, no, According to science. According to the bible, the first human population was two, Adam and Eve.

Since there was no Eden and no Adam and Eve, and hence no original sin, the New Testament account of Jesus coming to atone for the sins of the first couple is null and void.

Quite Interesting here. Funny enough... It was Jesus who vouched for the writings and prophets of the Old Testament, hence for me,I began to have a different view and understanding of the OT.

No idea how the above relates to the discussion.

 

[bilby]

'current explanations' become useless explanations tomorrow.

This description of science is not entirely without merit; But it does appear to be the best we can do, and "explanations that might become useless tomorrow" is certainly a massive improvement on "explanations that became useless hundreds of years ago", which appears to be what you seek to have replace our current explanations.

 

[bilby]

the hint that an intelligent-agency will be neccessary.

I set up an experiment to measure the acceleration due to gravity, in which I pushed various weights off a platform and timed their falls.

Each weight only began to fall because I pushed it; Should we then conclude that an "intelligent-agency" is necessary for gravity to work?

 

[pood]

the hint that an intelligent-agency will be neccessary.

I set up an experiment to measure the acceleration due to gravity, in which I pushed various weights off a platform and timed their falls.

Each weight only began to fall because I pushed it; Should we then conclude that an "intelligent-agency" is necessary for gravity to work?

Evangelical scientists refute gravity with new “intelligent falling” theory

 

[Janice Rael]

You mortal fools, there already is evidence of Intelligent Design, it was presented to the court in Dover vs Kitzmiller and found to be a deliberate rebranding of Creationism, which is a theological doctrine. Period.

The Trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover | American Civil Liberties Union

"Intelligent Design" is a religious view, not a scientific theory, according to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in his historic decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. ACLU of Pennsylvania attorney Vic Walczak discusses the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Schools case with the plaintiffs at the 2006...

www.aclu.org

This ought to be every reply to any post referencing Intelligent Design, period, end of thread. But nobody knows me, or history.

It's as if I never existed or made ID proponent Michael Behe slam his laptop shut and storm of the PA House Education Subcommittee hearing on legislation that intended to force the theological doctrine of Intelligent Design Creationism be "taught" in Pennsylvania public school science classes, on that day that I waved a copy of The Wedge Document around and read from it, during that hearing. And yes, Larry Frankel's memory IS a blessing.

It's as if Dr Barbara Forrest never existed or testified in that case or wrote a whole entire book, published in 2004, called Creationism's Trojan Horse, that clearly provided the factual evidence for what Intelligent Design really is, and how it got to be that way.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism%27s_Trojan_Horse

The research which Forrest in particular did led to her appearing as an expert witness for the plaintiffs at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District intelligent design trial,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism's_Trojan_Horse#cite_note-18"><span>[</span>18<span>]</span></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism's_Trojan_Horse#cite_note-19"><span>[</span>19<span>]</span></a> in which intelligent design was ruled to be religious creationism and not science, and thus could not be taught as science in public school classrooms of Dover, Pennsylvania, because of the Establishment clause of the US Constitution.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism's_Trojan_Horse#cite_note-20"><span>[</span>20<span>]</span></a>​

During the trial, pre-publication drafts of the textbook at the center of the controversy Of Pandas and People were uncovered which revealed its creationist origins and how it had changed from using creationist terminology to using intelligent design terminology as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard. This formed an important part of Forrest's testimony.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism's_Trojan_Horse#cite_note-21"><span>[</span>21<span>]</span></a>

Okay, I am not going to try to edit this formatting mess. You can click a Wikipedia link.

But! THIS Wiki article IS INCOMPLETE! Because it lacks the ONE most important piece of evidence for Intelligent Design! It was a transitional fossil called Cdesignproponentsists.I don't need to look that up because I've known it by heart since 2005.

I learned it here! On IIDB!

It's funny to see the Google AI say that this is merely a "derogatory term for Creationists." It only became so because it IS the EVIDENCE of and for Intelligent Design.

You folks are all having your discussion as if this is not what actually happened in objective observable reality, and as if the evidence was not also some of the evidence in Dover vs Kitzmiller.

"Cdesign Proponentsists" | National Center for Science Education

For years, "intelligent design" (ID) proponents denied that ID is just a new label for creationism. However, it is now well-known that the first intelligent design "textbook," Of Pandas and People, is just a revised version of a classic "two-model' creationism vs.

ncse.ngo

September 25, 2008

"Cdesign Proponentsists"​

For years, "intelligent design" (ID) proponents denied that ID is just a new label for creationism. However, it is now well-known that the first intelligent design "textbook," Of Pandas and People, is just a revised version of a classic "two-model' creationism vs. evolution book named Creation Biology. As Barbara Forrest showed during her testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover, Pandas was remade into an intelligent design textbook in 1987, in a few months after the Supreme Court ruling against creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard came down.

The most striking example of the transition was discovered by Dr. Forrest as she compared the drafts of Creation Biology and Of Pandas and People. Not only had "creationism" and "creationist" literally been replaced, apparently via a word processor, with "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in passages that were otherwise unchanged, but she even found a transitional form between the two labels!

Scanned images of this passage, in its various versions, are shown below.

GO LOOK.

Mission Statement:The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence.

I am still friends with my NCSE people. ANYONE with MONEY to host a speaker or panel of speakers from NCSE to come to your location to explain how the Creationists are still deceitful and dishonest, please contact me! I can help arrange it, no joke.

Why is anyone beating this dead Creationism's Trojan Horse? The case has been settled, there is no new argument that can be made without being wrong on purpose, and I mean on both sides.

There is no need to invoke Darwin or anything else. Every instance of use of the term "Intelligent Design" is exclusively a reference to "Biblical" Creationism, which is only a theological doctrine, and nothing else at all.

I do not understand why people who are science-literate would engage with this topic as if the science-not-literate person is not espousing some sort of disproven nonsense. Why don't you know? Why are you entertaining such an already-wrong assertion as if it is in some way a new thing? It's not, and it can never be. There can never be any new ideas about this. ID is not science and we do not need to invoke or use science to "debunk" something that was settled 20 years ago.

Intelligent Design is a term that exists to force Creationism into schools. Period. ID *is* Creationism and that is all it can ever be.

 

[Learner]

Intelligent design is creationism. As we state-the-obvious _ Yes of course it is! Points all around people, theists and atheists...yay.

Sure Christians use the term. It doesn't have to be according to Christianity does it, especially if people are pondering on the hypothesis of ID? Ah but then that gives license to the theists to insert their God in the mix, I get it now. Keep the Christians out of the dialogue then I say, and let the investigations for the curious minded commence (further).

 

[Learner]

Also 'the inverse is love', when we observe violence. Asteroid strikes, super novae, gamma ray6 bursts that can fry a planet.


The answer to vacuum space is obvious, god put planets in a vacuum and stars far apart to keep hostile creatures like humans from spreading around the universe.

Who knows, Maybe Jesus's second-coming would be sooner than the 'new technology' has time to develop such means... it 'gist' won't matter then.

 

[Learner]

the hint that an intelligent-agency will be neccessary.

I set up an experiment to measure the acceleration due to gravity, in which I pushed various weights off a platform and timed their falls.

Each weight only began to fall because I pushed it; Should we then conclude that an "intelligent-agency" is necessary for gravity to work?

Perpsective: It required your mind to formulate the use of gravity. The experiment concludes that: under the same conditions for each experiment that follows, the outcome will be predictable - aptly we call these laws.

 

[steve_bank]

Gravity and what it does applies to rocks, mosquitos, birds,. chimps, and humans. How us humans imagine and describe it does not change what gravity is and how it works and what t it does.

If an earthquake occurs a rock on a hill may be dislodged and roll down the hill. no agency involved.

 

[Learner]

Gravity and what it does applies to rocks, mosquitos, birds,. chimps, and humans. How us humans imagine and describe it does not change what gravity is and how it works and what t it does.

Well I was talking about the intial point of view where the human agent would be required to create life in the lab!

If an earthquake occurs a rock on a hill may be dislodged and roll down the hill. no agency involved.

Different conversation, different perspective. Not even my theistic point of view. Speaking as a theist in the modern world - The rock,the hill and the relating forces are governing fixed mechanics and mechanisms operating on auto (meaning in context that God is the Engineer etc.).

 

[steve_bank]

Life exists regardless of how we approach it from science . it does not change reality.

In an infinite universe with an infinite number of causal connections no fagency is required. Planets form from natural processes, as does life on this planet.

Life is reactions between atoms at the atomic scale Chemical reactions and forces.

Whether we can create life from scratch is an open question. If we do it still does not prove abiogenesis.

Lerner, how do you explain no human evidence until well after extinct fossils at the oldest fossils?

Why is there no biblical reference of T Rex? Or fllyiing Tera-dactyls?

Pterodactylus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If god is an engineer that is supposed all powerful and knowing creating reality then he,she,or it is not a very good one. Earthquakes, disease, asteroid strikes.