Ahhhh ... so you're using a Mac! No wonder you're confused
I'm not interested in reading all 49 pages of that discussion but the first sentence sounds more reasonable. "Speaking only for myself (though I suspect others may agree with me), I wouldn't say I "believe" in abiogenesis. I simply accept it as a good possibility."
Of course it's a possibility, but I disagree that it's a "good" possibility. I would consider it a very remote possibility and I would be questioning the bona fides of a theist who believes that life was not created by God.
Yes, and as I have said several times, based on what I see all around me, I believe the logical sequence is, first creation by an intelligent mind, then evolution according to certain "natural" laws.
Did God create the laws of nature? ... I don't know. Perhaps God is constrained by natural laws as much as we are, but perhaps in his universe there are laws that we have yet to discover. Was Isaac Newton aware of the quantum laws when he wrote his three laws of motion? Our understanding of the laws of the universes is a work in progress.
It is theoretically possible that God could have created Adam, and subsequently Eve, from the dust of the ground because all of the required elements can be found therein. Ashes to ashes ... etc.
I guess that if you're a master biochemist and engineer like God, manipulating atoms, molecules and genes etc. to create things would be fairly straight forward, and given his spiritual form, he would have capabilities that we can only dream of. We've made some progress down that path in that we can now manipulate individual gold atoms, which is pretty amazing.
As I've said before, I think the Bible is rather short on detail and I wonder how the simple minded folk of Moses' era would have coped with a detailed explanation of how the first cell was created and then steered down the complex evolutionary path to man? A simple story, loosely based on fact, that they could easily comprehend was what was required.
If I understand you, then what you're suggesting is akin to asking us to accept that atoms of metal randomly assembled themselves into the body of a simple vehicle in a lava pond somewhere, which then subsequently evolved into the cars we have today. I suppose it's possible that cars came into being that way.
As I understand them, the natural laws of thermodynamics (entropy and enthalpy) suggest that abiogenesis is extremely unlikely. Remotely possible, maybe, but extremely unlikely.
I'll let Ken Ham speak for himself.
The basis of the scientific method is observation of existing phenomena and ALL belief systems, scientific, religious and atheist (even though you deny that atheism is a belief system) should evolve and adapt to scientific discoveries, in my opinion. To adhere rigidly to a belief (or disbelief) system and ignore new information that comes to hand (eg evidence of the reincarnation of souls) is pig-headed and unreasonable.
I don't have a problem with accommodationism. It's a pity that atheists can't be accommodationists.
I'm sorry if I come across as angry with you, I'm certainly not, and that perception may be caused by my inadequate wordsmith skills.
Bellenuit, you are obviously a very intelligent person and I'm puzzled why you can't appreciate the evidence of supernatural influences that I have linked to in my previous posts, and acknowledge that there may be forces at work in our lives that we don't yet fully understand.
I really think you should do something about that Mac of yours!
As I understand it, a non sequitur (kindly note the spelling) is a statement that does not logically follow from the what preceded it. I'm puzzled as to why you keep classifying what I say as a "non-sequitor".
