Abiogenesis Fact?

I often wonder why some (a minority of) theists dig their own hole by insisting on interpretations of the Bible that are clearly contradicted by the evidence. Why do they make it so hard for themselves? Why not choose the easy life of making their interpretations of the Bible entirely consistent with all the current scientific evidence? Then they can avoid all the kind of difficulty that the flat-earth society give themselves.
Better to bend with the wind than break. And this bending will lower your stress-related high blood pressure.

Originally posted by @humy
I often wonder why some (a minority of) theists dig their own hole by insisting on interpretations of the Bible that are clearly contradicted by the evidence. Why do they make it so hard for themselves? Why not choose the easy life of making their interpretations of the Bible entirely consistent with all the current scientific evidence? Then they can av ...[text shortened]... d with the wind than break. And this bending will lower your stress-related high blood pressure.

Indeed. They can just back up the timeline and say their god caused the BB and be done with it and no scientist will poo poo them for that. Of course the bible addled will not do that since actual critical thinking is not involved in their brainwashing.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Abiogenesis is a name for the process that led to life emerging on Earth.

You know this is possible because you have seen it happen?

If not, nice statement of faith.

Originally posted by @humy
Assuming he exists, he didn't create it in the way your particular religious beliefs say it was create because we have proof of that.

He created it, but there is evidence built in that can be understood to imply that he didn't.

NO, the evidence doesn't say a god/gods did NOT make the big bang thus the universe because that goddidit i ...[text shortened]... ch you so far haven't.
We can show evidence. The only way to counter evidence is with evidence.

You have evidence which could be the result of creation itself.

Originally posted by @eladar
You know this is possible because you have seen it happen?

If not, nice statement of faith.

You don't always need to "see it happen" to know the description is correct. I have never seen an electron with my own eyes, but I am practically sure they exist.

Likewise we know that at one point there was no life on Earth and shortly after life emerged. Abiogenesis is just a name for this process, it describes the most plausible way for life to have emerged on Earth. How it happened in detail is a matter of ongoing research.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
You don't always need to "see it happen" to know the description is correct. I have never seen an electron with my own eyes, but I am practically sure they exist.

Likewise we know that at one point there was no life on Earth and shortly after life emerged. Abiogenesis is just a name for this process, it describes the most plausible way for life to have emerged on Earth. How it happened in detail is a matter of ongoing research.

You keep telling yourself the two are similar.

One can be tested over and over again by combing elements. The other os based on an assumption of what actually happened in the past.

But but but those are the same thing right?

But thanks for explaining the basis of your faith.

Originally posted by @eladar
You have evidence which could be the result of creation itself.

Not YOUR 'creation' with the exact attributes YOU insist it must have (including no big bang). The evidence disproves YOUR 'creation'. This isn't faith but evidence-based science which you reject.

Originally posted by @eladar
You have evidence which could be the result of creation itself.

Life.

Originally posted by @eladar
Life.

How does the big bang, which is not part of YOUR 'creation', contradict existence of life?

Originally posted by @humy
How does the big bang, which is not part of YOUR 'creation', contradict existence of life?

By nature we see that life comes from life.

Life entering a lifeless universe is evidence of God.

Evidence was asked for and given.

Originally posted by @eladar
By nature we see that life comes from life.

Life entering a lifeless universe is evidence of God.

Evidence was asked for and given.

By nature we see that life comes from life.

That doesn't logically entail the first life didn't come from non-life.
In a forest fire, in nature we can see flames from one burning tree come from the spread of flames from a burning adjacent tree. That, and contrary to your same 'logic', doesn't mean the first flame of fire combustion didn't come from something that wasn't a flame of fire combustion, such as lightning.

Life entering a lifeless universe is evidence of God.

No it isn't. See above.

Evidence was asked for and given.

No, Evidence was asked for and not given. See above. Try again.

Originally posted by @eladar
You keep telling yourself the two are similar.

One can be tested over and over again by combing elements. The other os based on an assumption of what actually happened in the past.

But but but those are the same thing right?

But thanks for explaining the basis of your faith.

That attitude is what pissses of scientists, the pathetic attempt to force science in the same box as religion so everthing a scientist does is done on faith. You can't see an electron so you only have faith they exist. Well you grab hold of a 20,000 volt power line and you sure as HELL will FEEL those faithful electrons.

Science in general doesn't jump to some conclusion by the lab result of one dude.

He writes a paper, gets peer reviewed, they say, sounds reasonable, publish.

Then other scientists read it and go, bullshyte, that's not what is going on here, so scientist # 1 is in a fight to prove his point.

Other people try to dup his results, maybe some succeed, then they find the rest of the crowd was overestimating the effect of some parameter or other and getting bogus answers which was what the whole science world THOUGHT was going on.

Then other folks design better experiments, clear up the problems with the old, and lo and behold, scientist #1 was right, this new paradym is what is really going on, overturning a hundred years of incorrect thinkiing.

Depending on how widespread the change makes, he gets a Nobel prize in Chemistry or whatever.

THAT is how science works in reality. NOTHING taken on faith. The only thing taken on faith is you drop a hundred Kg weight on your toe, you can feel pretty dam confident you are going to end up with a broken toe. You can take that to the bank. But even that is based on evidence, but evidence proven a million times over, no amount of new science is going to change that. It is now in the realm of common knowledge but you would debase it to 'well you just demonstrated faith'. We demonstrated CONFIDENCE not faith.

BIG frigging difference.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Then other scientists read it and go, bullshyte, that's not what is going on here, so scientist # 1 is in a fight to prove his point.

Other people try to dup his results, maybe some succeed, then they find the rest of the crowd was overestimating the effect of some parameter or other and getting bogus answers which was what the whole science world THOUGHT was going on.

The only part you left out was where the scientists meet at an academic conference and argue in front of everyone for 30 minutes after a presentation over the shoddy work that shouldn't have been published in the first place since they didn't design their experiment to account for the presence of X, when the other did their experiment with Y they got the opposite result.

Originally posted by @eladar
By nature we see that life comes from life.

Life entering a lifeless universe is evidence of God.

Evidence was asked for and given.

You keep pointing this out, which is a perfectly reasonable opinion/religion. It is not, however, a false assumption when a scientist says he doesn't believe in God. What you are saying is entirely irrelevant to the machine of science. We don't care.

Originally posted by @eladar
You keep telling yourself the two are similar.

One can be tested over and over again by combing elements. The other os based on an assumption of what actually happened in the past.

But but but those are the same thing right?

But thanks for explaining the basis of your faith.

The two are quite similar. The difference is the existence of electrons doesn't make you uncomfortable, while the occurrence of abiogenesis does. The empirical evidence for both is extremely strong.