I moved 2 posts to a new topic: New origin of life research
That message was posted during the most significant Christian Mass/Service & statement of faith in N. America in recent years. Instead of worship, academic (even theological) theorising is rather easy. Priority shows by deeds. They are eating right now (all those Catholic ‘TE/ECs’ in Philadelphia shrouded in church music). 
You talk about respect. Do you respect individuals based on their religious beliefs? Do you respect a devout Muslim differently than a devout Christian? How about a non-devout anything person? Do they get your respect? I was listening to the Pope this weekend. His message was to give respect to all. Treat (respect) people how you would like to be treated (respected).
When I said about doctrines, I should clarify. Doctrines that you think are important (central) are not really important (central) to the vast numbers of people. Yes, you may find them central to your life, but most people don’t as they are too busy with their lives. Should you be treated (respected) differently because of what you find important. I don’t think so as everyone should be treated the same a how I would like to be treated.
Tim,
Well stated and agree that every result in science is provisional.
I agree with Patrick on the one hand about always being respectful towards one another (that’s a Christian concept).
But I also agree with Eddie on the stance that your reason for rejecting God (or any from of supernatural reality) seems largely based on the WTC attack. As you’ve stated earlier you’re much more personally involved in the WTC attack… And I understand that.
But sometimes we have to set aside emotions from logic. Rejecting religion, wholesale, based largely on religious zealots (who are not even part of the Christian religion) doesn’t fly. Anything at all is subject to misuse… That’s simply because were human.
We don’t ban guns after the wake of a horrific shooting… We try to improve our moral upbringing, both as a people, and as a nation, so as to try and prevent future shootings (or for that matter future atrocities).
Nor do we blame bombs when a terrorist goes kamikaze. Or evolutionary theory when it’s used to justify eugenics or abortion. It’s either true or not true… But in any case it gives us no moral teaching.
I seem to sense a trend, reminiscent of Dawkins, that rejects God based on emotional reasons. While I have no doubt the emotions are sincere, it’s not the best of methods to get a point across.
-Tim
1 Like
I know that there was never a first cell that was assembled. I know that there were common ancestors to forms that were pre-cellular in form and function. And before that there were even less organized cell like bubbles probably not what you would call life, but self replicating nonetheless. Before that perhaps a soup of complex molecules near a mid ocean heat vent provide a proton pump of energy.
Because natural processes works with large numbers of individual things. There was no first star formed but many groups of first stars forming from compressing gas in clumps all over the expanding 600 million year old universe. There wasn’t a first carbon atom formed in the first star. Carbon atoms formed in the trillions in the first millions of stars. There was no first cell forming but many groups of pre-cell existing and replicating. Millions of first cells appeared and the pre-cells continued to exist and relicate. There was no first human formed but millions of pre-humans living there lives. That is how all physical, chemical, and biological processes work. Irreversible natural processes.
Here is a good book that summaries the current understandings on how life on earth began:
"A New History of Life - The Radical New Discoveries about the origins and Evolution of Life on Earth " by Peter Ward and Joe Kirschvink
There is enormous speculation on matters related to the origin of life on the earth. I provide two relatively recent reviews as examples of the wide range of opinions: Accounts of Chemical Research”, Volume 45, Issue 12, Pages 2023-2222. All of the papers deal with origins of life for evolution. An example is: Jason E. Hein and Donna G. Blackmond, who states, “….Even while some synthetic issues for plausible prebiotic construction of RNA remain unsolved,…” and, E. F. Keller “Self-Organization, Self-Assembly, and the Origin of Life” in MAPPING THE FUTURE OF BIOLOGY (2009), A. BARBEROUSSE, M. MORANGE, T. PRADEU (ed). The latter provides a good overview of the many disagreements and outlooks on this question, and also comments on ID views – note I am providing opinions by scientists who believe they may eventually find out how life began – these same people show how little is understood on this matter. There is broad agreement that any statistical treatments will give such a low probability on life originating by chance events; so much so that some seem to argue for a suspension of known laws of chemistry and physics, as these are against their speculations e.g. “This question, of whether biological processes belong to the realm of the statistically likely or unlikely also lies at the heart of the controversy currently raging over the significance of “scale-free” laws in biology.”
There are many other views/opinions, including a fanciful period when natural selection was non-existent and a period when it was, and even notions that special molecules ‘rained down’ onto the earth from meteors and these were eventually the precursors that eventually formed self-replicating entities, and so on. I for one prefer my science fiction with some laser cannons and spaceships - meteors seem too unintelligent for my taste 
1 Like
Is this article worth discussing?
It seems like a breakthrough in understanding of the origin of life on Earth long ago.
Did you see the paper I posted. It represents a key result on the origin of life on earth. What do you think about what it says?