Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

[Michael Rawlings]

By Michael Rawlings (February 4, 2009)



Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While the historical presupposition for science is not a methodological naturalism wherein philosophical naturalism serves minimally as a regulative principle, most of today’s practicing scientists insist that origins must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of an intelligent agent of causation and design. The range of scientific inquiry is inordinately curtailed accordingly. Though any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend them, potentialities outside the boundaries of this range of inquiry are flatly dismissed. Hence, should one reject the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority that conflates agency and process, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

 

[Altfish]

You do not need abiogenesis to be an atheist.
Atheists are quite happy with "We don't know" or "The best explanation that we currently have is..."
Atheists are not happy with "God did it"

Abiogenesis is not a theory, it is a hypothesis

 

[Dr. GS Hurd]

By Michael Rawlings (February 4, 2009)
Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution.

It turns out Mr. Rawlings has spammed his essay for many years. I suggest taking a quick look at, January 2013, "Rawlings' Bawlings."

I had the hope he might have had an original thought, but alas no such luck.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By Michael Rawlings (February 4, 2009)



Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While the historical presupposition for science is not a methodological naturalism wherein philosophical naturalism serves minimally as a regulative principle, most of today’s practicing scientists insist that origins must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of an intelligent agent of causation and design. The range of scientific inquiry is inordinately curtailed accordingly. Though any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend them, potentialities outside the boundaries of this range of inquiry are flatly dismissed. Hence, should one reject the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority that conflates agency and process, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Wow! The author of that piece is without a clue. And he has the nerve to call atheists "obtuse".

 

[exchemist]

By Michael Rawlings (February 4, 2009)



Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While the historical presupposition for science is not a methodological naturalism wherein philosophical naturalism serves minimally as a regulative principle, most of today’s practicing scientists insist that origins must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of an intelligent agent of causation and design. The range of scientific inquiry is inordinately curtailed accordingly. Though any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend them, potentialities outside the boundaries of this range of inquiry are flatly dismissed. Hence, should one reject the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority that conflates agency and process, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

You have no sense of irony.

This post betrays exactly the obtuseness that you complain of in atheists. Conflating methodological naturalism, which, contrary to your assertion, IS fundamental to science, with atheism is a crass blunder. I guarantee you will not be able to produce any evidence of a theory of science that makes any use of supernatural intervention.

Another day, another crank creationist, apparently.

 

[exchemist]

It turns out Mr. Rawlings has spammed his essay for many years. I suggest taking a quick look at, January 2013, "Rawlings' Bawlings."

I had the hope he might have had an original thought, but alas no such luck.

Good catch!

Thanks to your prompting I have found this hilarious right-wing religious nut site, set up by Rawlings: Prufrock's Lair

Note the telltale riot of fonts and colours, a sure sign of the 6 cylinder crank - not to mention the content, which seems obsessed with sex for some reason.

 

[Michael Rawlings]

It turns out Mr. Rawlings has spammed his essay for many years. I suggest taking a quick look at, January 2013, "Rawlings' Bawlings."

I had the hope he might have had an original thought, but alas no such luck.

Actually, I've updated the article over the years. Nothing has changed, really, but the number of hypothetical scenarios. Researchers are no closer to providing a natural mechanism for deriving life from non-living material than they were 70 years ago. On the contrary, the grail just gets further and further out of reach as the realities of life's staggering complexity gets more and more apparent.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually, I've updated the article over the years. Nothing has changed, really, but the number of hypothetical scenarios. Researchers are no closer to providing a natural mechanism for deriving life from non-living material than they were 70 years ago. On the contrary, the grail just gets further and further out of reach as the realities of life's staggering complexity gets more and more apparent.

Somebody's not been paying attention to science:

Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth

Let me know when you have an argument that isn't founded on an argument from ignorance.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Good, I perceive all of this as points for Paganism where god is literally nature and not a man, and science is the canon. That's the more plausible spiritual line to draw, the atheists will come around to that quicker than Christianity

 

[Michael Rawlings]

You have no sense of irony.

This post betrays exactly the obtuseness that you complain of in atheists. Conflating methodological naturalism, which, contrary to your assertion, IS fundamental to science, with atheism is a crass blunder. I guarantee you will not be able to produce any evidence of a theory of science that makes any use of supernatural intervention.

Another day, another crank creationist, apparently.

Stow it. You didn't read it. I objectively discuss the findings of the scientific research. On that score, my personal beliefs are of no significance. As for the nonsense that naturalism must necessarily eschew intelligent design, that's the crass blunder of atheism.

 

[exchemist]

hello, MAMA is not a cult or a Business religion, it’s not going to tell you how to wear or who you should talk to! MAMA’s aim is to get rid of the blaming game and give you a thought system which allows you to understand about all that is wrong with the world without blaming a person or a certain group of people.

For all who are tired with the blaming game such as blaming the rich, the politicians, the alt right, the radical left etc. MAMAs for you!

For all who are aware that what happened in the past such as slavery, colonialism, genocides etc. was wrong but revenge is not the way forward MAMA is for you!

For all who want a new way of thinking that will allow them not to blame themselves but to understand themselves then MAMA is for you!

To learn about MAMA visit mamamythology.com

Reported as a spammer.

 

[exchemist]

Stow it. You didn't read it. I objectively discuss the findings of the scientific research. On that score, my personal beliefs are of no significance. As for the nonsense that naturalism must necessarily eschew intelligent design, that's the crass blunder of atheism.

No, you stow it. Many, many scientists are religious believers. It is imbecilic to conflate methodological naturalism with atheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stow it. You didn't read it. I objectively discuss the findings of the scientific research. On that score, my personal beliefs are of no significance. As for the nonsense that naturalism must necessarily eschew intelligent design, that's the crass blunder of atheism.

Methodological naturalism ignores Intelligent Design since there is no scientific evidence for Intelligent Design. The ignorant believers in that nonsense cannot support their claims.

 

[sooda]

By Michael Rawlings (February 4, 2009)



Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While the historical presupposition for science is not a methodological naturalism wherein philosophical naturalism serves minimally as a regulative principle, most of today’s practicing scientists insist that origins must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of an intelligent agent of causation and design. The range of scientific inquiry is inordinately curtailed accordingly. Though any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend them, potentialities outside the boundaries of this range of inquiry are flatly dismissed. Hence, should one reject the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority that conflates agency and process, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Lots and lots of spam.

Prufrock's Lair: Was Senator John McCain a U.S. Citizen at ...
https://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2009/12/was-senator-john-mccain-us-citizen...
Jan 22, 2010 · 7 See Appendix A: "The Insular Cases and Unincorporated Territories", Michael David Rawlings; ... Subscribe To Prufrock's Lair. Posts Comments The females who support Planned Parenthood, it seems to me, are either mutants or space aliens. How else to explain the fact they experience the same joy in an abortion that normal women find in the ...

 

[ArtieE]

By Michael Rawlings (February 4, 2009)1



Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution.

Atheism is just the absence of belief in the existence of gods. It is not a religion and has no "tenets". There's no requirement to believe in abiogenesis or evolution to be an atheist.

 

[sooda]

Atheism is just the absence of belief in the existence of gods. It is not a religion and has no "tenets". There's no requirement to believe in abiogenesis or evolution to be an atheist.

Glad you called BS on this guy..... Thanks.

 

[ratiocinator]

Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution.

Total nonsense. Atheism doesn't require belief in anything at all. Take away abiogenesis and evolution and I still see no reason to accept the existence of any gods.

 

[Audie]

By Michael Rawlings (February 4, 2009)



Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While the historical presupposition for science is not a methodological naturalism wherein philosophical naturalism serves minimally as a regulative principle, most of today’s practicing scientists insist that origins must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of an intelligent agent of causation and design. The range of scientific inquiry is inordinately curtailed accordingly. Though any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend them, potentialities outside the boundaries of this range of inquiry are flatly dismissed. Hence, should one reject the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority that conflates agency and process, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Where there is a free press anyone can write
any garbage they like.

 

[exchemist]

Lots and lots of spam.

Prufrock's Lair: Was Senator John McCain a U.S. Citizen at ...
https://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2009/12/was-senator-john-mccain-us-citizen...
Jan 22, 2010 · 7 See Appendix A: "The Insular Cases and Unincorporated Territories", Michael David Rawlings; ... Subscribe To Prufrock's Lair. Posts Comments The females who support Planned Parenthood, it seems to me, are either mutants or space aliens. How else to explain the fact they experience the same joy in an abortion that normal women find in the ...

Hilarious. Barking, too.

 

[sooda]

Let me know when you


No. You shove it up your ***, you closed-minded, intellectually bigoted know-nothing. Let's get something straight, brainwash, you don't fly anywhere near my altitude of learning on this matter. Either read the article, recognize that the science is objectively discussed, get the realities of the science through your thick skull and respond intelligently, or take your atheist baby talk about arguments from ignorance and shove off. Your arrogance and gullibility tells me all I need to know about your ignorance. Nature did it! I say that's an argument from ignorance, Dorothy. Prove it, Dorothy.

Looks like somebody doesn't know dick about the origin of amyloids, which are physiologically degenerative forms of healthy proteins in higher animals or peptide chains that occur in bacterium. Like all other peptide chains of any coherent significance, they do not occur outside living cells, and there's absolutely nothing new about the protein-first hypothesis.

Oh, look, everybody, ImmortalFlame thinks he's posted something new, something bold, something earth-shattering, profound even. Dare I say something akin to a spiritual epiphany? LOL!

This particular version of the myth, nothing new to me, by the way, is just another in a long line of conjectures on the theme. Some of the polymeric precursors—e.g., amines, amino acids, simple peptides and two of the bases—were either ubiquitous or conceivably available to nature in significant, albeit, racemic concentrations, but so what? There remains no coherently plausible means by which these organic materials chemically self-assemble in any meaningful way sans information or outside living cells. As for most of the other precursors, they are too reactive to persist in biotically useful forms outside living cells! They won't even meaninglessly bind to any significant extent in raw nature.

If you had read my article—you know, for once in your unexamined, atheistic life of bias confirmation, had you gotten a dose of reality against the hype of popular science—it might have dawned on you just how much of an understatement the following line from the article is: "To be fair, these were highly controlled laboratory conditions. It's a leap to go from tweaking proteins to generating life." By the way, we're talking about proteins harvested from living cells! Is this abiogenesis or biochemical engineering? And this one: " 'We will never be able to prove which is true—to do so, we would have to turn back the last 4 to 4.5 billion years of evolution,' says Riek."

From the article: "Roughly 4 billion years ago an assortment of complex organic compounds went from being mere carbon soup to replicating biochemistry—the first steps to life on Earth."

Oh, look, we're here, nature must have done it! LOL!

Again: "As with most things in biology, the origins of living chemistry are unlikely to be simple. Metabolic processes, RNA generation, and amyloid replication all could have been competing, clashing, and blending to form the first life in a primitive biochemical tango."

Unlikely to be simple?! LOL! This guy's middle name is Understatement. Or given the fact that it's now obvious to anyone with an IQ above obtuse atheist that the formation of life entailed a synchronously instantaneous event engineered by a super intelligence. . . .

What do you need here? You have posted your crap all over the internet.