Creation versus abiogenesis and perhaps evolution.

.
.
It seems slightly less than half of Americans believe in the creation of life by God.  While that number seems a bit low, considering the war on religion through education and the length of time since Christ among other factors, one could easily be surprised there is any belief at all in Christ Himself let alone in anything written before His time.  Actually, for those who believe Christ will come again, one of the features of His coming will be that few believers remain.  In any case, it often proves humorous when the faithful of religion, self admittedly basing their notions openly and honestly on faith in written and traditional beliefs, bests scientific consensus.  In this case, a video explains why abiogenesis (life from non-life as a random act) is not only unlikely, it is scientifically not possible.  This has been known, if not that there was literally scientific backing, for quite some time.  Literally, life cannot come from non-living matter in a "natural" way.  Oh, you don't believe? That is fine, but take a look at this. This blog is more filled with doubts than not.  And doubt should be a close companion, perhaps a good friend.  And no, this material is not beyond some general understanding.

The video suggests, beyond debunking abiogenesis, that evolutionary theory is also debunked.  And, while there are some elements to the debunking of some aspects of the theory, the information would be hard pressed to be suggested as completely denying the possibility of some form of evolution, save for evolutionists who tie "natural" evolution to abiogenesis.  As to whatever is passing for evolutionary theory at this point, the theory itself is the best evidence that it is bogus from a scientific standpoint.  The theory has not been able to be used to repeat evolution, it has not even been able to be used to produce one credible auto-evolutionary cycle in any known plant, animal, or other live variant (some (many) mushrooms, for example, are not considered plant or animal)  (nor has a cycle been definitively proven, fossils lack DNA for testing), and the theory has no predictive qualities as to when an evolutionary step might take place or what form of biological progress or change might occur.  Those are some of the serious requirements for science to be scientific and the theory of evolution fails in all of those.  Scientific consensus, further, is and probably has been a fluke of the herding qualities of man, not a good basis upon which to declare a particular piece of science as a truth.

It would not be a surprise to find that some species change over some period of time in order to adapt when stressed by predation, the environment changes, or for other reasons such as radioactivity inducing mutation. Although it would not be a surprise to learn that such a thing did not occur to any great degree.  Chernobyl has produced little or no additional biodiversity.   How could either be easily explained, with or without God?  Even as a believer, but not a believer in evolution to a greater extent, this does leave questions.  Of course, science, done correctly, can contemplate these questions, but it walks in faith just as religion does. 

Still the video looked not only good but excellent, scientifically.  The truth really is out there, and it can hurt.  Why evolutionary theorists and abiogenesists don't simply admit that they don't really have a belief in science so much as a faith in not-God, they would at least seem more honest.  If that is there current schtick, then honesty makes the thing more of an honest debate, and a means of testing for God, than as a proof they so greedily glob onto.  As is, they seem silly when their theories come down to a simple faith that excludes God.  They are no less of faith than those of us who believe in, attempt to obey, and worship God.  It is merely another faith, but it is only a faith.  It isn't science.  I wouldn't even mind if science actually produced something substantive.  At this point, for them to exclude God, they merely choose a non-God faith and build what they term as scientific upon it.  Which hurts not only their work but the notion of science itself.  Only the Satanist Church of America, which simply took the bible and reversed what what written in it, seem slightly more childish. Scientists really need to pull it together.  Go big or go home, but at least be honest.