Theoretical origin of life; new earliest? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, October 03, 2017, 14:15 (2608 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] if you quote another author and claim that the author’s statement (which you even put in bold) “certainly supports” your own hypothesis, you are misleading your reader. I know you don’t mean it that way, but it is a technique that leads to misrepresentation, as when both theists and atheists claim that Darwinism supports atheism, even though Darwin himself categorically denied that this was so. There can be no justification for claiming that a personal belief is “supported” by someone else’s statement, when the statement offers no such support.

DAVID: You miss the point that I have the right to interpret an author's statement as supporting my point of view if I clearly state that is what I am doing. It is my interpretation of his statement. Of course Darwinism supports atheism, whether he meant so or not. Why do you defend him?

Here is the statement you put in bold: ‘Earth has been a biotic, life-sustaining planet since close to its beginning.'
Here is your comment: "My bold certainly supports the idea that God saw to it that the Earth could nourish life from near its very beginning."

dhw: Where have you clearly stated that you are interpreting the statement, and how does the statement clearly support the hypothesis that God did it? As for Darwinism, no it does not support atheism. Even the church can accommodate evolution into its doctrines, and so do you. We both reject random mutations and gradualism, but that does not stop either of us from formulating evolutionary hypotheses that include God. Atheists like to twist Darwin’s theory to suit their own agenda, just as you have done with the statement you claim gives support to your theism. However, I don’t want you to take this as an attack on your integrity, which is beyond question. I am simply pointing out that all of us should be careful not to disguise our opinions as scientific facts, especially when quoting others who might even disagree with those opinions. You know what a stickler I am for accurate expression.

First, we both have integrity in this discussion, but you should be clearly aware that I use this forum to present science all the time that demonstrates the complexity of living biology as a form of propaganda that design is required, to convince others that my belief is correct. As for Darwin, he proposed a chance evolutionary process which dismisses God out of hand. The issue is 'chance' or 'randomness' at the root of evolution not the process itself. My comment above covered that point.