Abiogenisis

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is a bad thing, in that most of the natural sciences are too dependent on the same math used by Politicians, Pollsters and Gambling Casinos; Statistics. It is not hard to transition between these professions due to a common math bridge that uses a black box. The black box offers cover.

If we only had purely rational theory, without any statistical math fudge, then theory would be better, by default; age of reason. One new bad data, for a rational theory, can kill the theory or force it back to the drawing board. If we could show a confirmed exception to Special Relativity, it would need to be revised. With statistics theory dozens of bad data may be within the margin of error. They theory will still stand. It would hard for Politics to commandeer rational science. Name me one rational theory, such as Newtonian Mechanics or Einstein's Relativity that politics was able to undermine or commandeer? This is harder to do without a fuzzy dice math bridge..

Next name me some statistical backed science that has been commandeered by Politics. Climate science, COVID, Abortion, Gender Science all use statistics for the needed fudge. Science and politics both use the same math, so there is a bridge between them. Gaming industries also use this math allowing politics to paint the picture of lottery winners. Politics cannot survive on pure data and logic alone; rational theory. The lie needs fuzzy dice, which statistics can provide.

I have made the point that DNA, as shown in textbooks; naked DNA, is not reactive. It does not exist like that in cell, or in the living state at any level. The DNA needs water to become active and part of life. DNA does not work in any other solvent. So why does Department of Education not show the truth in textbooks; water with DNA? This is more rational and lacks fuzzy dice. Science and politics both make use of the same margins for error. Science needs to break the fuzzy math bridge, so it can become science, above politics.

This is not about religion versus science, but rational science versus political science. Politicians have become so pretentious we need to insulate science so it can stand above the divide. The only way to do that is to make the fuzzy dice science bridges be known as second tier science. We can allow it to stay, but make it clear it can be ruined by politics; math bridge, so it is not first tier.

Que?

 

[Brian2]

So if spirit be undetectable, is it reasonable to believe in it? Wouldn't that put it in the same epistemic category as leprechauns?

If you reject the evidence for spirit beyond what is can be seen and detected then you could, and probably have done that.

 

[Brian2]

You have a god hypothesis as I use the words, but also more, since you've gone beyond that to belief. You consider your hypothesis confirmed by that faith.

You could see it that way, but it is not a hypothesis as in the sort of hypotheses in science.

What is evidence for God to you, and how would it differ from evidence against God or evidence that doesn't speak to God? It seems to me that most people who point to something and call it evidence for God point to something that can be better or just as easily explainable naturalistically, which is not evidence for a God.

My evidence for God can be better or just as easily explained naturalistically by you, but I see it as good evidence for God.

You seem to think that makes gods more likely. It only makes it such that more people are being taught and are consequently believing in gods than these mice, not that they are more real.

So you reject what the Bible tells us. OK. I don't.

Isn't that also true for vampires and leprechauns?

I find the Biblical evidence compelling and better that any evidence I have heard for the truth of vampires and leprechauns.

There is no mechanism for gods but magic, and how does a conscious deity explain consciousness? How does it explain it to itself?

Really I was saying that science is prepared to have a no mechanism magic in saying that consciousness is a by product of matter but unwilling to have a no mechanism creator God for consciousness.
A living conscious God could conceivably give life and consciousness to matter. Dead matter cannot give life to itself however. Dead, not conscious, is a different nature to living, conscious.
I don't know how God explains consciousness to itself, what do you mean?

I think it probably does speak for all reality, and that anything said to be beyond the ken of science doesn't exist. Be skeptical of the claim that something exists that is not even in principle detectable. That perfectly describes the nonexistent. That's true of every single thing that you know doesn't exist, including Superman, Sant, leprechauns and vampires.

Yes if you reject the evidence for God having revealed Himself to humans then God no doubt looks similar to things that do not exist.

Its efficacy is proven empirically. it works. It generates reliable inductions and deductions - ideas that more successfully anticipate outcomes than competing ideas. My trust in science is empirical. I don't use the word faith that way, even if others do. It's ambiguous and promotes equivocation fallacies.

Yes science seems to work quite well in most instances. Chance did a good job in that respect. By chance we ended up able to work things out logically and empirically in most cases.

 

[Brian2]

1. Science does describe mechanisms by which genes became information storage systems, though all the details haven't been worked out.
2. Your conclusion looks like a false dichotomy.

How so?
Tell me it has been worked out first.

Not sure, but I think I see your point.
Yes, science cannot study the undetectable or unevidenced. But you're saying here that humans who already believe in a creator God are designed (?) to see a creator God designing and installing a genetic system.
Isn't this both unevidenced and circular?

Yes it does look circular the way I put it. But you don't need to first believe in God to see an answer to the genetic system as having been created that way by an intelligence.

Spirit by the process of elimination?

Nothing like spirits has ever been found, despite claims from time immemorial that they were responsible for all manner of unexplained phenomena. We keep finding entirely natural mechanisms.

It seems reasonable to expect this trend to continue. It seems reasonable to disbelieve, or at least withhold belief, in undetectable things.

Yes when you reject the stories of God having revealed Himself to us then all you have is science.
That rejection sounds circular and unevidenced to me.
If science cannot detect spirits (which are by definition undetectable anyway) and if science therefore does not say there are no spirits then there is no scientific reason to reject the stories of spirits.
iow you first need to believe that spirits are unreal to reject spirits and the supernatural in books such as the Bible.

 

[Brian2]

Why would people need verifiable evidence to reject, or defer belief, in God?
No God is the epistemic default. No God is assumed. The burden of proof is on those claiming there is a God, not on the non-believers.

Why would you reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster or unicorns just because there is no evidence for them? Wouldn't you want verifiable evidence before believing?
See?

You seem to have misunderstood what I said.
What Brian said: I also understand that only people who reject God without verifiable evidence would even think that verifiable evidence is needed to believe in a God for whom there is no verifiable evidence.

This means that you and people like you (people who rejects belief in God because God has no verifiable evidence) expect an invisible and undetectable God to have verifiable evidence, ie. to be able to be detectable.
About the flying spaghetti monster or unicorns I expect some sort of evidence at least to be available.
There is some sort of evidence for God so I check that out and make up my mind about that. And I don't use the fact that God and spirits are undetectable to reject any other evidence for God and spirits.

 

[F1fan]

When you add statistical math to science, all bets are off. I have read studies where coffee is good for you and then not good for you, all based on the day the study was run. I would assume you would not call this good science.

Your black and white thinking at work here. Hasn't it occcurred to you that things can be both good and bad for us? Sure the reports we get can be very narrow if they are testing for a specific question. The studies that look at the effects of caffeine on athletes have shown that certain amounts can help performance, but in certain types of sport like running and cycling. Too much can restrict blood vessels, so now it is bad for performace. So caffeine is both good and bad, but you have to understand the full scope of what is being studied, and who benefits, and who is hurt.

I was a trained as a scientist with a graduate degree in chemical engineering.

So was my uncle, who was a young earth creationist. He worked in pharma so didn't have to get facts right about evolution. That said his career was affected and he ended up changing jobs pretty often, moving the family many times. He ended up in management, not in chemistry. So having a doctorate in science doesn't mean you are safe from bad religious indoctrination. Michael Behe was a creationist and a biologist. His career was ruined as a result.

 

[F1fan]

You could see it that way, but it is not a hypothesis as in the sort of hypotheses in science.

So similar to the definition of theory that means guessing and speculation.

My evidence for God can be better or just as easily explained naturalistically by you, but I see it as good evidence for God.

So you admit to adding your imagination when you think about these supernatural concepts, and that means non-rational? Why would you want to deceive yourself like this?

So you reject what the Bible tells us. OK. I don't.

Again, this is you admitting you want the Bible to mean something that objecively is not there and true. We critical thinkers want truth, not to believe what feels good to our ego and identity.

I find the Biblical evidence compelling and better that any evidence I have heard for the truth of vampires and leprechauns.

But notice you fail to explain that this is true. Believers learn to be religious because others artound them believe. If it was vampires that others believd in that would be what you likley accepted and adopted for your personal meaning. This is how social influence acts on the minds of people seeking to define their identity. This is conformity to group norms, and is an effect of how the human brain evolved.

We see in Scandanavian nations that with less religious influence the population will be less motivated to believe. So I think many ordinary believers could work to take back control over their minds and reject religious influences and build back their own agency and identity.

Really I was saying that science is prepared to have a no mechanism magic in saying that consciousness is a by product of matter but unwilling to have a no mechanism creator God for consciousness.

No Gods are known to exist, so not a valid option.

A living conscious God could conceivably give life and consciousness to matter.

But there is no evidence that any such god exists outside of religious lore and human imagination.

Dead matter cannot give life to itself however. Dead, not conscious, is a different nature to living, conscious.
I don't know how God explains consciousness to itself, what do you mean?

This illustrates how believers confuse themselves by trying to understand science, but inject their religious beliefs. This is all learned behavior. Do you really not understand that ideas like gods are obsolete traditions of belief, and not relevant to describe what is rtreu about nature? You keep trying to drag a dead God into the discussion.

Yes if you reject the evidence for God having revealed Himself to humans then God no doubt looks similar to things that do not exist.

Religious interpretation isn't evidence. You already admitted it is you that uses human imagination to interpret the Bible to suit your needs as a believer, so don't impose that error onto critical thinkers who are following actual facts to valid conclusions.

Yes science seems to work quite well in most instances. Chance did a good job in that respect. By chance we ended up able to work things out logically and empirically in most cases.

What cases doesn't sceince work, in your non-expert opinion? And why does your non-expert opinion matter?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

it is not a hypothesis as in the sort of hypotheses in science.

Yes, a god hypothesis is different from a falsifiable hypothesis. But that difference doesn't excuse the metaphysical hypothesis from needing to be justified before being believed. Since that is impossible, belief should be withheld.

My evidence for God can be better or just as easily explained naturalistically by you, but I see it as good evidence for God.

That's what makes it NOT evidence for a god. Such evidence is evidence better explained supernaturally than naturalistically.

I find the Biblical evidence compelling and better that any evidence I have heard for the truth of vampires and leprechauns.

How? In both cases, you just have reports that some people believe. The major difference is that few people are trying to convince you that they exist. There are no missions to spread the faith, no crusaders or conquistadores or inquisitions to promote the belief, nobody leaving promotional material in hotels or putting on commercials during the Superbowl. Jesus ad during Super Bowl: What is He Gets Us? - Deseret News But none of that makes the belief in a god any sounder than the belief in a vampire or leprechaun. Or Santa, which also has a method of promoting that belief that keeps children everywhere waiting for Santa until somebody tells them the truth.

if you reject the evidence for God having revealed Himself to humans then God no doubt looks similar to things that do not exist.

The evidence for this god is the same as for vampires, leprechauns, and Santa - unverified claims of existence. You have decided to treat one of these categories differently from the rest. That's special pleading - an unjustified double standard. If you need a character to credit with the existence of nature, you could just as easily chose any one of these over any other. The fact that gods have been institutionalized only tells us that this idea has more utility, not that they are more real. What they all have in common and in common with everything else that has been imagined but doesn't exist except as an idea in some head or heads is that they cannot be experienced empirically. There is no time or place one can be to apprehend them or their actions through the senses, because there are none.

A living conscious God could conceivably give life and consciousness to matter.

How? By analyzing its own consciousness, figuring out where it came from, and then replicating that?

I don't know how God explains consciousness to itself, what do you mean?

You and I are conscious, and both wonder how that is possible and where it comes from. A conscious god has the same question to answer. How is possible that a conscious god can exist? This is the special pleading of theism. These questions are asked about everything but the deity. Other complexity needs an intelligent designer, but not gods. Other existence needs a source and an explanation, but not gods.

This is why god responses answer and explain nothing. It only kicks the can back one step and forces us to ask the same question about alleged deities, but the theist just won't go there. He will not treat these as questions as serious as his own questions such as yours about the origin of consciousness. He can't. They're his arguments for everything else needing a god to exist. You use this god to explain why you and I are conscious. Obviously, you have to take its own consciousness as a given. That's the special pleading. That's the unjustified double standard.

people like you (people who rejects belief in God because God has no verifiable evidence) expect an invisible and undetectable God to have verifiable evidence, ie. to be able to be detectable.

No, we don't. We expect things that exist to have supporting evidence of their existence. When somebody tells me not only that he has no such evidence, but that no such evidence is even possible and to stop expecting any, I understand that as him believing in a fictional entity.

About the flying spaghetti monster or unicorns I expect some sort of evidence at least to be available.

Special pleading. Whatever is your evidence for the god you believe in is equally good or poor evidence for the FSM. Living cells? Too complicated except for the FSM. Only his noodly appendages could have created life. Is there morality or consciousness? They wouldn't exist without him. Prophecy and messengers? Our Savory is a prolific writer and seer. Born of extra virgin olive oil, delivered by Little Caesarean (in 30 minutes or less), cast out of the Olive Garden, then snagged by a giant twirling fork wielded by the Antipasto, his noodly body (pbuh) was flung unceremoniously onto a wall, where he stuck and dried for our salivation. Cheese's Crust, how grated thou art! May there be pizza on earth and gouda will toward men.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you reject the evidence for spirit beyond what is can be seen and detected then you could, and probably have done that.

You appear to be using an odd definition of the term "evidence". Claims are not evidence. Facts are not evidence. For example is the dead body evidence that the Butler did it? How are you defining "evidence"?

 

[Brian2]

Why do you believe people actually had experiences with Gods versus are embellishing?

It is implausible that any of the many claims about gods are true because many of these claims are contrary to fact and knowledge. The extraordinatry claims themselves have no extraordinary evidence, so they can be dismissed by default. Creationists are certainly wrong in what they claim and thse debates exopse their errors of belief. There ate no known gods existing, and there is no valid evidence that any gods exist. Believers like yourself adopted beliefs, you didn't have a unique exverience with a burning bush. Believers who claim to experience a God explain circumstances that suggest they took learned beliefs and manufactured experiences in their minds.

Does that mean that you don't believe people had or have (these days) experiences with God because you can make up something in your head that you see as a more reasonable explanation than the one about having an experience with God?

Bad evidence leads to bad beliefs. Verifiable evidence is the only acceptable kind. Believers are very motivated to find some validation for the ideas they are exposed to and they play mind tricks on themselves. And sort of cultural believe requires an individual willing to fit in to a social norm, and they will adopt whatever is most prevalent. Believers are not going to process this as evidence AGAINST adopting religious ideas, they will ignore it.

Accepting only verifiable evidence leads to saying there is no God, because it seems that there is no verifiable evidence for God unless He appears to you, but even that is not verifiable for either you or anyone else even if you know what you experienced. Accepting only verifiable evidence does not mean that unverified evidence is wrong, it just means that you reject that evidence even if it is accompanied by prophecies that look like they have been fulfilled. After all you can make up in your head, a reason that these prophecies are not authentic.

This is a typical excuse used by believers. What exactly is "spiritual"? From what believers explain it is synonymous with imaginary. A guy like Scott Roeder kills an abortion doctor and his defense in court is that God told him to. That is "spiritual" evidence. If one of your loved ones was murdered and the killer said it was God's command, would you accept it?

Whatever "spiritual" is, it is undetectable by science. That does not mean that it does not exist, and science does not say that. It is just something that science cannot say yay or nay to.

Yet religions can't offer any evidence that is verifiable for their claims. Science has studied religion and it makes obsevaions about this human behavior and has many explanations why humans believe in these non-rational concepts.

I have opinions about why people don't believe also. So?

Critical thinkers are by far the best at doing this. Believers belief in ideas that have no factual basis, and not even plausible. The question science asks is: what are otherwise smart and rational humans believing in non-rational concepts?

Believers are not reliable to answer this because they have ulterior motives and identity to defend from scrutiny.

Critical thinkers can believe only what science tells them is valid belief. The tool to investigate the physical world (science) has become the master who imprisons people into a reality bounded by verifiable evidence even when other evidence tells us that reality goes far beyond the bounds of what is verifiable.

The only side that wants their own rules is theists. Look how you want to ignore objective facts and claim evidence in a "spiritual" side. It's irrelevant because skeptics understand "spiritual" as synonymous with imaginary and non-existant, and the religious think there is some there there. They just can't show any evidence of it. These believers act as if they have some special powers, but it's clearly just them making things up.

Verifiable evidence does not mean that the only facts are those things that have verifiable evidence.

Sorry, this is absurd. Look who is making the rules, you are claiming that God is real. OK, demonstrate this fact. If you can't, then you are being deliberately dishonest. That is on you.

I will admit that believers assume and think God is real, and that is a different claim, and you didn't make it. Imaginary friends are real in the minds of children. Santa is real to children who get gifts from Santa. When you get money for a tooth under your pillow, the Tooth Fairy is real to those children. They are eperiencing the effects of these imaginary characters just as believers do. It's the most likely explanation. If theists all over the world had the same exverience of a God, and had remarkable moral standing, that would suggest an actual influence. But we don;t see that. We see theists believe in thousands of different gods. We see believers murder people in the name of God. We see frauds, liars and cheaters doing God's work, so we can't ignore these data points.

No doubt you adopted a set of religious concepts and you have decided they are meaningful and true. Great, knock yourself out. Live your life. It isn't evidence of anything except that you have conformed to social norms and now are an agent for those ideas. Your belief is consistent with Hindus, Muslims, Shinto, or any of the many rituals perfomed by tribes in Africa.

F1fan said: What are you talking about? Gods aren't known to exist. You might as well bring up unicorns. Are they relevant to anything? No. Stick to facts.

So you don't want me to speak about God in a religious forum. So I replied that God is real. So now you accuse me of making up the rules. What a way to twist things around.
We are talking about different faiths here. I know you want atheism and science to be the facts which are fighting faith and ignorance, but no that is not the reality of what is going on.

Science can study why children like Mickey Mouse, but can't examine the nature of an existing Mickey Mouse. If believers think their version of God exists, but there is no evidence, how did these ordinary mortals end up believing? It wasn't through facts and reason, it was something else.

I keep saying that there is evidence and atheist of a certain ilk keep saying that there is no evidence for God or the Bible God.

Science has the most credible explanations, based on facts and objectivity.

Science has no explanations for life. Science only has abiogenesis as the only possible explanation it can offer (because it has no verifiable evidence for spirits) and you take it as already having been shown to be true.

Why do you believers even care? What makes abiogenesis so threatening to your religious identity?

It is not the religious who are saying that abiogenesis has been shown to be true, when it has not been shown to be true. What's the rush, let science take it's course.

I doubt this. You theists are close to panic over this factual hypothesis. Christians have been in a panic since Galileo showed that Aristotle's model (that the Catholic Church adopted) was wrong. Christianity and it's beliefs about the universe have been torn apart by science ever since. Creationists used to be adamant about a 6000 year old earth, according to the Ussher timeline. Then they realized that didn't work and they pushed oit out to 10,000 years. But what was the point? The only reason to say a young earth was to fit Ussher. Now creationists are accepting an old earth, but denying that humans evolved. It's a catastrophe. And you're going to claim believers know something that atheists don't?

Believers only know what atheists know about the physical universe and sometimes we can tell atheist that we don't really know certain things, they are presumptions only. (Such as this idea about abiogenesis having already been shown to be true and/or showing that spirits and God is not needed for life)

Jesus was a character in a book. I don't assume any of it is true at face value. Even you Christians don't agree on any of it, so you aren't dealing with even "spiritual" evidence, just your particular interpretation that differs from other Christians. What truth? You Christians get together and figure it out. Get back to us.

Jesus is the truth, so we come to Him.

There is no evidence of any of the many thousands of gods. If there was you would present it. Your posts dance around claiming evidence yet offers none. THAT is evidence that you lack evidence for any god.

I know and you know that the evidence I have is not scientific evidence and that you want to say that it is not evidence at all. What a way to twist the facts.

This is an invalid accusation.

Was it an accusation or just the truth?

 

[InChrist]

If it isnt proven/shown.. Its accepted on belief and faith. Imagine that lol

That’s about how I see it…

“The atheistic, evolutionary belief that life came into being from a nonliving entity sometime in the unobserved past is a faith-based position, certainly not a science-based one, because the law of biogenesis has never been overturned and disagreeing with a scientific law is by definition unscientific.

However, to support their worldview, atheistic evolutionists have to believe that this scientific law was once broken in the distant past and that life did in fact come from nonliving matter at some point. But that would mean that this law of science isn’t actually a law! Even a single exception to any scientific law renders it falsified.

To believe it must have happened—not just in spite of it never having been observed, but in actual contradiction to repeated experimentation that was directly and purposefully performed to test it—goes way beyond any kind of god-of-the-gaps-type argument. It is an “evolution did it no matter what” type of declaration. It is certainly not science. Evolution ex machina.”



“The famous atheistic champion of evolution, Professor Richard Dawkins, has discussed the origin of life saying,

We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started . . . by some process as yet unknown.

Did you hear it? We have no evidence, but we know evolution did it. Evolution of the gaps. He admits there’s a gaping hole in what evolution can explain about the origin of life, then he invokes the god of evolution to fill in the gap and asserts that natural selection “must” have gotten started somehow (despite the lack of any evidence).”

In-Depth — The Fool’s Gold Of Evolutionary Thought: It Might Look Bright And Shiny, But It Fails When Tested

 

[rational experiences]

Humans lived experiences.

Conscious advice.

The state to record is empty space nothing interactive. Transmitters advice.

Was not on earth. Isn't earths law.

I caused by using cloud mass to cool temple transmitters. I burnt transmitters blew up my machines.

Sun mass crossed.

Earths healthy water mass huge microbiome life was taken off ground.

Formed images in cloud mass to cause enough cloud mass presence to return ... to block out the sun above burning irradiations. We survived barely.

Bio life of everything mutated and heavens mass gas body burnt was gone as sacrificed. Removed waters pressures part of osmosis..Moses.

Bio cell health everything.

Sacrifice is not a law in science or space.

Sun O a type of body attacked other bodies O. Told the scientist isn't a creation law evolution.

I knew.

So healthy once human microbiomes higher than bio cell water life DNA owned biology. High percentile of water as biology lived a lesser type. After attacked.

By ice remassed winters return sea of son...ark changes. Meaning natural cycles around sun. Rock ark travel. Water cooled gases returned.

Earth.

Bio life evolved by healthier microbiomes in water compared to pre living sex by life given body biology.

Is humans used memory about their owned body type healing adapting returning. After technology science nearly destroyed all life again.

Pyramid sciences.

Healthy microbiome was given back said the mind of human memory. As it was higher in bio terms than mutated DNA a caused one of.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans lived experiences.

Conscious advice.

The state to record is empty space nothing interactive. Transmitters advice.

Was not on earth. Isn't earths law.

I caused by using cloud mass to cool temple transmitters. I burnt transmitters blew up my machines.

Sun mass crossed.

Earths healthy water mass huge microbiome life was taken off ground.

Formed images in cloud mass to cause enough cloud mass presence to return ... to block out the sun above burning irradiations. We survived barely.

Bio life of everything mutated and heavens mass gas body burnt was gone as sacrificed. Removed waters pressures part of osmosis..Moses.

Bio cell health everything.

Sacrifice is not a law in science or space.

Sun O a type of body attacked other bodies O. Told the scientist isn't a creation law evolution.

I knew.

So healthy once human microbiomes higher than bio cell water life DNA owned biology. High percentile of water as biology lived a lesser type. After attacked.

By ice remassed winters return sea of son...ark changes. Meaning natural cycles around sun. Rock ark travel. Water cooled gases returned.

Earth.

Bio life evolved by healthier microbiomes in water compared to pre living sex by life given body biology.

Is humans used memory about their owned body type healing adapting returning. After technology science nearly destroyed all life again.

Pyramid sciences.

Healthy microbiome was given back said the mind of human memory. As it was higher in bio terms than mutated DNA a caused one of.

Referenced...holy water overcame the flame above.

Then healed my life.

A song sung said ... there must be something in the water.

If man destroyed his bio microbiome in water it might be why he said heavens mother's life is very important on earth.

Humans using conscious human awareness is always first as life is conscious nature first

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s about how I see it…

“The atheistic, evolutionary belief that life came into being from a nonliving entity sometime in the unobserved past is a faith-based position, certainly not a science-based one, because the law of biogenesis has never been overturned and disagreeing with a scientific law is by definition unscientific.

However, to support their worldview, atheistic evolutionists have to believe that this scientific law was once broken in the distant past and that life did in fact come from nonliving matter at some point. But that would mean that this law of science isn’t actually a law! Even a single exception to any scientific law renders it falsified.

To believe it must have happened—not just in spite of it never having been observed, but in actual contradiction to repeated experimentation that was directly and purposefully performed to test it—goes way beyond any kind of god-of-the-gaps-type argument. It is an “evolution did it no matter what” type of declaration. It is certainly not science. Evolution ex machina.”



“The famous atheistic champion of evolution, Professor Richard Dawkins, has discussed the origin of life saying,

We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started . . . by some process as yet unknown.

Did you hear it? We have no evidence, but we know evolution did it. Evolution of the gaps. He admits there’s a gaping hole in what evolution can explain about the origin of life, then he invokes the god of evolution to fill in the gap and asserts that natural selection “must” have gotten started somehow (despite the lack of any evidence).”

In-Depth — The Fool’s Gold Of Evolutionary Thought: It Might Look Bright And Shiny, But It Fails When Tested

That’s about how I see it…

“The atheistic, evolutionary belief that life came into being from a nonliving entity sometime in the unobserved past is a faith-based position, certainly not a science-based one, because the law of biogenesis has never been overturned and disagreeing with a scientific law is by definition unscientific.

However, to support their worldview, atheistic evolutionists have to believe that this scientific law was once broken in the distant past and that life did in fact come from nonliving matter at some point. But that would mean that this law of science isn’t actually a law! Even a single exception to any scientific law renders it falsified.

To believe it must have happened—not just in spite of it never having been observed, but in actual contradiction to repeated experimentation that was directly and purposefully performed to test it—goes way beyond any kind of god-of-the-gaps-type argument. It is an “evolution did it no matter what” type of declaration. It is certainly not science. Evolution ex machina.”



“The famous atheistic champion of evolution, Professor Richard Dawkins, has discussed the origin of life saying,

We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started . . . by some process as yet unknown.

Did you hear it? We have no evidence, but we know evolution did it. Evolution of the gaps. He admits there’s a gaping hole in what evolution can explain about the origin of life, then he invokes the god of evolution to fill in the gap and asserts that natural selection “must” have gotten started somehow (despite the lack of any evidence).”

In-Depth — The Fool’s Gold Of Evolutionary Thought: It Might Look Bright And Shiny, But It Fails When Tested

Why do you call evolution atheistic? Do you call gravity atheistic? Do you call germs atheistic? I do not understand this argument. There are more Christians that accept evolution than atheists. So why not call it "Christian". In fact worldwide there are probably more Christians that accept evolution than those that accept the creation myths of Genesis.

And what "law" do you think was broken by evolution? I do not know of any.

And lastly your source is not a very good one. I do not think that he got any of his arguments right. He thrives on strawman arguments.

 

[Valjean]

It is at the fringes where God has said that He did it. But of course skeptics would want to point to things like lightning and a scientific mechanism for it and then say that God has been shown to not be needed for lightning. And it is skeptics that do this stuff and science actually says nothing about God and lightning and the small stuff in the middle of science where natural mechanisms are found. It is a skeptic BS argument, not a statement of science.

I don't think I'm following. Lightening and auroras were once attributed to God or supernatural forces. Now they are understood as natural. Science has explained them. Their mechanisms have been described, and no God, magic, or supernatural forces have been found necessary to explain them.
They were once fringe, and theists used them as evidence. Now that they're no longer fringe, and have been explained as natural, theists have moved on to the current fringe to claim magical evidence.

It would be great for skeptics if people believed you about stuff like lightning or the northern lights or whatever and did not notice that science is moving in on God's areas at the fringes and is doing so through the mechanism of natural methodology and even claiming that something like abiogenesis has been shown to be true when science says it has not.

Lightening and northern lights once were "God's areas at the fringes." Now they're not, and theists have moved on to abiogenesis and the Big Bang.
Both science and religion believe in abiogenesis. This is not where the disagreement lies. The disagreement is about mechanism. Religion claims magic. Science claims mechanism. The fact that the details of the mechanism are not yet known is not evidence of magic.

And yes I don't expect a God to pop up in the middle of science (especially a science that has the naturalistic methodology and would not know what to look for as evidence for a God and would reject it anyway.)
Is no God popping up supposed to be evidence against the existence of a God?

Science isn't looking for evidence against God. Why would it? There is no reason to look for evidence against that for which there is already no evidence. Such things: Spaghetti Monsters, unicorns, leprechauns, &c, are already logically assumed nonexistent, inasmuch as they are currently unevidenced.

Why do you say science would reject evidence of God? Science is eager to investigate anything it's able to investigate, but it's unable to investigate that for which there is no concrete evidence. Science works with evidence.It's incapable of investigating that for which there's no evidence.

That sounds like another skeptic BS argument to me.
A natural mechanism was not evidence that God does not exist.

True. It's evidence God is not necessary to explain the thing in question.

 

[Valjean]

It's to do with the definition of words in the Bible.
Also there are passages that show that physical material is not living and that God is the source of life.

But why cite the Bible? Why not cite Hindu, Sikh or Mayan scriptures? Why not cite The Chronicles of Narnia?
The Bible's an ancient collection of folklore and mythology. It's not a science book.
The Bible has no passages that "show" anything. It just claims.

But I think it is possible that just the life of the body could be chemically based but the life of the soul is another thing. Consciousness, mind, emotion, will. To attribute that to matter seems to bring magic into science imo.

There is no empirical evidence for a soul. Consciousness, mind, emotion and will are utilitarian features that can be attributed to natural selection.

I don't think science will find this life if it is spirit based, so people who go only by what science says will not believe in spirit based life, they will end up believing matter magically came/comes to life.

It's religion that claims magical origins, not science. People who "go by what science says" believe in what there is evidence of, and defer belief in the unevidenced. This seems reasonable to me.
As soon as evidence of spirit is discovered, science will explore it, and people will believe it.

 

[Valjean]

Spirit might be true but science which cannot see or test for it will never be able to tell us.

Never say never.

This is why science with it's naturalistic methodology and inability to see/test for spirit, will always conclude that life and consciousness and anything else are physically based and come from physical nature.

So why do you, with your inability to see/test for spirit, conclude that life is not physically based?

Science steps over the bounds of science because it cannot see where the bounds are and keeps presuming that it's naturalistic conclusions are correct. How could it be any other way?

Huh? The bounds are delineated by evidence; by what can be detected. Do you expect science to study the undetected? How would it do that?

I would not show that through science. It is something of faith and logical reasoning imo.
Something that skeptics will always reject.

Faith is belief without evidence. How would one show anything if there were no evidence for it?
As for logical reasoning, ????????
How does logic apply? What premises are you applying logic to?

 

[Valjean]

If you reject the evidence for spirit beyond what is can be seen and detected then you could, and probably have done that.

What is this "evidence for spirit?"

My evidence for God can be better or just as easily explained naturalistically by you, but I see it as good evidence for God.

Again, what is this evidence?

So you reject what the Bible tells us. OK. I don't.

Why not? What evidence do you have that it is accurate?

I find the Biblical evidence compelling and better that any evidence I have heard for the truth of vampires and leprechauns.

But there is no biblical evidence. There are just claims and statements, many of which are fantastical, objectively wrong, cherry picked or edited.
Where is the evidence?

Really I was saying that science is prepared to have a no mechanism magic in saying that consciousness is a by product of matter but unwilling to have a no mechanism creator God for consciousness.

Huh? Please clarify.

A living conscious God could conceivably give life and consciousness to matter. Dead matter cannot give life to itself however. Dead, not conscious, is a different nature to living, conscious.

If you imagine a living, conscious God as capable of giving life, then life could be attributed to this god. But you have not established that any such thing exists. It exists in your imagination. You just posited it.

What do you mean by dead being a "different nature," or not being able to give itself life?
What do you mean by life? How does it arise? What's needed for life?
Do you imagine it's some mysterious, magical 'essence', infused into non-living matter by God?

Yes if you reject the evidence for God having revealed Himself to humans then God no doubt looks similar to things that do not exist.

We do not reject such evidence. How would we reject that which we don't see? Where is this evidence?

Yes science seems to work quite well in most instances. Chance did a good job in that respect. By chance we ended up able to work things out logically and empirically in most cases.

Chance? What do you mean by chance?
Empiricism and logic yield no evidence for any god.

 

[Valjean]

How so?
Tell me it has been worked out first.

How the genetic sequence sorted itself out is no mystery. It's simple selection.
"If no explanation of genetics, then God," is a false dichotomy.

Yes it does look circular the way I put it. But you don't need to first believe in God to see an answer to the genetic system as having been created that way by an intelligence.

How so? Why is unguided selection not sufficient? Why do we need to insert a magical agent? What mechanism did this agent employ, and where is the evidence for it?

Yes when you reject the stories of God having revealed Himself to us then all you have is science.
That rejection sounds circular and unevidenced to me.

Yes, when we reject the unevidenced stories, all we have is knowledge ("science"). Please explain the circularity.

If science cannot detect spirits (which are by definition undetectable anyway) and if science therefore does not say there are no spirits then there is no scientific reason to reject the stories of spirits.

There is good reason to reject that for which there is no evidence. Do you believe in elves, unicorns or the FSM? Why? because there's no evidence? Elves are just as well evidenced as spirits, aren't they?
There is "no good reason" to reject stories of Spider Woman, Quetzalcoatl, or Thor, by that reasoning.

iow you first need to believe that spirits are unreal to reject spirits and the supernatural in books such as the Bible.

No. That's ridiculous. The reasonable approach is to believe in that for which we have evidence, and to defer belief in that for which we have none.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That’s about how I see it…

“The atheistic, evolutionary belief that life came into being from a nonliving entity sometime in the unobserved past is a faith-based position, certainly not a science-based one, because the law of biogenesis has never been overturned and disagreeing with a scientific law is by definition unscientific.

It is a misunderstanding of the science that life has to come from life. It is more appropriate to say that life develops from organic materials, and these organic materials can be produced through natural processes from inorganic materials.