Does it exist before science....

[nPeace]

Can you explain what evidence is to you in general terms? Not a specific example, but so I can apply to in general to the everyday world?

Sure. I did that before. Here it is.

 

[Yerda]

God to me exists everywhere, but to begin to understand God, one has to open our spiritual heart.
But God is also a non physical being

When you say God exists everywhere, are you using the word "exists" in the same way if you were describing ordinary physical stuff?

What I mean is, maybe I say that all over the surface of the planet there's a layer of gas called air that I can't see but I know exists. And you say God also exists at every place on the surface of the Earth (as well as everywhere else). I'm not sure we use the word 'exists' in the same way here. I mean it is physically in that place.

Or in another use of exists, I could say black swans definitely exist. And you could say God definitely exists. But I'd mean that if we counted all the swans we'd find some number of black ones. Or there is some "thing" we would both agree is a black swan. Is there a "thing" we could both agree is God?

Does this make any sense?

 

[Polymath257]

No, I did not.

Then what was the content of post #72?

You haven't explained controlled observation... Or are you saying that controlled observation is, just observing things, and going by what we think... and hoping we are right?
Perhaps you can answer a question I have.

Yes, we learn new things over time. And we modify our views as we find more evidence.

No, I have not. Where did I say that.
Seems we are rerunning a tape we played before.

isn't that precisely what you did in post #72? If not, what wa sthe point of that post?

How does what justify the claim?
I don't understand your questions.

OK, I see the sun. How does that justify the belief in a deity?

Oh. You thought.
So I didn't, but you thought so, and then claimed I did. Then state it dogmatically.
Yup. That's the Polymath257 I know.


This is not the first time. This is a regular... infact, common feature... like a trained muscle.

Yes. and it is a good thing.

No. Evidence was given. You just don't accept it.

OK, where did you give the evidence?

Evaluate? I'm not sure about that. No. Criticize? I think so. Yes.


Lol. Thanks for that laugh. Funny.
What evidence would convince a skeptic?
One of the most skeptical persons was convince, and yearly, more skeptical persons are being convinced by the evidence presented to them.

This is just a small list. There is more, so please do not try to blow it away with your fantastical expert view.

Yes, for example, Francis Collins is a well known Christian evangelical that also notes that evolution occurred and that creationism is a fraud.

So, I have no idea what you are trying to say here, other than, 'when you can move Mount Everest, we can talk'. Lol.

What you seem to miss is that this is the same process *every* scientific theory goes through. The evidence has to be able to convince skeptics and withstand criticism. And that is how it *should* be.

I ask no more than I would ask any scientist promoting a new idea.

 

[rational experiences]

Our spiritual brother who understood science isn't the natural life of spiritual humans who never understood any term science.

In mind he compares claiming we are more powerful in conscious presence spiritually. Why he puts our life in evil stone nuclear base theories. Claiming biology is safe. We all own the same body but not the same mind.

Bible warnings humAn consciousness.

My brother knew him and so named him organised Satanism. Rich men who used science to get richer. So snide bored human governing today is in behaviours not acting on family behalf. Countries family national success ...who abuse each other all day long.

Instead of working like applied business manners for family. Just owning one motivated leader head of family purpose. The wise elder. Safe in their jobs not being any Rich dictator. But not working mutually.

Once he sought the families who went into underground hiding with their life controlled by riches. As rich to inheritor kept the same behaviours. Control and bad choices. Known.

Family names changed then they re emerged into society. Continued their bad rich human behaviours.

Is our human history what humans were before human science was practiced.

Today predicted a seed bank ....known to their owned caused predictable nuclear science causes. History biblical temple pyramid collider power plant owner.

What was before in life memory as a human thinking about modern day science.

Power plant the warning. Plant the known equals answer.

As although ice age wiped out biology on earth. Ground nature rooted in a still heated warm earth base belonging to why ice melted nature had survived. Bio life didn't.

Not this time it won't known by Satanists as scientific human AI predicted warnings.

Ground base is cooling as earths mass loses fusion. Sink hole the evidence earth mass is losing heat.

Men knew. Predicted psyche messages of science causes were constantly advising his mind.

The satanic choices no nature in the future as ground base goes cold...new ice age.

Knows. Why spiritual men named them life's destroyer as it is pre known as so is science reactions to earth base heavens pre known by men always ....it's gas included as known changed.

Is who we argue against in human natural purpose of our self survival.

Man invented his human language use words first to communicate what he needed to live by in nature. Is no excuse to use words to knowingly destroy nature.

Yet old man scientist not father man said if he could time travel back to no light heavens first. Being a lie as it was now burning. Rooted nature needed to be structurally ground mass released. To theme actual going back in time.

So yes today he is still acting out his first human scientific thesis to travel back to no light. In light it means burnt out to all death in thesis.

As infinity vacuum void owned the law cold clear Immaculate. The sun owned light consuming everything back to nothing. No light answer too.

As words a human man states today every past human theists intention. To live die destroy heal return...then do it all again until his ultimate first thesis is met. Remove plant root held in grounds mass. Tree.

Why he started searching for the theist by name himself to try to waylay his motivated science plan. Yet rich men are involved.

Modern man predicted life biology healed conscious mind science reinherited did. He said he had learnt and was more intelligent than his past life brothers.

Many scientists still referenced God.

He said as they all ever did state by ego was my new model will be safer. Yet life began dying in modern life from new blood bone disease as above gases sun fuel dusts changed. Asteroid history.

Men knowing freeze law had stopped bodies of moons asteroids colliding with planets. That caused the scattering of planets in a sun war against the God bodies.

So it had been stopped as law owned observed proof.

So he congratulates himself on knowing God before God the greatest itself he named existed. As he wants to be known as the greatest man ever.

Man's egotism versus planet history. Reality.

So then he knew to apply extra cooling artificially outside of earths natural law. He builds the new machine that proved it overheats in nature's law and nearly blows up.

As old man's mind modern consciousness building advices cooling power plant was removed of men to then believe in old science ways. Proven its mind possession.

In natural law it should have blown up as it had in the past. Only because he utilised artificial cooling first science of man's position is machine law that it didn't blow up. The only reason...as science he owns only as a human man.

His mind hence said AI...artificial saved my science. It's fake feedback human advice. As any human phenomena gained caused by humans hurt didn't survive. We're are all one human in one heavens.

You just wait for your turn to learn.

So he proves to us all my hearing of his science predicted human confessions are real. He knew what he was going to cause and human greed support its occurrence.

By collecting plant....seeds.

As you are prepared Satanists to go back as the rich human to live under ground just like the old human liars.

All known awareness.

Father said American President was the shaker of hands of spiritual national father. Slave agreement pact overcome.

As English to American history was also we came from and by the slave race returning human justices for the world. Why his spiritual father memories in his heavenly recordings convinced you to stop slavery.

So you prove you are now displaced in agreements of old. Family Thanksgiving of food in your own land.

Thank you for not heeding your own warnings.

 

[Spirit of Light]

When you say God exists everywhere, are you using the word "exists" in the same way if you were describing ordinary physical stuff?

What I mean is, maybe I say that all over the surface of the planet there's a layer of gas called air that I can't see but I know exists. And you say God also exists at every place on the surface of the Earth (as well as everywhere else). I'm not sure we use the word 'exists' in the same way here. I mean it is physically in that place.

Or in another use of exists, I could say black swans definitely exist. And you could say God definitely exists. But I'd mean that if we counted all the swans we'd find some number of black ones. Or there is some "thing" we would both agree is a black swan. Is there a "thing" we could both agree is God?

Does this make any sense?

Human beings can not fully know God's essence but when I said exist everywhere it means physically within every atom but also in the realms unseen to human eyes.

To explain God is more or less impossible since I do not know the full existence of God.
So It is based on belief.

 

[rational experiences]

A human using the everything began from eternals dot point space opening moment. Eternal burning moving into O body mass.

Says the body of god...any held mass of energy not scattered.

Is inside a space opened trapped created form as the body type god. Held inside eternals space womb body not eternal.

God is held within.

You must ask what holds it. Space holds God body within it the answer...what's not God.

Equals reflection in a thesis answer is what it's now not.

 

[nPeace]

Then what was the content of post #72?

What was the context of your questions?
OK, what measures should be used? How can a detection be made by someone who is skeptical?

My answer was in that context.

1. Consider the evidence presented. Romans 1:19-20; Acts of the Apostles 14:17; Psalms 19:1
2. Search or investigate. Psalms 10:4; 1 Chronicles 28:9
3. Be honest about the facts. Joshua 23:14; John 17:17

Yes, we learn new things over time. And we modify our views as we find more evidence.

isn't that precisely what you did in post #72?

No.

If not, what wa sthe point of that post?

The point of the post was to directly answer your questions. See above.

OK, I see the sun. How does that justify the belief in a deity?

That's no different to saying, "Okay. I see the shoe print. How does that justify the belief that this is something worth considering."
No detective would think he just needs to see the shoe print, to know what happened at the scene.
They know they need to investigate - ask question about said item... etc.

No one asked you to look at the sun to see a deity.
I hope you at least saw the light.

Yes. and it is a good thing.

Well if you like making that mistake, and think you are still quite brilliant, suit yourself.

OK, where did you give the evidence?

Ha Ha. That's like the man who can't find his glasses, and they are on his face.

Yes, for example, Francis Collins is a well known Christian evangelical that also notes that evolution occurred and that creationism is a fraud.

shrug:

What you seem to miss is that this is the same process *every* scientific theory goes through. The evidence has to be able to convince skeptics and withstand criticism. And that is how it *should* be.

I ask no more than I would ask any scientist promoting a new idea.

Wait. What do you think it was that convinced the skeptics?
Because it doesn't convince all skeptics that makes it not evidence?
In that case, there is no evidence for evolution, since it hasn't convinced all skeptics.

 

[Polymath257]

What was the context of your questions?
OK, what measures should be used? How can a detection be made by someone who is skeptical?

My answer was in that context.

1. Consider the evidence presented. Romans 1:19-20; Acts of the Apostles 14:17; Psalms 19:1
2. Search or investigate. Psalms 10:4; 1 Chronicles 28:9
3. Be honest about the facts. Joshua 23:14; John 17:17

Which I interpreted as you pointing to the evidence, telling me where to search, and giving the facts. That seemed like a reasonable interpretation given the context.

Unfortunately, it wasn't what was offered.

No.

The point of the post was to directly answer your questions. See above.

And how did it answer my question? How can it be measured? And how can a detection be made by someone who is skeptical?

These are questions that require much more than generalities in their answers. Saying to look at the evidence is obvious. HOW do you get the evidence? WHERE do you look? IN WHAT WAY do you collect it?

That's no different to saying, "Okay. I see the shoe print. How does that justify the belief that this is something worth considering."
No detective would think he just needs to see the shoe print, to know what happened at the scene.
They know they need to investigate - ask question about said item... etc.

No one asked you to look at the sun to see a deity.
I hope you at least saw the light.

The footprint can narrow down the consideration of what to search for: it gives shoe size, and often gender of the person stepping there. If it is in a location where footprints are not usually expected, it can be a clue to other things.

Yhe sun is one of many, many stars in our galaxy that is one of many, many galaxies. It is a fairly ordinary dwarf star.

In what way is the sun evidence of a deity? Be clear.

Well if you like making that mistake, and think you are still quite brilliant, suit yourself.

Yes, skepticism is a good thing. ALWAYS ask what the context is of the evidence, how it relates to what you are investigating, what other interpretations are possible, etc.

Ha Ha. That's like the man who can't find his glasses, and they are on his face.

Then point out that they are on my face. What evidence have you given for a deity? How is the sun evidence of such?

shrug:


Wait. What do you think it was that convinced the skeptics?

The evidence convinces those who are open minded and not committed to a position.

Because it doesn't convince all skeptics that makes it not evidence?
In that case, there is no evidence for evolution, since it hasn't convinced all skeptics.

Are those who remain unconvinced only unconvinced because they previous committed to the opposite? Do they really understand the evidence and the science? Or are they simply rearranging their prejudices?

Let me be clear: why is the sun evidence of a deity?

I can say why a fossil or sequence of fossils is evidence of evolution.

 

[nPeace]

Which I interpreted as you pointing to the evidence, telling me where to search, and giving the facts. That seemed like a reasonable interpretation given the context.

Unfortunately, it wasn't what was offered.

Well presumptions and assumptions do tend to lead to that, doesn't it?
Getting rid of those, and having an open mind solves that problem.

And how did it answer my question? How can it be measured? And how can a detection be made by someone who is skeptical?

Sigh
You asked what measures should be used? How can a detection be made by someone who is skeptical?
If you don't want answers to questions you ask, why ask?

If you are looking for an answer to make your arguments easier to defend, think carefully before you ask, and then ask.
In other words, try to be smarter than you are, at the moment. Maybe ask @Jose Fly for some tips.

These are questions that require much more than generalities in their answers. Saying to look at the evidence is obvious. HOW do you get the evidence? WHERE do you look? IN WHAT WAY do you collect it?

You asked specific questions and got specific answers.
If the answer is obvious, why ask the question?

The footprint can narrow down the consideration of what to search for: it gives shoe size, and often gender of the person stepping there. If it is in a location where footprints are not usually expected, it can be a clue to other things.

No. Looking at a shoe print, does not give shoe size, and often gender of the person stepping there.
The detective has to do more than look at the shoe print.
That's my point.
You need to do more than look at the sun.

Yhe sun is one of many, many stars in our galaxy that is one of many, many galaxies. It is a fairly ordinary dwarf star.

In what way is the sun evidence of a deity? Be clear.

No one here made such a statement - the sun is evidence of a deity.
If someone said that to you, I'm sorry.
You need to ask them.

Yes, skepticism is a good thing. ALWAYS ask what the context is of the evidence, how it relates to what you are investigating, what other interpretations are possible, etc.

Sounds fair.
Although I don't agree you should ALWAYS ask.
How would you like it if someone asks you about evidence regarding evolution, and although you gave them, they ALWAYS ask?

Then point out that they are on my face. What evidence have you given for a deity? How is the sun evidence of such?

You aren't following, are you.
In other words, being direct... You were given evidence, but you rejected it.
Pointing to it will not change that.
It's equivalent to a man who has on his glasses, but is still looking for them :

The evidence convinces those who are open minded and not committed to a position.

I agree. That's why the skeptics I referred to accepted the evidence... different to you.

Are those who remain unconvinced only unconvinced because they previous committed to the opposite? Do they really understand the evidence and the science? Or are they simply rearranging their prejudices?

All good questions.
I'm sure we will have different opinions on the application of the answers.

Let me be clear: why is the sun evidence of a deity?

Ask those who told you that. I didn't.

I can say why a fossil or sequence of fossils is evidence of evolution.

I'm sure you can.
I can say why designed objects are evidence of a designer... an intelligent one.

 

[Polymath257]

Well presumptions and assumptions do tend to lead to that, doesn't it?
Getting rid of those, and having an open mind solves that problem.


Sigh
You asked what measures should be used? How can a detection be made by someone who is skeptical?
If you don't want answers to questions you ask, why ask?

If you are looking for an answer to make your arguments easier to defend, think carefully before you ask, and then ask.
In other words, try to be smarter than you are, at the moment. Maybe ask @Jose Fly for some tips.


You asked specific questions and got specific answers.
If the answer is obvious, why ask the question?

No, I asked for the mechanisms of detection and how a skeptic can detect these thing.

I got 'go look at the evidence and some Bible verses'. That is not a specific answer.

No. Looking at a shoe print, does not give shoe size, and often gender of the person stepping there.
The detective has to do more than look at the shoe print.
That's my point.
You need to do more than look at the sun.


No one here made such a statement - the sun is evidence of a deity.
If someone said that to you, I'm sorry.
You need to ask them.

Well, then, what *is* evidence of a deity?

Sounds fair.
Although I don't agree you should ALWAYS ask.
How would you like it if someone asks you about evidence regarding evolution, and although you gave them, they ALWAYS ask?

Well, ask honest questions based on understanding the previous answers, but yes.

You aren't following, are you.
In other words, being direct... You were given evidence, but you rejected it.

Where was I given evidence? What evidence was I given? How does that evidence relate to the conclusions?

Pointing to it will not change that.
It's equivalent to a man who has on his glasses, but is still looking for them :


I agree. That's why the skeptics I referred to accepted the evidence... different to you.

Again, *what* evidence? Be specific.

All good questions.
I'm sure we will have different opinions on the application of the answers.


Ask those who told you that. I didn't.

Then what *do* you consider to be evidence of a deity?

I'm sure you can.
I can say why designed objects are evidence of a designer... an intelligent one.

Yes, and I can give a number of criteria to figure out whether a particular artifact is or is not designed.

 

[syo]

Does something exist before science discover it?

Yes.

 

[nPeace]

No, I asked for the mechanisms of detection and how a skeptic can detect these thing.

I didn't see that in your question.
Maybe science minded people would have, I didn't know.
However, I'm not a scientist, and I don't squeeze every sentence into a scientific box.

I got 'go look at the evidence and some Bible verses'. That is not a specific answer.

That was your misinterpretation, based on a wrong assumption.

Well, then, what *is* evidence of a deity?

Already answered that.

Well, ask honest questions based on understanding the previous answers, but yes.

Where was I given evidence? What evidence was I given? How does that evidence relate to the conclusions?

Surely, your memory isn't that shallow... I hope.

Again, *what* evidence? Be specific.

Quite a lot, but I don't want to waste my time.
Perhaps you don't want to do that either, but if you like, you can start by reading Flew's book. He was specific about what evidence convinced him.
Flew wrote that what convinced him of God’s existence was the DNA evidence. DNA evidence has revolutionized biology, medicine and even law enforcement. DNA evidence solves crimes and provides irrefutable evidence that sends rapists and murderers behind bars. It’s also used to revisit cases and set innocent convicts free. As biology progresses it shows more of the mind boggling complexity of DNA. Biologists recently discovered yet another level of cellular complexity called the epigenome which surrounds and transmits messages to and from the DNA. Even the DNA of a “simple” life form such as an E. Coli bacteria is hundreds of thousands of nucleotide base pairs long. The base pairs in the DNA must be precisely sequenced for the bacteria to live.

Atheists believe DNA and all other biochemicals were formed by random collisions of atoms in the early earth. How could unguided processes in nature randomly solve a million Rubik’s Cubes? It takes great faith to believe that millions of extremely low probability chemical coincidences could have occurred and blindly formed every living thing. Atheism is a secular faith to which some adherents cling with religious zeal.

The small bits of evidence I gave you were specific as well.
I'm not sure how much more specific you want us to get.

Then what *do* you consider to be evidence of a deity?

Wow. You don't budge, do you?
Do you consider yourself some sort of super intellect?
Why do you think if you aren't convinced, that renders all evidence void?
I wonder what you would say to James Tour. He said, "If anyone could understand evolution, it would be me."
He is not convinced about the 'evidence' you present.
Care to butt heads?

Whether you are convinced, or he is, makes no difference, does it?

Yes, and I can give a number of criteria to figure out whether a particular artifact is or is not designed.

Sure, you can.

 

[Polymath257]

Quite a lot, but I don't want to waste my time.
Perhaps you don't want to do that either, but if you like, you can start by reading Flew's book. He was specific about what evidence convinced him.
Flew wrote that what convinced him of God’s existence was the DNA evidence. DNA evidence has revolutionized biology, medicine and even law enforcement. DNA evidence solves crimes and provides irrefutable evidence that sends rapists and murderers behind bars. It’s also used to revisit cases and set innocent convicts free. As biology progresses it shows more of the mind boggling complexity of DNA. Biologists recently discovered yet another level of cellular complexity called the epigenome which surrounds and transmits messages to and from the DNA. Even the DNA of a “simple” life form such as an E. Coli bacteria is hundreds of thousands of nucleotide base pairs long. The base pairs in the DNA must be precisely sequenced for the bacteria to live.

Atheists believe DNA and all other biochemicals were formed by random collisions of atoms in the early earth. How could unguided processes in nature randomly solve a million Rubik’s Cubes? It takes great faith to believe that millions of extremely low probability chemical coincidences could have occurred and blindly formed every living thing. Atheism is a secular faith to which some adherents cling with religious zeal.

Well, at least this is something real and that needs to be considered.

Thank you.

I'll deal with your second paragraph first. Yes, *everything* is *always* the result of 'random collisions of atoms'. Except, of course, those collisions are NOT random. The atoms have properties that determine *how* they collide and what happens *after* they collide. Those properties also determine which atoms will stick together to form molecules and which ones won't. Some atoms attract other atoms, others repel. And this is NOT random: it very much depends on the specific atoms involved.

Also, that second paragraph is mostly rhetoric, not argument. It asks questions without actually looking at what the science says is the answer. It compares things to Rubik's Cubes in a false and rather dishonest way. Among other things, the use of 'random' and 'blind' is rhetoric and not science or even honest. It implicitly assumes that any order requires an intelligence to guide it, but that is clearly false in general and the point at issue in this case. It also assumes that all steps happened 'all at once' rather than in progression (which is what would be expected of the chemistry).

So now to the first paragraph. Flew was getting elderly and senile when he became a theist. His opinion is rather irrelevant even without that. Was he a scientist? Did he specialize in biology? or biochemistry? No. He was a philosopher.

So, now, what is the *actual* evidence in this?

DNA is a molecule made out of four different 'nucleic acids', adenine, cysteine, guanine, and thymine, usually abbreviated ACGT. It is similar in structure to RNA, which has uracil instead of thymine.

There is a LOT of scientific evidence that RNA was the basis of genetics before DNA was: it is able to convey genetic information, but it is also able to act like proteins (which is what DNA encodes) to catalyze important reactions in the body, many of the crucial aspects of DNA processing are done by RNA. Even the conversion of DNA into protein relies on an RNA intermediary and RNA to actually do the translation.

And we *know* from observation that RNA can spontaneously assemble and self-replicate and catalyze those central chemical reactions for life. So, it is the very chemical properties of the RNA that make it assemble into things useful for early life, including the genetics.

The real question is how the transition from an RNA world to a DNA world occurred. This is not known yet, but the 'blind, random' aspects questioned in in your quote had already been overcome by the RNA stage.

The point is that no intelligent intervention is required when the properties of the chemicals themselves drive the required reactions. This is a purely natural process that does not require supernatural intervention.

Now, given this, exactly what is the evidence for a deity that created the *universe*? Remember that the Earth is a very small, rather insignificant part of the universe and even *if* some intelligence pushed DNA along (which is counter to what we know, but even if), it would say NOTHING about the universe as a whole.

So, precisely what is your evidence for God?

 

[Polymath257]

Wow. You don't budge, do you?
Do you consider yourself some sort of super intellect?
Why do you think if you aren't convinced, that renders all evidence void?
I wonder what you would say to James Tour. He said, "If anyone could understand evolution, it would be me."
He is not convinced about the 'evidence' you present.
Care to butt heads?

Maybe if he comes on this forum, there could be a good discussion. There are people here that are much more knowledgeable about evolution and its details than I am.

 

[nPeace]

Well, at least this is something real and that needs to be considered.

Thank you.

I'll deal with your second paragraph first. Yes, *everything* is *always* the result of 'random collisions of atoms'. Except, of course, those collisions are NOT random. The atoms have properties that determine *how* they collide and what happens *after* they collide. Those properties also determine which atoms will stick together to form molecules and which ones won't. Some atoms attract other atoms, others repel. And this is NOT random: it very much depends on the specific atoms involved.

Also, that second paragraph is mostly rhetoric, not argument. It asks questions without actually looking at what the science says is the answer. It compares things to Rubik's Cubes in a false and rather dishonest way. Among other things, the use of 'random' and 'blind' is rhetoric and not science or even honest. It implicitly assumes that any order requires an intelligence to guide it, but that is clearly false in general and the point at issue in this case. It also assumes that all steps happened 'all at once' rather than in progression (which is what would be expected of the chemistry).

So now to the first paragraph. Flew was getting elderly and senile when he became a theist. His opinion is rather irrelevant even without that. Was he a scientist? Did he specialize in biology? or biochemistry? No. He was a philosopher.

So, now, what is the *actual* evidence in this?

DNA is a molecule made out of four different 'nucleic acids', adenine, cysteine, guanine, and thymine, usually abbreviated ACGT. It is similar in structure to RNA, which has uracil instead of thymine.

There is a LOT of scientific evidence that RNA was the basis of genetics before DNA was: it is able to convey genetic information, but it is also able to act like proteins (which is what DNA encodes) to catalyze important reactions in the body, many of the crucial aspects of DNA processing are done by RNA. Even the conversion of DNA into protein relies on an RNA intermediary and RNA to actually do the translation.

And we *know* from observation that RNA can spontaneously assemble and self-replicate and catalyze those central chemical reactions for life. So, it is the very chemical properties of the RNA that make it assemble into things useful for early life, including the genetics.

The real question is how the transition from an RNA world to a DNA world occurred. This is not known yet, but the 'blind, random' aspects questioned in in your quote had already been overcome by the RNA stage.

The point is that no intelligent intervention is required when the properties of the chemicals themselves drive the required reactions. This is a purely natural process that does not require supernatural intervention.

Now, given this, exactly what is the evidence for a deity that created the *universe*? Remember that the Earth is a very small, rather insignificant part of the universe and even *if* some intelligence pushed DNA along (which is counter to what we know, but even if), it would say NOTHING about the universe as a whole.

So, precisely what is your evidence for God?

That's quite a superficial understand of what Flew said, as far as I can tell.
Every single thing has properties.
Steel has properties, also.
So if you put a hinge on a steel door, the door will swing according to the way you arranged it. not random.

Flew said... "How could unguided processes in nature randomly solve a million Rubik’s Cubes? It takes great faith to believe that millions of extremely low probability chemical coincidences could have occurred and blindly formed every living thing".

We are talking about precisely arrange to accomplish specific goals.
The properties of steel are not the same as wool, but that's not our focus here.

Also, why are the properties such?
Do you believe that all those chemicals existed with their properties.... or were they created?

 

[nPeace]

Maybe if he comes on this forum, there could be a good discussion. There are people here that are much more knowledgeable about evolution and its details than I am.

I doubt that.
Tour speaks to colleagues he knows, who are chemists, biologists, etc.
He does not have to come here.
If he did, it would likely be quite embarrassing.

 

[Polymath257]

That's quite a superficial understand of what Flew said, as far as I can tell.
Every single thing has properties.
Steel has properties, also.
So if you put a hinge on a steel door, the door will swing according to the way you arranged it. not random.

Yes. Good.

Flew said... "How could unguided processes in nature randomly solve a million Rubik’s Cubes? It takes great faith to believe that millions of extremely low probability chemical coincidences could have occurred and blindly formed every living thing".

We are talking about precisely arrange to accomplish specific goals.
The properties of steel are not the same as wool, but that's not our focus here.

Who said the 'goals' were set ahead of time? Why would you expect the *specific* events? maybe we wouldn't. This is simply rhe way it turned out on Earth.

But, the properties of the chemicals that existed on the early Earth were such that they produced the new chemicals that were the precursors of life. We also know that those precursor chemicals can spontaneously assemble to form even newer chemicals that do the basic reactions of life.

So, yes, the specific properties of the chemicals involved is very much the focus here.

Also, why are the properties such?
Do you believe that all those chemicals existed with their properties.... or were they created?

Anywhere we see a hydrogen atom, it has the same properties. Anywhere we see an oxygen atom, it has the same properties. Same for carbon atoms, nitrogen atoms, etc. They are not unique to the Earth. In fact, the basic elements of life are common in the universe.

So, yes, I believe those chemicals existed with their properties well before the Earth formed and so well before there was life. In fact, I *know* that to be the case since those elements were formed in the previous generation of stars via nuclear reactions at the core of those stars.

Why are the properties what they are? For that, I would suggest that you study some quantum mechanics, which is what describes the properties of atoms in terms of their constituents (protons, neutrons, and electrons---with protons and electrons being the most important for chemistry).

So, yes, if you have a carbon atom, it will interact in some ways with oxygen atoms, but in very different ways with hydrogen or nitrogen atoms. Those ways are NOT random: they are, in fact, very constrained by the laws of nature.

 

[Polymath257]

I doubt that.
Tour speaks to colleagues he knows, who are chemists, biologists, etc.
He does not have to come here.
If he did, it would likely be quite embarrassing.

So, in his absence, we have to make due with those here. If you want to advocate his ideas, please study up and be prepared to defend them. Otherwise, you are just taking his word for things.

By the way (from James Tour - Wikipedia):

"In 2001, Tour was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers among the five hundred scientists and engineers whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's controversial petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism".[59] The petition states "we are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."[60] Although Tour claims not to be a proponent of intelligent design,[61] the two-sentence statement has been widely used by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and some of their supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and to promote intelligent design."

This petition was misrepresented to most of the scientists that signed it and is usually dishonestly used by ID advocates. Yes, careful examination of the evidence for *any* scientific theory should be encouraged. And yes, we should be skeptical of *any* scientific claims.

But note that Tour is NOT a proponent of ID and says that religion plays no role in his scientific work.

A brief look at what the Discovery Institute did with that 'petition':
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - Wikipedia

Rather dishonest, don't you think?

 

[nPeace]

Yes. Good.



Who said the 'goals' were set ahead of time? Why would you expect the *specific* events? maybe we wouldn't. This is simply rhe way it turned out on Earth.

But, the properties of the chemicals that existed on the early Earth were such that they produced the new chemicals that were the precursors of life. We also know that those precursor chemicals can spontaneously assemble to form even newer chemicals that do the basic reactions of life.

So, yes, the specific properties of the chemicals involved is very much the focus here.



Anywhere we see a hydrogen atom, it has the same properties. Anywhere we see an oxygen atom, it has the same properties. Same for carbon atoms, nitrogen atoms, etc. They are not unique to the Earth. In fact, the basic elements of life are common in the universe.

So, yes, I believe those chemicals existed with their properties well before the Earth formed and so well before there was life. In fact, I *know* that to be the case since those elements were formed in the previous generation of stars via nuclear reactions at the core of those stars.

Why are the properties what they are? For that, I would suggest that you study some quantum mechanics, which is what describes the properties of atoms in terms of their constituents (protons, neutrons, and electrons---with protons and electrons being the most important for chemistry).

So, yes, if you have a carbon atom, it will interact in some ways with oxygen atoms, but in very different ways with hydrogen or nitrogen atoms. Those ways are NOT random: they are, in fact, very constrained by the laws of nature.

Oh. So you believe the earth is the only matter that didn't always exist?
Who said anything about the earth?
I asked, Do you believe that all those chemicals existed with their properties.... or were they created?
That says nothing about the earth.

So let me try again.
Do you believe that those chemicals always existed with their properties.... or were they created?

Oh.

So, yes, I believe those chemicals existed with their properties well before the Earth formed and so well before there was life. In fact, I *know* that to be the case since those elements were formed in the previous generation of stars via nuclear reactions at the core of those stars.

Good. My question is, do you believe they were created?

Who said the 'goals' were set ahead of time?

God did.

Why would you expect the *specific* events?

God declares why. Moreover, we see the purpose as declared, and it lines up perfectly with what we know.

How does this happen?

maybe we wouldn't. This is simply rhe way it turned out on Earth.

Sounds like you are guessing, and why would that not be a surprise? Because you dismiss a creator as of no account - non-optional.

The other thing you did is mention the earth, as though we were talking about the earth.
I understand you want to believe that this is simply rhe way it turned out on earth, and you are entitled to believe that, aren't you.
It's not true, because you believe it. You know that, right?

the properties of the chemicals that existed on the early Earth were such that they produced the new chemicals that were the precursors of life.

Why are you focussing on the earth?
Were there no chemicals before the earth?
Why have you shifted your attention to chemicals on earth?

We also know that those precursor chemicals can spontaneously assemble to form even newer chemicals that do the basic reactions of life.

What precursor chemicals are you referring to?

 

[Polymath257]

Oh. So you believe the earth is the only matter that didn't always exist?
Who said anything about the earth?
I asked, Do you believe that all those chemicals existed with their properties.... or were they created?
That says nothing about the earth.

Life began on Earth. It was the properties of the chemicals on Earth that were relevant to the origins of life.

So, yes, those chemicals existed prior to the origin of life.

Did they always exist? No. They were formed inside of stars (for the most part--some exceptions).

So let me try again.
Do you believe that those chemicals always existed with their properties.... or were they created?

Most of them formed inside of stars. To be created means some sort of conscious agent that was not present.

Oh.
Good. My question is, do you believe they were created?

No.

God did.

According to what evidence?

God declares why. Moreover, we see the purpose as declared, and it lines up perfectly with what we know.

No, your holy texts and priests declare, attributing it to God. it lines up perfectly only after substantial reinterpretation.

How does this happen?

Sounds like you are guessing, and why would that not be a surprise? Because you dismiss a creator as of no account - non-optional.

I see no evidence for such a creator. The evidence you suggested (from DNA) does not even come close. it doesn't even prove intelligent intervention for the development of life on Earth, let alone the existence of a creator for the universe as a whole.

The other thing you did is mention the earth, as though we were talking about the earth.
I understand you want to believe that this is simply rhe way it turned out on earth, and you are entitled to believe that, aren't you.
It's not true, because you believe it. You know that, right?

Well, we were talking about the origin of DNA. We only know of DNA on Earth. That sort of limits the discussion to what happened on Earth.

Why are you focussing on the earth?
Were there no chemicals before the earth?
Why have you shifted your attention to chemicals on earth?

You asked about the origin of our DNA. That happened on Earth.

What precursor chemicals are you referring to?

Well, for most of life, water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen cyanide. There are a few others, but those are the basics.

And yes, we know those are common in the universe.