For Danmac - Abiogenesis

[McBell]

Much of ancient history is recorded after the fact. Much of what you have been taught about history is not from eyewitness accounts.

You did not answer the questions.
Not even close.

 

[BCG190]

Much of ancient history is recorded after the fact. Much of what you have been taught about history is not from eyewitness accounts.

Not to interject, but what accepted Historical events are not tied to eyewitness accounts? I'll give you that historical events may be skewed for the historian's purposes, but you simply cannot assert that because what we have been taught in history is not from eyewitness account (Although I question where the proof of this is), that it is acceptable or justifiable to adopt some other form of belief in undocumented history (i.e. myth).

You're belief system does not require science, sure, but there is a logical miscalculation I see here. No, science cannot explain everything, and yes, reassertions are made to correct previous mistakes, but that is the nature of science. Consider this analogy: If you get a tutor, and that tutor does not know everything about a subject, you do not disregard all other ways of learning and throw in your lot with the town psychic. You get a better tutor. This is the case with science. If science fails to describe something comprehensively, you do not (logically) throw in your lot with some religious belief. You get better science.

It is as though you, in seeing that neither religion nor science can sufficiently explain some origin story, think that there is some 50/50 shot and no one can make assertions either way. The decided difference is that, where religion cannot explain and then uses belief in the unprovable as a crutch, science recognized that it cannot explain a certain topic and then strives to.

 

[Commoner]

Pssst! The new guy's trying to use reason on Danmac...

*snickers*

 

[BCG190]

Pssst! The new guy's trying to use reason on Danmac...

*snickers*

I'm assuming there is some unsaid joke about attempting? Oh well, a boy can dream

 

[Autodidact]

I believe they go hand in hand

Well, yes and no. They occupy entirely different spheres. Religion cannot do what science does, and vice versa. They needn't conflict, unless you try to make religion do science, which is what you're doing.

I am not a follower of Henry Drummond. I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

So was Henry Drummond. Think, man, think. Difficult and painful though it is, engage the material with your brain.

1)Specified complexity is empirically detectable

No it isn't and this is completely beside the point I am trying to convery.

2)Concerning the first life, all known natural explanations fail.

They don't fail, we just don't know--yet. At some point in the future we will know. This should not reduce your concept of God. Your approach depends on us not knowing. This creates a problem for you when, as usually happens, science figures it out. Better theology would not depend on science NOT knowing something. Rather it should take into account that science does know. In other words, when science figures out abiogenesis, that should not threaten your faith. Your faith is that whatever science figures out, that is what God set up.

3) Empirically detectable evidence points to a creator.

No it doesn't, and by it's very nature it can't, because that's not what empiricism is about. I'm not surprised that you're having trouble grasping this, as you were unable to grasp the kindergarten-level concept that science is about HOW, not WHO.

4) ID is falsifiable.

No it's not. Easy--use ID to make a falsifiable prediction, something that can only be true if ID is false. I don't think you even understand what ID is arguing.

The Darwinist position isn't.

You are so deeply confused. Why are you talking about Darwin again? This thread is about abiogenesis. Darwin knew nothing about it. Nothing.

Your position is not tentative or open to correction. Darwinists are closed minded. Therefore it is not falsifiable.

You don't even know what falsifiable means. Do you want to go learn, or do I have to endure the agony of trying to teach you something? *groans*

The Bible is the supreme authority, not Drummond. His is merely interpretation.

He's not interpreting the Bible. He's trying to explain the relationship between religion and science. You got it wrong; he got it right.

The laws of science do not permit it to be closed minded. Why do you not follow the laws of science?

What laws are you referring to? I use the scientific method.

Your position is not falsifiable.

What position? What are you talking about?

I want to know why your position isn't falsifiable.

I want to know what the heck you're talking about. As I recall, when you asked me my opinion regarding abiogenesis, I replied, "I don't know." How is that a non-falsifiable position, or even a position about anything utter than my knowledge?

 

[Autodidact]

The only other alternative is a creator. To that, evolutionists are closed minded. Therefore evolution is not falsifiable. If you are going to call them lies, would you at least have the courtesy to explain why you are calling them such?

Then explain Christian evolutionary biologists.

I may have to give up on you. Do you perhaps suffer from brain damage? I don't know if I can bring myself to type this for you again; you seem to be either unable or unwilling to grasp it. Maybe you could explain why, because it's getting downright sickening. Please try to read and understand these simple ideas:

God is not an alternative to evolution. God and evolution are entirely compatible. We assume that God created all things. We are not trying to figure that out. The only thing science tries to figure out is how God did that. Unfortunately I have no bigger font available to me.

HOW
HOW
HOW
NOT WHO.
HOW.
Please respond or acknowledge in some way that you have at least tried to understand this idea. It's not complicated. Science does not, and cannot, tell us whether God exists, because Science does not study God. Science can proceed on the assumption that God exists, or does not.

In any case, as usual, you're wrong. There were many alternatives to Darwinian evolution (although why you are discussing them in a thread about abiogenesis I don't know, and have to attribute to the disorganization that passes for your thought process.) Lamarkism, for example, was falsified and rejected. For example, had the earth turned out to be only a million years old, and not several billion, ToE would have been falsified and discarded. As it turned out, the prediction that the earth would be several billion years old was fulfilled, as was every other prediction the theory has ever made.

I'm left with the same question creationists always raise: Are you incapable of learning, or incapable of telling the truth? I'm still waiting for you to explain why you cannot grasp this super-simple idea. Can you tell me?

 

[Autodidact]

You asked me why I hold my position. I told you that it is not uncommon to find dissenters among scientists. My position relies on two things. First and foremost it relies on a real experience I had that was followed by a radical paradigm shift. I cannot prove this to you, but it is undeniable to myself. This alone nudges me to embrace the whole of Christianity. The rest I take on faith.

We understand that. We don't understand why it causes you to reject science.

 

[Autodidact]

I have stated that I am open to theistic evolution as the vehicle God chose to bring about creation. After all, the Bible states that we were first dust. I don't think of dust in the literal sense, but you get the picture. I cannot accept one common ancestor for all living things and believe the Bible at the same time. My beliefs would then contradict one another.

O.K., now focus. I really want you to understand what I'm saying. You are creating an unnecessary problem for yourself. ToE is correct. The only way you can reject it is to reject science itself, and that would make your life very difficult. You have decided that it contradicts your religious belief. That puts you in a position where you have to reject either science or your belief in God, neither of which you want to throw away. Why not have a true faith in God that's not dependent on rejecting science? That's a firmer foundation for your faith in Jesus Christ, which is what matters.

 

[Autodidact]

My intentions are not to deceive. I happen to believe differently than you. That doesn't make me a liar, it means that I sincerely disagree with you. Can you have a constructive debate without the insults? I am losing my patience with all of this schoolyard taunting.

What makes you a liar is that you keep lying. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; everyone is not entitled to their own facts. The things you are asserting are false, and you keep repeating them. What do you call it when someone repeats falsehoods?

Again, your problem is that you are making your religious faith depend on believing things that are not true. You can change that. You can have a religious faith in Jesus Christ that does not depend on contradicting scientific facts. The choice is yours: real faith or false?

 

[Autodidact]

If you cannot have a civil debate without insults I will ignore your posts. These childish insults are a bit tiring.

If you don't want people to call you a liar, you need to stop lying.

 

[Autodidact]

Debate is always on purpose. Debate means my position is different than yours. That is what we are doing here. Questioning my integrity has nothing to do with debate. You are making the debate personal. That is insulting and does not promote constructive debate.

If your debate style happens to include making claims which are demonstrably false, then your integrity will come into question. Either that or your comprehension. As I said before, I have no other ideas to explain your inability or unwillingness to grasp simple and obvious facts, do you?

 

[Autodidact]

The bible tells us that humans were created as the highest life form. It tells us that humans should have dominion over all other forms of life. We do. Humans were created as free moral agents. Therefore we are held to an accountability that animals are not. We are also as a result offered the promise of an eternal hope thru Jesus Christ, as I believe He paid for all human failure. I would think that would be appealing to anyone.

Well you can certainly believe all that without having to bang your head against all of modern science. I don't believe those things, but at least they're a matter of opinion and faith, and you're welcome to believe them without having to lie or pretend science doesn't work.

 

[Autodidact]

My belief in God has little to do with creation versus evolution. There are other things that point to a higher being. Things like an objective moral law is the strongest argument. That would be for another thread though.

Good, so let it go and stop being wrong. Wouldn't that be a nice relief for you?

 

[Autodidact]

My position doesn't rely on science. As a matter of fact it warns against dishonest interpretations of scientific data. It's like lucy for example. Science made claims about lucy that were later found to be false. How many more evolutionary claims are false, but held as true in the present?

All of them. All of science is tentative, subject to revision and wrong. Every bit of it. It's also the most right thing we have. It gets less and less wrong, until it's so little wrong, it's just about right. At that point we accept it as scientific fact and move on. That's where ToE is right now.

However, since you can't even grasp what the subject of science is, I don't expect you to understand this at all. It's obviously far too sophisticated for you.

Oh, and you said you accept the scientific method. Now you rail against it. When you contradict yourself like that, we know you're LYING.

 

[Autodidact]

The Bible is the foundation of my beliefs. I have adopted the bible as truth. The Bible is absolute truth. I am a man and subject to error. All knowlege is always borrowed from another source. I prefer to go to the source.

So do you believe that bats are birds? That there is a solid arch above the sky, with windows in it through which the waters above it sometimes falls? That showing sheep speckled sticks will cause them to bear speckled lambs? That there is a winged creature with 4 legs? I hope not, since these are all false. If you build your faith on believing false things, you are building on a foundation of sand. Would it not be better to take the Bible as a book about God, rather than science?

 

[Autodidact]

Is it possible that an intelligent being used theistic evolution as a vehicle to bring about all creatures in individual kinds?

Why can't you keep your threads straight? I am trying to address this question with you IN THE APPROPRIATE THREAD. Why not go there and engage with the evidence I've given you, which shows this is completely impossible?

 

[Autodidact]

Not to get off topic, but humans have an evil bent from birth. That is why we need to be infused with the positive energy of our creator. So that we can overcome our self driven nature. After all, natural selection is a selfish process. Survival of the fit enough.

Actually, no, it's not, but maybe you should start a thread to discuss evil and God? You're way, way off the subject of this one.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So do you believe that bats are birds? That there is a solid arch above the sky, with windows in it through which the waters above it sometimes falls? That showing sheep speckled sticks will cause them to bear speckled lambs? That there is a winged creature with 4 legs? I hope not, since these are all false. If you build your faith on believing false things, you are building on a foundation of sand. Would it not be better to take the Bible as a book about God, rather than science?

I know you refuse to answer me but could anyone explain what all this nonsense is?

 

[Autodidact]

I know you refuse to answer me but could anyone explain what all this nonsense is?

Check your Bible.

 

[DarkSun]

I can't believe this is even an argument . . .