Interesting video about evolution and origins.

[PureX]

There is a problem, although to call it 'origin' is probably wrong because it suggests a temporal problem and time cannot be assumed because of what we know about it from relativity. However, a sentient 'answer' would not be an answer. Some sentient being making it all would just add to the problem of order, not solve it. It would have to be even more ordered than the universe.

It has nothing to do with time. It's an issue of possibility. How did existence become possible? And how and why did it become possible in the precise way that it did? The question of origin is about what enabled what was possible, and what was not possible, to occur. Motion (space-time) is just one of the many enabled possibilities.

'Have happened' again suggests a pre-20th century view of time. We have the space-time manifold that appears to 'just be'. We can ask why but the problem with your preferred answer remains.


Hilarious! You want it so bad you have to pretend that it just is.


So you assert, without the first hint of reasoning or evidence.

I don't care what you declare to be reason or evidence, or not.

 

[ratiocinator]

It has nothing to do with time. It's an issue of possibility. How did existence become possible? And how and why did it become possible in the precise way that it did?

You're still using temporal language: "How did existence become possible?" Regardless, I have no idea why things exist and are the way they are. The difference is that I admit it and you want to make it sentient, have intent, and indulge in design.

I don't care what you declare to be reason or evidence, or not.

You don't seem to care about reasoning or evidence at all...

 

[PureX]

You're still using temporal language: "How did existence become possible?" Regardless, I have no idea why things exist and are the way they are. The difference is that I admit it and you want to make it sentient, have intent, and indulge in design.

Either existence happened, or it is perpetual. The Big Bang indicates that it happened. Nothing indicates that it is perpetual.

You don't seem to care about reasoning or evidence at all...

I don't care about answering to your criteria for reason or evidence, because I can see that it's biased.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I remember him saying something like, just hoping that chemistry in unpredictable environments is going to stick to the path you want, is unreasonable.

What's unreasonable is this implied incredulity fallacy. He considers the task beyond unconscious nature's capacity. Why? He just can't see how it could have happened, and so makes the unreasonable (fallacious) assumption that it did not.

It's also a straw man. The researchers investigating abiogenesis are just hoping anything, nor is there any particular preconceived path from simple molecules to life.

there is evidence for the Bible God in the true predictions in the Bible.

Bible prophecy is not evidence for superhuman prescience much less a supernatural origin. Scientific prophecy runs circles around biblical prophecy, yet doesn't suggest superhuman prescience much less a supernatural origin, either.

Everyone wants to discredit an organisation because of it's links to religious beliefs

Critical thinkers reject faith-based thought. If an organization announces that its worldview is faith-based, it has nothing of interest to say to such a person.

atheists/skeptics like using science to show it points to no God

You steadfastly insist on making this error, the one I call unbelief/disbelief conflation. You also refuse to discuss the matter even such as to say you disagree or even that you don't understand what is being told to you. I'd like to know if this is some sort of cognitive sleight-of-hand of which you are unaware or done knowingly and without interest in the inherent dishonesty of such a debate tactic. I've always assumed the former, but your evasion of the topic suggests otherwise.

Which parts of science show that the Bible God does not exist?

The parts that refute Old Testament myths. The deity that allegedly created the world in six days including the first two human beings doesn't exist. How do we know? Those things never happened.

No one cares about the kangaroo court going on in your mind, but you.

You're projecting, and sounding like Trump now. I'm assuming that the other critical thinkers reading along agree with his judgments of your comments like I do. You don't like those standards and have been demeaning the thinking of those who stand by them - "No one cares about your obsession with "evidence" but you." Why? Because they reject your claims, which you want respected, and so, you make comments like this italicized one, or refer to others as myopic, materialists, or deluded by scientism.

your kangaroo court has no sway, here.

You've got that backward again. You have no sway. You've convince nobody of anything, and your objections fall on deaf ears. Your critics agree with one another.

I don't care what you declare to be reason or evidence, or not.

You didn't need to say that.

 

[ratiocinator]

Either existence happened, or it is perpetual. The Big Bang indicates that it happened. Nothing indicates that it is perpetual.

As I suspected, a pre-20th century view of time, leading to a false dichotomy. Time, according to relativity, is just a direction (an observer dependant one, at a that) through the space-time manifold. If this view is correct, the manifold itself cannot experience time and cannot have 'happened'.

Further, we know that we don't know what happened at the BB because we lack a theory that unites relativity with quantum theory, so whether time is finite in the past is, in fact, an open question.

There are hypotheses that have time changing direction at the BB making both directions away from it into futures. There are cyclical models, closed time-like loops, and the no boundary proposal that has time becoming space-like at the 'start'.

 

[PureX]

As I suspected, a pre-20th century view of time, leading to a false dichotomy. Time, according to relativity, is just a direction (an observer dependant one, at a that) through the space-time manifold. If this view is correct, the manifold itself cannot experience time and cannot have 'happened'.

Once again, time is not relevant. Time is a function of space and motion. The question is how does existence as we know it become possible (via the Big Bang), or how is it perpetual (meta-universal)? We have no reason to presume that it's perpetual as nothing that we know to exist, is. Yet you are trying to proclaim that the question is irrelevant because you have no other means of defending your presumption of meta-universal perpetuity.

So stand in your own court, now, and present your own reasoning and evidence.

Further, we know that we don't know what happened at the BB because we lack a theory that unites relativity with quantum theory, so whether time is finite in the past is, in fact, an open question.

Time is irrelevant. It is a function of space and motion. This does not negate the question of causation, however, because causation is not a before/after issue, it's a possibility/impossibility issue.

There are hypotheses that have time changing direction at the BB making both directions away from it into futures. There are cyclical models, closed time-like loops, and the no boundary proposal that has time becoming space-like at the 'start'.

Fanciful attempts at dismissing the obvious questions. And all wrongly focused on time because the people floating these attempts are desperate to avoid the possibility question.

 

[ratiocinator]

Once again, time is not relevant.

I know, but you keep on bringing it up, not understanding it, and ending up with a false dichotomy.

Time is a function of space and motion.

No, it isn't. It's a dimension of space-time.

The question is how does existence as we know it become possible (via the Big Bang), or how is it perpetual (meta-universal)?

There's the false dichotomy based on a misunderstanding again.

We have no reason to presume that it's perpetual as nothing that we know to exist, is. Yet you are trying to proclaim that the question is irrelevant because you have no other means of defending your presumption of meta-universal perpetuity.

We have no reason to rule out either a finite or an infinite past, or any of the other options. It is irrelevant to why stuff exists because (assuming general relativity is broadly correct, which we have very good reasons to accept) it's all just a four-dimensional manifold that 'just is' regardless of the nature or extent of the past.

Fanciful attempts at dismissing the obvious questions. And all wrongly focused on time.

Scientific hypotheses, actually, that have nothing to do with dismissing anything. It's more complicated than you seem to want to admit, is all. It's you that seem to want to cling to an outdated view of time to get your false dichotomy of 'perpetual' or not. No idea why...

 

[Valjean]

It has nothing to do with time. It's an issue of possibility. How did existence become possible? And how and why did it become possible in the precise way that it did? The question of origin is about what enabled what was possible, and what was not possible, to occur. Motion (space-time) is just one of the many enabled possibilities.

Legitimate questions, but Goddidit! doesn't answer any of them, it just adds another factor to explain.
Who doesn't address how.

I don't care what you declare to be reason or evidence, or not.

You've redefined the term, then.

 

[Valjean]

Once again, time is not relevant. Time is a function of space and motion. The question is how does existence as we know it become possible (via the Big Bang), or how is it perpetual (meta-universal)? We have no reason to presume that it's perpetual as nothing that we know to exist, is. Yet you are trying to proclaim that the question is irrelevant because you have no other means of defending your presumption of meta-universal perpetuity.

I don't know what any of this has to do with God.

Time is irrelevant. It is a function of space and motion. This does not negate the question of causation, however, because causation is not a before/after issue, it's a possibility/impossibility issue.

Fanciful attempts at dismissing the obvious questions. And all wrongly focused on time because the people floating these attempts are desperate to avoid the possibility question.

Our experience of time and causation comes up because they're artifacts of human perception. and might not be as we experience them. We see causation in our experiential world, for example, but does effect really depend on cause at a quantum level?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Since atheists/skeptics like using science to show it points to no God, then that pointing must be in science.

NO. NO. NO.

I cannot believe you are still repeating this.

What we say is that the scientific explanations work very well in explaining things on their own, without the need of adding a god to the equation.
That's NOT the same thing as saying that science shows there is no god.

Please, please, try to understand this.

But that pointing can be easily dismissed because God is a spirit and science cannot study or test God or for God.

Now you've stepped outside of the realm of observation and science and have moved into the realm of magical thinking where you get to imagine that spirits are real without having to demonstrate that they are real.

That however does not stop or slow down the atheist insistence on verifiable evidence.

It's not just atheists who should rely on verifiable evidence - it's everyone.

Why don't you need verifiable evidence to believe what you believe?

It looks rational and scientific even but is really philosophy pasted over the top of science and wanting to discredit theology.

Theology discredits itself.

Belief in God, who is a spirit, is a faith and God's existence is not proven by science, as I have said, but if you did listen to the video then you should have heard a couple of places that point to the existence of a designer, and so away from the idea that there is no designer. BUT whichever way you want to go, towards or away from God, it is opinion about the evidence.

Aaaaand we're back to believing what we want to believe because we want to believe it - faith.

 

[PureX]

"Once again, time is not relevant. Time is a function of space and motion. The question is how does existence as we know it become possible (via the Big Bang), or how is it perpetual (meta-universal)? We have no reason to presume that it's perpetual as nothing that we know to exist, is. Yet you are trying to proclaim that the question is irrelevant because you have no other means of defending your presumption of meta-universal perpetuity."

I don't know what any of this has to do with God.

It doesn't. I was simply explaining why time, or the lack of it, has nothing to do with the question of possibility.

Our experience of time and causation comes up because they're artifacts of human perception. and might not be as we experience them. We see causation in our experiential world, for example, but does effect really depend on cause at a quantum level?

Causation is not a time issue. It's a possibility vs impossibility issue. How is existence as we know it, possible? That question is legitimate. And it points directly to some kind of meta-existential solution. But we have no idea what that might be, or even what it means, exactly. Nevertheless, the question and it's implications stand.

 

[PureX]

Legitimate questions, but Goddidit! doesn't answer any of them, it just adds another factor to explain.

It does and it doesn't. It gives the mystery a name, and it gives a lot of people various ways of relating themselves to it. But it still remains a mystery as "God" has no known content apart from the content we provide it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I shall assume that all scientists have opinions but not all opinions are correct just because they're scientists.

That's why there is the scientific method and peer review of course. To settle opinions as long as they can be approached in a way that it can be settled from opinion to fact.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not interested in playing 'kangaroo court' with you.

Well, there is no way for you to know that. Just as there is no way for theists to know that "God did it". So your proclamations are exactly as empty of proof as anyone else's. The fact remains, however, and existence as we experience it is designed. And that does imply intent.

Or what? No one knows.

Logic dictates otherwise.

You mean the very same logic you just eschewed in your very first sentence?

 

[PureX]

You mean the very same logic you just eschewed in your very first sentence?

The atheist's kangaroo court phenomenon is not about logic or evidence. It's about dismissing any logic or evidence that does not support the conclusion the atheist has already reached.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The atheist's kangaroo court phenomenon is not about logic, or evidence. It's about dismissing any logic or evidence that does not support the conclusion the atheists has already reached.

Nope.

And again trying to tell others what they think instead.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The atheist's kangaroo court phenomenon is not about logic or evidence. It's about dismissing any logic or evidence that does not support the conclusion the atheist has already reached.

A bit like yours then - as to it being obvious that God exists?

 

[Brian2]

What's the time stamp for that part of the video? I might watch that to see exactly what he is saying.

That's about 24-25 mins.

 

[Brian2]

That appears to be a misrepresentation. Such claims need a quote and a link to the actual claim so that one can show that it was made in context. I have never seen any atheist that I respect claim that all questions will be answered by the sciences. But I have seen reasonable predictions about specific questions where promising research is going on.

This takes me back to Behe and his Irreducible Complexity claims. He found some problems in biology that at that time has no answer. A big part of that was because they were rather recent discoveries. Would it be unreasonable to say that those problems would probably be solved some day? No, not at all. It was not as if there were problems that had scientists stumped for ages. Would it be unreasonable to say that most of those problems would be solved before Behe's book hit the shelves? Well that might be a bit too optimistic but if I remember correctly that was what happened. And since then all of his examples have been shown not to be IC. Yet that does not stop ignorant creationists from claiming that all sorts of events in evolution are Irreducibly Complex today. And those are often events that have been explained for more than fifty years.

Garte mentions his "future science of the gaps" at about 24-25 mins after showing that evolution was irrelevant in the argument that God does not exist, and he was talking about how the first common ancestor came about.
And Irreducible Complexity has not been shown to be a silly argument for everything afaik.
I think the problem there is that atheists/skeptics presume the whole idea has been shown to be false because some scientist has come up with an educated guess as to how something might have evolved.

 

[Brian2]

I don't recall any critical thinker saying that, although it's likely that a percent or two have. What the empiricist says is that knowledge only comes from experiencing and correctly interpreting reality. That is not a statement that all questions are answerable this way, but rather, that none are answerable by any other method, that is, that we may never find all the answers, but those that we do find will be found by this method and only this method.

You start of denying that critical thinkers say it and end up showing that critical thinkers do say it,,,,,,,,,,,, but using different language and being more careful than the everyday atheist, who might just say, "Faith is not a path to knowledge but science will probably one day find the answer".
It's something I hear on this forum all the time and come to think of it, from you also.

I hope you understand the difference. And by knowledge and answers, I mean ideas that are demonstrably correct and can be used to predict outcomes. The hunches, gut feelings, and intuitions that many call truth or answers don't rise to that standards and thus don't deserve those names.

Yes I know, science finds answers that we can rely on BUT science is not a reasoning thing and so cannot see it's limits and that it cannot test for spirits and cannot find out with any degree of certainty, what happened in the past. What it finds is basically not science even if it might be correct a lot of the time. It is reasoning, based on scientific principles and based on the idea that "We have not tested for spirits and so can presume a God did not do it."
And of course, those answers are like saying that God does not exist so this is how it might have happened without God.

God as in the god of Abraham, the one who allegedly created the universe including man in a few days and later flooded it? That god doesn't exist because as science has revealed, none of that happened.

No, you just like to interpret the Bible in such a way that science has probably shown that it is not true.

Change that to generic gods, and the answer is that nothing has demonstrated that they don't exist, but that's not a good reason to believe that they do.

Nevertheless there are ways of seeing and reasoning about the discoveries of science and what is in nature, which show that reasonable, it was designed and made so that it could evolve to fit all the environmental niches.

But that doesn't happen in genetics as is discussed next:

Those are all metaphorical uses of the words information, translation, language, and symbol (and code, which you didn't use here). In their literal senses, those words all refer to states or products of conscious minds. The biological process is unconscious and therefore has no information, just form, like the shapes and charges of nucleotides. Literal languages are artificial and conventional; they use symbols with no innate meanings that have to be learned to be used to communicate, and two or more must be learned to translate one into the other. And the subcellular processes involve no literal languages or symbols.

Think about that for a moment. There is no such thing as information absent consciousness, just form. When that form impresses onto a consciousness, it then becomes information available to that mind. The form comes in and informs the mind. These molecules know no languages and have coined no symbols. They generate new cells passively and unconsciously according to the laws of physics.

So in that way genetics is like a very complex and miniature computer system which is just form and is not alive and is connected to a factory and runs the factory and even makes other factories and the factories source the materials for all this from elsewhere.
This it seems is the limited view of humanity from the pov of an atheist.
We are a mini factory who ultimately has evolved and does all things and are even conscious in order to reproduce.
But that doesn't prove anything if you are willing to accept that complex computer systems and the living factories with intelligence, came about without intelligent input.
I suppose that the saying "We are stardust" is some sort of praise for humanity and all things, considering the magic of this stardust, which can do all the things it has done and produce something like humans.
BUT we can see the whole thing and can see that the information is put into a chemical form and that information can be translated to another form and used to make and run our bodies.
When you concentrate on the chemistry however, there is no information, just chemicals doing their thing.
So anyway, why do you think that Garte, the biochemistry professor, and his atheist colleagues, say that the genetics code is truly a code and language and symbolic and abstract language etc?
Isn't it the sequence of base pairs which encode biological information, such as instruction for making a protein or RN molecule.

Critical thinkers are trained to avoid faith-based thought.

Maybe that is what they are taught and so believe it.