Life From Dirt?

[PureX]

We may also discuss unicorns, Fairies, Leprechauns, FSM and Cthulhu. Does it make them exist?

No, they exist regardless of whether or not we discuss them. The fact that you are refusing to acknowledge that existence includes different realms of being is the failure of philosophical materialism. And is why you should give it up insted of constantly trying to defend it. It simply does not comport with the truth of what is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's my take on this now. Evolution just doesn't make a person happy. Unless it does, right? The human brain did not evolve to be very happy, maybe you think? Because a lot of people are not happy. Can't blame evolution, it's not a person, right? So it just is whatever it is. Most people don't like the idea of death. But it's part of evolution life and death process you say. Einstein's dead and I am sure he isn't working on a theory about it. Of course even though his brain is cut up I'm pretty sure some might think he's still alive somewhere.

Evolution is just a fact. Why should it make anyone happy or sad? Your version of God has attributes that would do that. Evolution does not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose you believe in the theory of evolution. If you do, then death is the only outcome unless you want to say man will maybe figure a way out of it, right? No need to talk about God. Maybe an alien will land on the earth and work it out. Or like a theory goes, a pebble dropped to the earth. Anything goes almost. But then some here might believe you can ask Einstein.

One does not need to "believe in" the theory of evolution. At least not in the sense that you believe in the creation myths of the Bible. We know that it is correct. Is it perfect? No. Does it refute God? No. It only refutes faulty versions of God. To a theist the sciences may be used a times to show if one's version of God is correct or not.

Here is a simple concept that you do not seem to grasp: If God cannot lie then evolution is a fact. The evidence for it is so incredibly overwhelming that it would require an omnipotent being with an intent to deceive (which is lying by the way) that planted endless false evidence. If God cannot lie then Genesis cannot be read literally. To claim that it is true is to claim that God is a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God's killing people for reasons you don't understand does not mean that God is evil. It does show God's sovereignty however and if you think about it a bit you may be able to figure out why the creator of all things is sovereign over them, and you may be able to see a possible reason that God had for killing or allowing people to die.

You clearly either have not read or did not understand the Old Testament. Many of the killings done supposedly by God's order, or even by his acts are incredibly immoral. Do not accuse others of not understanding. And with the aid of science we can know that those killings never took place. That makes your claims about "God's sovereignty" very odd since the killings I am discussing are all mythical. As a result it appears that you are claiming that God's sovereignty is mythical. Hmm, i think that I might agree with that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go figure if Einstein is still pondering over time and light, ok? Why think about what other people think. Some die young, others live a few more years. That's evolution! Some die in infancy probably never heard of Einstein, Darwin, or evolution.

News flash. Einstein is dead.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is why it's important to avoid "belief".

David Coverdale?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

News flash. Einstein is dead.

I didn't even know he was sick. Do his relatives know?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't even know he was sick. Do his relatives know?

It came as a shock to all of us

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, they exist regardless of whether or not we discuss them. The fact that you are refusing to acknowledge that existence includes different realms of being is the failure of philosophical materialism. And is why you should give it up insted of constantly trying to defend it. It simply does not comport with the truth of what is.

What truth? Those things are not known to exist. A possibility is not an actuality. It is also possible they don't exist. Only one of those can be correct.

How do you know that existence includes different realms of being, whatever you mean by that?

What evidence are you using to formulate and draw your conclusions?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It came as a shock to all of us

I wonder if we really understand the gravity of this?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Although no human has yet proven or disproven that God exists, I do think that it's more likely than not that the Universe (including life) was created by a creator as apposed to developing from random & arbitrary chemical processes over the millennia. We just have no proof of this (yet). There seems to be many indicators though. e.g. The moon and the sun appear to be the same size in the sky, the Earth appears in "the Goldilocks zone" in its orbit around the sun, the moons rotation is "tidally locked" to the earth, life in the Universe is extremely rare & valuable, human consciousness is mysterious & undefined, etc.

So then your argument for a god is that you just see how all of this could have occurred without an intelligent designer. What's your argument for a god existing? That you can't imagine nature existing without one? If so, that's an incredulity fallacy.

Let me ask you this. What else do you consider necessary apart from matter capable of arranging itself into galaxies of solar systems containing life and mind? Nature seems to operate without intelligent oversight, organizing itself into living, conscious matter every moment of every day automatically according to the properties inherent in matter. So what would a god's job or purpose be, and how would we account for its existence if one or more exist? Where did it come from? What holds it together (maintains its structural integrity), givers it power, and animates it?

God's killing people for reasons you don't understand does not mean that God is evil. God Almighty defines evil. Not you or I.

The autonomous, self-actualized humanist retains the sovereignty that the believer gives away to others speaking for their gods. He remains the judge of right and wrong. He defines evil for himself.

you keep calling the God you believe is fictitious as evil but give no reason for such.

The god of Abraham as depicted in scripture violates humanist moral standards. The deity of the Bible is a monster. If it existed and we could kill it or lock it up in its hell, we should.

"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Dawkins

I don't see the Bible speaks of a flat earth

According to scripture, the world has four corners, sits on pillars, is covered by a dome (firmament), and can all be seen from a single vantage point: Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world" and Daniel 4:10-11 "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds."

Here's what the ancients envisioned, and there are several more drawings of this cosmological model here:

Adam & Eve were not the victims. They chose. God gave them a choice.

All of humanity were and are the victims in this story, one in which the deity behaves immorally by humanist standards. The god gave them the disposition to make the choice they made, which is human nature and predictable. I judge the deity by ITS choices. Its standards and actions are arbitrary and irrational. They're intolerant and unkind.

The problem for the believer is that he has chosen to believe that whatever this deity says or does is moral by definition, and to disobey it is immoral. The skeptic uses his own moral compass to make moral judgments, which the deity offends.

They dont converse with an ear to listen or learn, only to negate and dismiss.

This again? Your arguments simply don't convince, and you blame others for that. It's like the stand-up comedian who gets angry at his audience because they don't find him funny, calls them obtuse, and continues arguing that he's funny.

That God exists is obvious, as we are here discussing it.

These are the kinds of things you call teaching. These are the kinds of ideas that you frustrate you when they are rejected, which you frequently frame as others not understanding you. You're easily understood. Here you are confusing and conflating an idea and its referent, assuming that if the idea exists, so does its referent - the logic for the argument that a god must exist because we can conceive of one. You're just not convincing.

No, they exist regardless of whether or not we discuss them. The fact that you are refusing to acknowledge that existence includes different realms of being is the failure of philosophical materialism.

What failure of materialism (physicalism, naturalism)? That it views ideas as epiphenomena of material brains? That idea works well given that we don't find minds except in living brains. That its epistemology is empirical? That idea - skepticism - has been stunningly successful.

Different realms of being? There is only nature - the collection of processes and objects that interact in space and time. Nature and reality are synonymous. If gods exist, they are another aspect of nature and reality amenable to the methods of scientific investigation.

clearly we have universally perceived something that we have then chosen to identify as "God". the question is, what is it that we have universally perceived and identified as "God"

People claiming to see God are likely seeing the product of their own minds. I know I was.

This is why it's important to avoid "belief".

Is this more of your teaching that people resist? Avoiding belief is impossible and undesirable. What's important is avoiding wrong belief and accumulating correct beliefs. That's what learning is - the accumulation of demonstrably correct ideas, which collectively comprise knowledge.

 

[wellwisher]

One does not need to "believe in" the theory of evolution. At least not in the sense that you believe in the creation myths of the Bible. We know that it is correct. Is it perfect? No. Does it refute God? No. It only refutes faulty versions of God. To a theist the sciences may be used a times to show if one's version of God is correct or not.

Here is a simple concept that you do not seem to grasp: If God cannot lie then evolution is a fact. The evidence for it is so incredibly overwhelming that it would require an omnipotent being with an intent to deceive (which is lying by the way) that planted endless false evidence. If God cannot lie then Genesis cannot be read literally. To claim that it is true is to claim that God is a liar.

The problem with evolution is it cannot make predictions. It is better described as a useful cataloging method than as a predictive theory. The only thing it did predict accurately is life on earth is older than 6000 years, period. However, the evolution of the human mind, needed for persistent civilization, did not appear until about6000 years ago, based on science data. Beyond the good biology dating, is it more like a cataloging method and a nebulous oracle.

The analogy is we can know all the lottery ticket winners of the past, based on lottery ticket fossil evidence at the Lottery Headquarters. From that, we can safely assume, someone will win in the future, as long as the lottery continues. That is a prediction, but not very useful. To be really useful it would need to predict where the next winning ticket will be sold, or who will purchase it. That current cataloging method is not a strong predicative theory, but it is still a good way to catalog the past. The data was carefully gathered, analyzed and cataloged.

This lack of accurate predictive usefulness is why casino math and casino science have become attached. Casino math offer fudge factors that are not allowed for rational theories. For example, if we found one example, one bad data point, where Einstein's Theory of Relativity did not apply, where it is supposed to apply, it would need to be reworked or replaced. Statistical theory can be wrong more than half the time and it does not have to change or improve; weather forecasting. Science may have been watered down to make it more inclusive. There may not have been enough rational scientists to take care of the needs of industry; world of artificial things. Statistics may be needed in a world of artificial things, but it is not well suited for natural things.

It is not coincidence that evolution is the most politically activist area in all of science, since politics also depends on the same black box casino math.

If you think about it, the types of analogies used to describe statistical math to students often use things found in gambling casinos like cards, dice and coins. Cards, dice and coins are all man made objects with subjective values. These are not natural to the earth, but were invented by the imagination of man for games. Statistics may be useful for artificial things, since these do not always have time to settle into cause and affect, as did natural things; eons of evolution to become more perfect.

Show me where any laws of nature act like six sided dice, where all the sides have the same physical weight, and all the potential is subjective and superficial. The first six energy levels of hydrogen are spaced by potential energy, so only certain ones will work under certain situations. Unlike a dice, you cannot switch between energy levels equally like rolling a dice and not alter the parameters of the entire chemical situation. There is a cause and affect and not gambling odds based on subjective standards.

The deck of cards goes from ace to king in four suits. These are assigned human subjective values based on the game you play. Nature has a deck of 91 or 92 elements. Unlike cards you cannot just pull atoms randomly from a hat and get it to mean something. Not all atoms go together and some are more reactive that others. One has to use logic and objective standards to order this deck. The periodic table of the elements is separated by atomic weight, electron shells and sometimes electronegativity, all of which are objective standards. You will not find such a natural deck in a casino, but much of science does not think it matters.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The problem with evolution is it cannot make predictions. It is better described as a useful cataloging method than as a predictive theory. The only thing it did predict accurately is life on earth is older than 6000 years, period. Beyond that is it more like a catalog method and a nebulous oracle.

The analogy is we can know all the lottery ticket winners of the past, based on lottery ticket fossil evidence at the Lottery Headquarters. From that, we can safely assume, someone will win in the future, as long as the lottery continues. That is a prediction, but not very useful. To be really useful it would need to predict where the next winning ticket will be sold, or who will purchase it. That current cataloging method is not a very useful as a predicative theory, but it is still a good way to catalog the past. The data was carefully gathered, analyzed and cataloged.

This lack of accurate predictive usefulness is why casino math and casino science have become attached. Casino math offer fudge factors that are not allowed for rational theories. For example, if we found one example, one bad data point, where Einstein's Theory of Relativity did not apply, where it is supposed to apply, it would need to be reworked or maybe even changed. Statistical theory can be wrong more than half the time and it does not have to change or improve; weather forecasting. Science may have been watered down to make it more inclusive. There may not have been enough rational scientists to take care of the needs of industry; world of artificial things. Statistics may be needed in a world of artificial things, but not it is not well suited for natural things.

It is not coincidence that evolution is the most politically activist area in all of science, since politics also depends on the same black box casino math.

If you think about it, the types of analogies used to describe statistical math to students often uses things found in gambling casinos like cards, dice and coins. Cards, dice and coins are all man made objects with subjective values. These are not natural to the earth, but were invented by the imagination of man for games. Statistics may be useful for artificial things, since these do not always have time to settle into cause and affect, as did natural things; eons of evolution to become more perfect.

Show me where any laws of nature act like six sided dice, where all the sides have the same physical weight, and all the potential is on superficial surfaces. The first six energy levels of hydrogen are spaced by potential energy, so only certain ones will work under certain situations. Unlike a dice, you cannot switch between energy levels like rolling a dice and not alter the parameters of the entire chemical situation. There is a cause ands affect and not gambling odds based on subjective standards.

The deck of cards goes from ace to king in four suits. These are assigned human subjective values based on the game you play. Nature has a deck of 91 or 92 elements. Unlike cards you cannot just pull atoms randomly from a hat and get it to mean something. Not all atoms go together and some are more reactive that others. One has to use logic and objective standards to order this deck. The periodic table of the elements is separated by atomic weight, electron shells and reactivity all of which are objective standards. You will not find such a natural deck in a casino, but much of science does not think it matters.

Creation causes one to assume a mystery to be solved, while casino math is about a jackpot to be won.

Actually, it is a predictive model and has been used to make successful predictions, though not one of the age of the earth. That would be the prediction of geological and other models.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with evolution is it cannot make predictions. It is better described as a useful cataloging method than as a predictive theory. The only thing it did predict accurately is life on earth is older than 6000 years, period. However, the evolution of the human mind, needed for persistent civilization, did not appear until about6000 years ago, based on science data. Beyond the good biology dating, is it more like a cataloging method and a nebulous oracle.

The analogy is we can know all the lottery ticket winners of the past, based on lottery ticket fossil evidence at the Lottery Headquarters. From that, we can safely assume, someone will win in the future, as long as the lottery continues. That is a prediction, but not very useful. To be really useful it would need to predict where the next winning ticket will be sold, or who will purchase it. That current cataloging method is not a strong predicative theory, but it is still a good way to catalog the past. The data was carefully gathered, analyzed and cataloged.

This lack of accurate predictive usefulness is why casino math and casino science have become attached. Casino math offer fudge factors that are not allowed for rational theories. For example, if we found one example, one bad data point, where Einstein's Theory of Relativity did not apply, where it is supposed to apply, it would need to be reworked or replaced. Statistical theory can be wrong more than half the time and it does not have to change or improve; weather forecasting. Science may have been watered down to make it more inclusive. There may not have been enough rational scientists to take care of the needs of industry; world of artificial things. Statistics may be needed in a world of artificial things, but it is not well suited for natural things.

It is not coincidence that evolution is the most politically activist area in all of science, since politics also depends on the same black box casino math.

If you think about it, the types of analogies used to describe statistical math to students often use things found in gambling casinos like cards, dice and coins. Cards, dice and coins are all man made objects with subjective values. These are not natural to the earth, but were invented by the imagination of man for games. Statistics may be useful for artificial things, since these do not always have time to settle into cause and affect, as did natural things; eons of evolution to become more perfect.

Show me where any laws of nature act like six sided dice, where all the sides have the same physical weight, and all the potential is subjective and superficial. The first six energy levels of hydrogen are spaced by potential energy, so only certain ones will work under certain situations. Unlike a dice, you cannot switch between energy levels equally like rolling a dice and not alter the parameters of the entire chemical situation. There is a cause and affect and not gambling odds based on subjective standards.

The deck of cards goes from ace to king in four suits. These are assigned human subjective values based on the game you play. Nature has a deck of 91 or 92 elements. Unlike cards you cannot just pull atoms randomly from a hat and get it to mean something. Not all atoms go together and some are more reactive that others. One has to use logic and objective standards to order this deck. The periodic table of the elements is separated by atomic weight, electron shells and sometimes electronegativity, all of which are objective standards. You will not find such a natural deck in a casino, but much of science does not think it matters.

You are right, it can never predict where to find a specific fossil using knowledge of evolution and geology. oops wait it did. I do believe that is how Tiktaalik was found. Well then it makes no practical predictions. Yeah, it is not as if they do not use evolution based predictions to tune next year's flu vaccine. Oops, dang, I was wrong again. They do that too.

Yes, it is not one hundred percent precise but that was never a demand for science. The hard precise predictions that some seem to think are necessary do not exist in many of the more advanced sciences. It is not really a valid complaint at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

Belief is just the foolishness of the ego. It's pretending we know things that we can't and don't honestly know. I try to believe as little as possible. But my ego, like everyone else's, is persistent. Yet at least I'm aware of it, and of how it will lie to me if I let it.

Evolution is just the description of a biological mechanism, like cell replication but much more elaborate. It requires no belief nor disbelief any more than my car running correctly requires that I believe in it, or it not running correctly will result if I don't.

Death, and what or if anything follows it has nothing to do with what I believe. Any more than my car does. Belief is just ego-nonsense.

It doesn't matter what any of us believe about anything. The truth is what is, not whatever we believe it to be. And that even goes for God. God is what it is regardless of what we choose to believe God is, or isn't. So the real question is: what is God? Not what do you or I or anyone else believe God to be.

Some here are mistaken about my viewpoint. While I certainly do not know about everything in the Bible although I am glad to know what I do know, I have come to realize that no matter how logical the theory of evolution may seem for some, it no longer makes sense to me in the long run and complexities and details. I'm speaking of just the theory. The reason is that no matter what philosophers in the scientific arena may imagine, life didn't get started from a supposed chemical thoughtless reaction. If someone wants to try to explain it, obviously they have the freedom to do so, but it no longer logically adds up to me. They can try to explain but for several reasons they cannot really explain it.Just like they may try to explain scientifically how they think the sub formed and light shone to the earth. The second is that it no longer makes sense to me that chimps, gorillas, dogs, cats, etc. evolved to a more or less thinking state. And also I am pretty sure that bees didn't figure they must build hives for themselves at a certain point. So no, just based on the theory itself, I no longer give credence to it as generally promoted.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are right, it can never predict where to find a specific fossil using knowledge of evolution and geology. oops wait it did. I do believe that is how Tiktaalik was found. Well then it makes no practical predictions. Yeah, it is not as if they do not use evolution based predictions to tune next year's flu vaccine. Oops, dang, I was wrong again. They do that too.

Yes, it is not one hundred percent precise but that was never a demand for science. The hard precise predictions that some seem to think are necessary do not exist in many of the more advanced sciences. It is not really a valid complaint at all.

The demand for explanation is not a good excuse to verify the changing concepts of evolutionary theory. The theory itself evolves, lol. Birds didn't evolve the theory, lol neither did bees. By the way, try figuring how building hives got into the bee brain. Lol.

 

[YoursTrue]

The important thing in evolution is not how long a person (or other living organism) lives but how many descendants they have. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) lived to be 84 but had no children. Elvis Presley (1935-77) died at 42, and has three living grandchildren and at least one great-grandchild. From an evolutionary point of view, Newton was unfit in spite of his long life and his great contributions to science, whereas Presley was fit in spite of his comparatively early death.

Lol. Gotta laugh...good going!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some here are mistaken about my viewpoint. While I certainly do not know about everything in the Bible although I am glad to know what I do know, I have come to realize that no matter how logical the theory of evolution may seem for some, it no longer makes sense to me in the long run and complexities and details. I'm speaking of just the theory. The reason is that no matter what philosophers in the scientific arena may imagine, life didn't get started from a supposed chemical thoughtless reaction. If someone wants to try to explain it, obviously they have the freedom to do so, but it no longer logically adds up to me. They can try to explain but for several reasons they cannot really explain it.Just like they may try to explain scientifically how they think the sub formed and light shone to the earth. The second is that it no longer makes sense to me that chimps, gorillas, dogs, cats, etc. evolved to a more or less thinking state. And also I am pretty sure that bees didn't figure they must build hives for themselves at a certain point. So no, just based on the theory itself, I no longer give credence to it as generally promoted.

Nope, you made a claim. It is up to you to support it. Please prove to use that life did not start up naturally. Why do you think that is impossible? Proper reasoning and evidence are required.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The demand for explanation is not a good excuse to verify the changing concepts of evolutionary theory. The theory itself evolves, lol. Birds didn't evolve the theory, lol neither did bees. By the way, try figuring how building hives got into the bee brain. Lol.

All science changes over the years. Science has a tendence to get more and more accurate. Meanwhile you believe in a book of myths that tells you that your God is evil and incompetent. It is a pity that the Bible has no method for correcting its countless errors. You act as if correcting errors is a bad thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are right, it can never predict where to find a specific fossil using knowledge of evolution and geology. oops wait it did. I do believe that is how Tiktaalik was found. Well then it makes no practical predictions. Yeah, it is not as if they do not use evolution based predictions to tune next year's flu vaccine. Oops, dang, I was wrong again. They do that too.

Yes, it is not one hundred percent precise but that was never a demand for science. The hard precise predictions that some seem to think are necessary do not exist in many of the more advanced sciences. It is not really a valid complaint at all.

More I read about lava and sediment, lava erupted is sediment. Plain, simple, and rock.

All science changes over the years. Science has a tendence to get more and more accurate. Meanwhile you believe in a book of myths that tells you that your God is evil and incompetent. It is a pity that the Bible has no method for correcting its countless errors. You act as if correcting errors is a bad thing.

You got it all wrong. You go back to condemning God when you can't verify any "theory" you talk about. Anyway, meanwhile what has the theory of evolution done for mankind? Did it stop placement of plastic in the oceans? Did it stop greed? How about death? Did the theory stop death as inevitable? Enjoy your theories. They aren't true.