Life From Dirt?

[shunyadragon]

But you don't know so it is a belief that no gods or pixies did it. It's a belief that it just happened naturally.

Science does not claim to 'know,' The only objective verifiable evidence is that our physical existence is based on Natural Laws and natural processes, No other 'cause' is objectively observed. .It is only those that reject science and cling to ancient mythology and claim to 'know.'

 

[shunyadragon]

But you know what he means.

Yes, that life originated from dirt which is a sarcastic insulting challenge to abiogenesis.

There are worse problems than the coccyx. That is just a vestigial tail isn't it? IMO our bodies were made by God through evolution, with all the problems that leaves us. But that does not mean that the universe and life is not designed to be as it is.
When God had finishe He said it is very good, meaning imo that it was just as He wanted it to be.

The problem of the coccyx is a rather humorous excuse of a problem. The bizzaro problems of Biblical Creation would be even more humorous except many do take these mythical tales seriously, and reject objective science.

 

[shunyadragon]

I see what you're saying. Not to get too far off track but there are some on the forums who claim to have communication with unseen spirits. How do you feel about that?
My question really revolves as to the various religions in different cultures with different gods and goddesses. Did evolution bring about such because gorillas and chimpanzees do not report such experiences. I don't know too much about it but I wonder if gods like Zeus and Ishtar, for example, communicated with people and then they wrote down their experiences as if they were real?

In the history of humanity yes, it is matter of fact that people believe in many subjective things that are not real like ghosts and Gods. The issue is the difference between subjective 'unseen spirits,' versus what humans can determine through objectively verifiable evidence concerning the nature of our physical existence. The belief in subjective 'unseen spirits' is not a sound basis for rejecting science.

 

[shunyadragon]

From dirt? Not really. A very unscientific remark.

God made more mistakes than a good engineer or a biologist would have made. Think of Coccyx. Forgot to remove the last bone.

Odd example that would be humorous unless you take it serious, and actually you missed the point of my post in a rather ridiculous manner.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@Hockeycowboy,

If you want to mention me in your arguments with skeptical members, please do me the courtesy of tagging me. Thank you. I'd like to reiterate that I don't argue or debate with anyone (skeptics or believers) about my experiences with the paranormal. To be clear, I don't ask or expect any skeptic to believe me when I share my experiences. It's their decision whether they believe me or not. The fact is that their skepticism doesn't negate my 44 years of experience.

Life From Dirt?

But miracles do happen I know, it's a miracle that here in the modern world that some folk are still as simple minded to believe that israel is holy land.

www.religiousforums.com

Life From Dirt?

"There are no forces" - OK Friend .. If you say so, it must be true even though every student of Physics and Chemistry is taught of the 4 main forces that govern the Universe. then you blurt something about a mathematical theory -- when "There is no Math" don't you know ? because...

www.religiousforums.com

Life From Dirt?

I think you need to learn what evolution actually is. It has nothing to do with "springing from dirt". Abiogenesis is the pre life evolution of chemicals to the point where it can be said that they fit a definition of being alive. So "springing from dirt" would be an appropriate way to...

www.religiousforums.com

No worries and no apologies needed. I wasn't too keen on having a conversation about your experiences with someone else when you weren't even here.

I do like the way you handle yourself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I answered the pertinent questions.
It seems you don’t like the answers.
(With your other questions, the answers are obvious.)

Nah, you didn't. And you chopped my post down to just two lines.

Amazing, how you wish to ignore @Sgt. Pepper ’s findings.
Why do you think she’s “mistaken”?
She’s very forthcoming. And thorough, apparently.

I've done no such thing.

And please don't use an online friend of mine in such a way. She can certainly speak for herself.

Just because I disagree with her on the identity of these beings, that in no way implies I deny she is having these encounters with invisible entities. That’s your stance, not mine.

That is not my stance.

I don't even know what an "invisible entity" is in the first place. How can we assign characteristics to something that, so far in this conversation, has gone completely undefined?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe God made the building blocks for life

So when amino acids (= building blocks of life) happily form in an experiment, is your god then reaching into that test tube to macguyver the atoms into those molecules?

Or is it rather that when you say "god", you really mean "chemistry"?

and the ideal natural environment and was necessary for the design also.

So is the 70% of earth's surface that is not suitable for human life also part of that "ideal natural environment"?

Anyhow... did your god also MacGuyver the rocks at the bottom of the sea into hydrothermal vents today, where amino acids are formed all the time?
Or is it rather that when you say "god" then, you really mean "geology"?

 

[SkepticThinker]

But you don't know so it is a belief that no gods or pixies did it. It's a belief that it just happened naturally.

No, it isn't.

I really wish I could understand what is blocking you from understanding how reason and logic work.

Not accepting a claim based on a lack of evidence for that claim requires ZERO faith. It takes zero faith to notice that pixies are probably not responsible for stealing my car keys every morning when I can't find them. Right? That's not to say that pixies are definitely NOT doing that. Just that there isn't any evidence indicating that is the case, and so there isn't really a good reason to believe pixies are stealing my car keys. Hopefully, you can understand what I'm trying to explain without getting offended that I'm talking about pixies. I'm trying to use an example of something you probably don't believe in either.

Accepting a claim without evidence does require faith. Because as you keep demonstrating for us, faith is the excuse people give for believing a thing when they don't have evidence. Anything can be believed on faith and so it is not a reliable pathway to truth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But you know what he means.



There are worse problems than the coccyx. That is just a vestigial tail isn't it? IMO our bodies were made by God through evolution, with all the problems that leaves us. But that does not mean that the universe and life is not designed to be as it is.
When God had finishe He said it is very good, meaning imo that it was just as He wanted it to be.

So God messed up, but he's cool with it?

 

[Heyo]

I see what you're saying. Not to get too far off track but there are some on the forums who claim to have communication with unseen spirits. How do you feel about that?

I don't question their experience, I question their conclusions and probably their perception, in any case their epistemology.
"Believe nothing what you hear and only half of what you see." - E. A. Poe

My question really revolves as to the various religions in different cultures with different gods and goddesses. Did evolution bring about such because gorillas and chimpanzees do not report such experiences. I don't know too much about it but I wonder if gods like Zeus and Ishtar, for example, communicated with people and then they wrote down their experiences as if they were real?

Time again to post this Michael Shermer talk:

We evolved with superstition on our mind. Agenticity is why we invented spirits which later became the polytheistic gods. That is an explanation that takes the most data into account without unnecessarily multiplying entities.

 

[Heyo]

No, it isn't.

I really wish I could understand what is blocking you from understanding how reason and logic work.

@Brian2 doesn't believe that reason and logic do work. You do.
No system of thought can work without some axioms (or be utterly circular). You and I believe some things we can't prove, law of identity, law of the excluded middle, an orderly universe. We call them axioms but they are un-provable assumption, beliefs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I've long since resolved not to argue and debate with skeptics about my personal experiences with the paranormal. I think it's pointless to argue and debate with people who have already decided not to believe, in spite of any sufficiently validated evidence that they can't rationally explain or debunk, whether they personally witness something or review authentic evidence collected by other people. In my experience, diehard skeptics won't believe in anything supernatural or believe anyone else who talks about their experiences until they have had an up-close and personal experience with something supernatural themselves that they cannot rationally explain and logically debunk (as I explained in another thread here). In other words, you or I could talk to them about paranormal phenomena until we are blue in the face, but they won't believe us because they haven't personally witnessed it for themselves.

Over the years, I've come to believe in the adage "seeing is believing" when it concerns diehard skeptics believing in supernatural phenomena. However, I also believe that some supernatural phenomena occur in the physical world that neither modern science nor sacred religious texts (such as the Bible) or any religious dogma can rationally explain or logically refute. I've been investigating the paranormal for sixteen years, and during this time, I've met a lot of people (both believers and skeptics) who were unwilling to invest the time and resources necessary to authentically validate any potential evidence of paranormal activity. On one hand, I've met people who believe in the paranormal and would typically take any noise or other activity as undeniable proof. On the other hand, I've met people who don't believe in the paranormal and would dismiss any noise or other activity without a second thought. In any case, neither the believers nor the skeptics would conduct an honest and thorough investigation that could validate their belief or deepen their skepticism.

I think that some believers are too open-minded and unwilling to investigate further in order to determine if the activity they witnessed can be debunked, whereas most skeptics are too close-minded and unwilling to investigate further in order to determine if the activity they witnessed is genuine and can't be debunked by a natural explanation. They typically refuse to accept the possibility that what they experienced could in fact be paranormal. I believe that there must be a balance between belief and skepticism when investigating a suspected haunted location, and I strive to achieve this balance whenever I'm investigating a location (read my post here). I've had plenty of skeptics (both atheists and theists) participate in paranormal investigations with me. If one or more became argumentative with me, then I firmly told them that they witnessed what everyone else participating in the investigation had witnessed and could decide for themselves whether to believe or not. It doesn't make sense to me to argue and debate with skeptics in an attempt to convince them to believe in anything supernatural or in suspected paranormal phenomena. I've never tried to persuade any skeptics to believe, as I do. I have forty-four years of personal experience with paranormal phenomena, so their skepticism doesn't deter me from continuing to investigate haunted locations or from sharing my experiences on this forum. It's fine with me if they don't want to believe in paranormal phenomena. It doesn't make any difference to me.



I'm not sure why you keep trying to convince her (and others) to believe me or you. What difference does it make to you, whether they believe or not?

I'd love to sit with you over a coffee and converse with you about all this. I think it would be super interesting, at the very least. I used to be really into this kind of stuff earlier in my life but I didn't end up finding the type of evidence I was looking for, I guess. So I kind of fell away from it.

That doesn't stop me from taking my niece and nephew on ghost tours of supposedly haunted houses and stuff, because we love it and we have fun together. Actually, the last one we went on, we got into some trouble for wandering away from the tour guide and trying to explore the big old house on our own lol.

Anyway, despite what some may think, I haven't closed my mind off to anything and I'm always up for re-examining my beliefs, in light of new evidence or evidence I maybe hadn't considered before.
I actually want to believe in as many true things as I possibly can, because I actually want to know what's going on in the world around me. (As you already know, I think).

 

[shunyadragon]

I've long since resolved not to argue and debate with skeptics about my personal experiences with the paranormal. I think it's pointless to argue and debate with people who have already decided not to believe, in spite of any sufficiently validated evidence that they can't rationally explain or debunk, whether they personally witness something or review authentic evidence collected by other people. In my experience, diehard skeptics won't believe in anything supernatural or believe anyone else who talks about their experiences until they have had an up-close and personal experience with something supernatural themselves that they cannot rationally explain and logically debunk (as I explained in another thread here). In other words, you or I could talk to them about paranormal phenomena until we are blue in the face, but they won't believe us because they haven't personally witnessed it for themselves.

Over the years, I've come to believe in the adage "seeing is believing" when it concerns diehard skeptics believing in supernatural phenomena. However, I also believe that some supernatural phenomena occur in the physical world that neither modern science nor sacred religious texts (such as the Bible) or any religious dogma can rationally explain or logically refute. I've been investigating the paranormal for sixteen years, and during this time, I've met a lot of people (both believers and skeptics) who were unwilling to invest the time and resources necessary to authentically validate any potential evidence of paranormal activity. On one hand, I've met people who believe in the paranormal and would typically take any noise or other activity as undeniable proof. On the other hand, I've met people who don't believe in the paranormal and would dismiss any noise or other activity without a second thought. In any case, neither the believers nor the skeptics would conduct an honest and thorough investigation that could validate their belief or deepen their skepticism.

I think that some believers are too open-minded and unwilling to investigate further in order to determine if the activity they witnessed can be debunked, whereas most skeptics are too close-minded and unwilling to investigate further in order to determine if the activity they witnessed is genuine and can't be debunked by a natural explanation. They typically refuse to accept the possibility that what they experienced could in fact be paranormal. I believe that there must be a balance between belief and skepticism when investigating a suspected haunted location, and I strive to achieve this balance whenever I'm investigating a location (read my post here). I've had plenty of skeptics (both atheists and theists) participate in paranormal investigations with me. If one or more became argumentative with me, then I firmly told them that they witnessed what everyone else participating in the investigation had witnessed and could decide for themselves whether to believe or not. It doesn't make sense to me to argue and debate with skeptics in an attempt to convince them to believe in anything supernatural or in suspected paranormal phenomena. I've never tried to persuade any skeptics to believe, as I do. I have forty-four years of personal experience with paranormal phenomena, so their skepticism doesn't deter me from continuing to investigate haunted locations or from sharing my experiences on this forum. It's fine with me if they don't want to believe in paranormal phenomena. It doesn't make any difference to me.



I'm not sure why you keep trying to convince her (and others) to believe me or you. What difference does it make to you, whether they believe or not?

I am not sure why @Hockeycowboy relates to your subjective beliefs to justify his religious and scientific view as per the subject of the thread, which is how one views the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution. Except it is the strategy of @Hockeycowboy is go off topic and create diversions and confusion and derail the thread to avoid addressing the subject of the thread and science.

The subjective beliefs of @Hockeycowboy and you are not even relevant to the subject of the thread. I asked the relevant questions in post #2509.
Though considering the subjective nature of highly diverse and conflicting beliefs and personal spiritual experience of the paranormal remain objectively not confirmable. It is difficult to expect others to accept your experiences as factual. Considering the subject of the thread I am not concerned with the the subjective beliefs and experiences concerning the issues of this thread.

In brief do you accept the sciences as the basis of our knowledge of nature of our physical existence including the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution?

 

[SkepticThinker]

BUT getting back to post #2,505 (arguably where this started), saying that "the earth makes them on its own" is a statement of faith and the faith is called naturalism and probably goes even deeper.
Then I go on from post to post working with and answering according to the faith that @Subduction Zone showed by what he said.
Then you come in and go off on the usual tangent about the difference between "I believe God does not exist" and "I do not believe God exists", using the example of extra dimensional unicorns peeing".
But of course all these silly mocking examples don't really help your case because most of us actually believe spaghetti monsters and unicorns don't exist and can honestly say that and no, that does not mean that the burden of proof is on them or me to prove that,,,,,,,,,,,, and by saying that you believe God does not exist, that does not put any burden of proof on you,,,,,,,,,,, and by me saying that I believe God exists, that does not put any burden of proof on me.
But if someone says that God is not needed and they really mean that they don't know if God is needed or not, that is either a freudian slip or a way to be provocative and argumentative or a way to be dishonest and make false statements in a debate that probably means nothing to them except poking fun at theists,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or something else.

I'm not saying this to be rude, but you seriously need to take a class in critical thinking. You do not have a grasp of basic logic.

It would be nice if you'd actually reflect on the gumball analogy and think it through. Same goes for the court room analogy. They are both very good illustrations of reason and logic. Your response here, just looks like you've got your back up and have taken offence, rather than contemplating the arguments put before you.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't question their experience, I question their conclusions and probably their perception, in any case their epistemology.
"Believe nothing what you hear and only half of what you see." - E. A. Poe


Time again to post this Michael Shermer talk:

We evolved with superstition on our mind. Agenticity is why we invented spirits which later became the polytheistic gods. That is an explanation that takes the most data into account without unnecessarily multiplying entities.

I find it very interesting that evolution supposedly jumped from non recognition (supposedly, unless someone wants to say it happened to gorillas but they ain't talking about it) to mankind's experience. Again, I wonder if there are any records besides the Biblical account of men and gods conversing. I mean Ishtar, Zeus and others are or were supposedly gods but is there any account of an author stating these gods spoke to them?

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't question their experience, I question their conclusions and probably their perception, in any case their epistemology.
"Believe nothing what you hear and only half of what you see." - E. A. Poe


Time again to post this Michael Shermer talk:

We evolved with superstition on our mind. Agenticity is why we invented spirits which later became the polytheistic gods. That is an explanation that takes the most data into account without unnecessarily multiplying entities.

Purty different from any close nonhuman relative. Or maybe some might say, no, it's just the way we evolved.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't question their experience, I question their conclusions and probably their perception, in any case their epistemology.
"Believe nothing what you hear and only half of what you see." - E. A. Poe


Time again to post this Michael Shermer talk:

We evolved with superstition on our mind. ...

We did? The evidence is gorillas don't talk or write, is that it?

 

[shunyadragon]

I find it very interesting that evolution supposedly jumped from non recognition (supposedly, unless someone wants to say it happened to gorillas but they ain't talking about it) to mankind's experience. Again, I wonder if there are any records besides the Biblical account of men and gods conversing. I mean Ishtar, Zeus and others are or were supposedly gods but is there any account of an author stating these gods spoke to them?

Yes, in virtually all the above Gods conversed with humans. Just checkout any book or internet source on Greek and European mythology.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I find it very interesting that evolution supposedly jumped from non recognition (supposedly, unless someone wants to say it happened to gorillas but they ain't talking about it) to mankind's experience. Again, I wonder if there are any records besides the Biblical account of men and gods conversing. I mean Ishtar, Zeus and others are or were supposedly gods but is there any account of an author stating these gods spoke to them?

There are a ton of stories about Zeus taking human or animal form and umm .... mating with mortal women. That's how Perseus came to be, according to the story.

 

[shunyadragon]

Purty different from any close nonhuman relative. Or maybe some might say, no, it's just the way we evolved.

Yes it is the way humans evolved in adaptation to changing environments. It did not just happen suddenly. our ancestors Neanderthals and Denizens had the capability for speech.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/509092#:~:text=The%20starting%20points%20for%20human,both%20Neanderthals%20and%20earlier%20humans.

The starting points for human speech and language were perhaps walking and running. However, fully human speech anatomy first appears in the fossil record in the Upper Paleolithic (about 50,000 years ago) and is absent in both Neanderthals and earlier humans. Other mammals have been shown to have versions of vocal communication

Vocal communication evolved in many ways in the animal kingdom. Sophisticated intelligent vocal communication is common to many animals including dialects in different herds, flocks and other groups like whales.

Great ape language - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Apes that demonstrate understanding​

Non-human animals have produced behaviors that resemble human sentence production. Some animals in the following species can be said to "understand" (receive), and some can "apply" (produce) consistent, appropriate, grammatical messages. David Premack and Jacques Vauclair have cited language research for the following animals (but see "Criticisms of primate language research", below):

• Chimpanzees[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
• Bonobos[14][15]
• Gorillas[16]
• Orangutans[17]

While all wild animals seem to communicate, primates communicate via autonomic behaviors and displays. Among primates, behaviors like body posture, facial expressions, vocalizations and scent production have been observed to convey information to other animals, revealing emotions or alerts about potential danger. Affiliative behaviors like grooming are used to promote group cohesion and individual status, while displays of aggression create divisions among groups.[18]

Use of sign language​

Primate language research uses sign language and computer keyboards because non-human primate have less tongue and lower jaw control.[19] and their vocal cords cannot close fully.[20][21] However, primates do possess the manual dexterity required for keyboard use.

Many animal language researchers have presented evidence of linguistic abilities in animals. Many of their conclusions have been disputed.[22][23]

It is now generally accepted[a] that apes can learn to sign and are able to communicate with humans.[24] However, it is disputed as to whether they can form syntax to manipulate such signs.

Washoe​

Main article: Washoe (chimpanzee)
Washoe, a common chimpanzee, was caught in the wild in 1966. When she was about ten months old, she was received by the husband-and-wife research team of Beatrix T. Gardner and Robert Allen Gardner.[25] Chimpanzees are completely dependent until two years of age and semi-dependent until the age of four. Full adult growth is reached between 12 and 16 years of age. Accordingly, the Gardners received her at an appropriate age for research into language development. The Gardners tried to make Washoe's environment as similar as possible to what a human infant with deaf parents would experience. There was always a researcher or assistant in attendance during Washoe's waking hours. Every researcher communicated with Washoe by using American Sign Language (ASL), minimizing the use of the spoken voice. The researchers acted as friends and companions to Washoe, using various games to make the learning as exciting as possible.

The Gardners used many different training methods:

• Imitation: After Washoe had learned a couple of words, she started, like chimpanzees usually do, to imitate naturally. For example, when she entered the Gardners' bathroom, she spontaneously made the sign for "toothbrush", simply because she saw one.
• Babbling: In this case, "babbling" does not mean vocal babbling. Instead, Washoe used untaught signs to express a desire. She used a begging gesture, which was not much different from the ASL signs "give me" and "come". (Human infants who are learning sign language often babble with their hands.)
• Instrumental conditioning: The researchers used instrumental conditioning strategies with Washoe. For example, they taught the word "more" by using tickling as a reward. This technique was later applied to a variety of relevant situations.

The results of the Gardners' efforts were as follows:

• Vocabulary: When a sign was reported by three independent observers, it was added to a checklist. The sign had to occur in an appropriate context and without prompting. The checklist was used to record the frequency of a sign. A sign had to be used at least once a day for 15 consecutive days before it was deemed to have been acquired. Alternatively, a sign had to be used at least 15 days out of 30 consecutive days. By the end of the 22nd month of the project, thirty-four signs had been learned.
• Differentiation: Washoe used the sign "more" in many different situations until a more specific sign had been learned. At one point, she used the sign for "flower" to express the idea of "smell". After additional training, Washoe was eventually able to differentiate between "smell" and "flower".
• Transfer: Although the same object was presented for each learning trial (a specific hat, for example), Washoe was able to use the sign for other similar objects (e.g. other hats).
• Combinations: Washoe was able to combine two or three signs in an original way. For example, "open food drink" meant "open the fridge" and "please open hurry" meant "please open it quickly".

Washoe also taught other chimpanzees, such as Loulis, some ASL signs without any help from humans.