Life From Dirt?

[Brian2]

And I showed how that was not a statement of faith. Maybe you did not understand what you posted when you said this:

"I believe God made the building blocks for life and the ideal natural environment and was necessary for the design also."

The "building blocks for life" are amino acids. Please note you did not say "the building blocks for solar systems". Then you could arguably be talking about matter. But the "for life" part already assumes that matter exists. I linked an article that describes how their formation is observed in nature even today.

You should have just owned up to your error. Trying to make false statements about others relying on "faith" only makes your error worse.

OK I own up to my error.

 

[Brian2]

No, I don't. He needs to explain the kind of dust and the conditions which turned it into RNA/DNA.

That's a science answer. This is a religious forum.

Who allowed evolution to make mistakes. You mean he planned faults (underline mine)? Very dastardly of him.

He made it to wear out. He made it so that we die. The natural universe is the first creation, the spiritual one comes next, the one that does not wear out or die or have defects associated with this physical universe. The inheritance of those who inherit eternal life.
He had His reasons. He knew what was going to happen and did not want people living forever doing evil acts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

With Jehovah, even more so…He is the source of it: He can harness it, & manipulate the known laws of physics.

And you know this, how?

Could be, but we haven’t discovered every form of energy there is, have we?

How would we know, unless we know in advance how many forms there are to begin with...

 

[Brian2]

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

If you say so. To me it just sounds like a shorthand way of saying what abiogenesis is looking into.

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.

Science cannot give the origins of the universe or life. If it came up with a naturalistic hypothesis it would remain that, a hypothesis, a modern myth.

 

[Brian2]

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"?

It is that God made chemistry and made the possibilities, the potentiality of chemistry.

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"?

Life has colonised pretty much all of the environmental niches on the earth, even the ones that seem unsuitable in our eyes. But yes I suppose some places are unsuitable for life. Do you think God has to have made everywhere suitable for life?
God made geology and places where amino acids form naturally. It is all a result of God's design.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is that God made chemistry and made the possibilities, the potentiality of chemistry.

What does that mean?

Life has colonised pretty much all of the environmental niches on the earth

Well, not "all". But I'll go with it.
Here's the thing though.... life adapted to those environments. Those environments weren't "meant" for those life forms.

But yes I suppose some places are unsuitable for life. Do you think God has to have made everywhere suitable for life?

I don't know, you tell me... you're the one pretending to know what gods did or didn't do.

God made geology and places where amino acids form naturally. It is all a result of God's design.

What does that mean?

You seem to be shifting your claim also.
First you said god made the amino acids. Now you're saying god made the chemistry that made the amino acids...
But knowing what chemistry actually is, that doesn't make any sense to me.

The laws of chemistry, physics, etc... are descriptive, not prescriptive.
So please elaborate.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Accepting a claim without evidence is blind faith. Many people have evidence for their belief that we might not think is good evidence but most people have evidence or reasons for their beliefs imo.
And it requires not much faith at all to not accept something based on lack of evidence. But as you say, you are not saying that Pixies are definitely not stealing your keys, so to say they are not, needs a tiny bit of faith.

 

[Brian2]

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

God did not mess up, He made it to wear out, degrade.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're sure your cats are superstitious

Most animals are. Especially those who are also considered lunch by others.
There's a famous experiment with pigeons that illustrate this quite nicely.

Hmm. Too bad they can't communicate with spirit mediums, or maybe you think they can. And who knows? Maybe they see things we don't see and that's why they stand up frightened at whatever.

Spoken like someone who's truly ignorant of the subject matter

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It isn't known is it if animals like cats and dogs have evolved superstition passing that on genetically. That theory is... ridiculous.

Again, it is well known that pretty much all animals, especially those that are also considered lunch by others, have superstitious tendencies.
Skinner's pigeon experiment demonstrated that quite nicely.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I saw some of it and I think the point is bunk.

Why? Because it contradicts your a priori religious beliefs?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

At those times I don't THINK there was democracy without slavery anyway. Maybe there was and I don't know about it. It's almost like medicine and science and the Bible.
So thinking as to how justice is meted out these days, it depends what government you're living in, right? Obviously justice can be skewed, but that is not the point. The point is what IS justice? There are different forms of slavery, even today. You might as well look at life today, or -- evolution.
The slavery was not the oppressive kind of slavery that has been common in many lands through time. Leviticus 25:39, 40 says, “In case your brother grows poor alongside you and he has to sell himself to you, you must not use him as a worker in slavish service. He should prove to be with you like a hired laborer, like a settler.” This was a loving provision to care for Israel’s poorest. Harsh treatment was not approved or prescribed.
Looking at the news and the homeless here, can you say the poor are being well taken care of? Many are on drugs, addicted to alcohol, can't work, won't work, steal from people, have tough time in jail, and more. These persons have "sold themselves" to the elements -- steal -- kill -- the governments are not taking care of them...children and women are sold into slavery.

Classic case of cherry picking to excuse the obvious condoning of immoral slavery practices.

 

[Brian2]

Of course you do, but look at how this is a god of the gaps argument, which is the result of science continuing to explain observable reality without needing gods, leaving gods fewer and fewer jobs to do. Gods are limited to origins problems (origin of the universe and origin of the life in it), since we have naturalistic explanations for how the universe assembled itself (apart from life) and how it operates day to day both without any apparent intelligent oversight. This is the effect that the humanist influence has had on Christianity, which is gradually conforming to its scientific vision. It is also conforming to the humanist political vision - democracy and the abolition of slavery seem to be OK with Christianity, although it seems that there are still problems with women's rights, LGBTQ+ tolerance, and church-state separation (freedom of and from religion) in the States and in the Vatican.

God limits Himself to certain jobs, such as origins and giving life. So the God of the gaps argument was not about stuff that God claimed to have done anyway.
Things like the design of organisms can come from the original design of atoms and molecules and their potentiality. Looking at the workings of the atoms and molecules and life forms however makes me wonder how anyone could say that a designer was not needed and even a maker of the initial life forms. (even if many Christians go all the way with science no matter what it says )
Of course the Bible is open to misinterpretation by people who are after their own gain and so slavery was seen as OK by many Christians and it took Christianity to turn that around and get slavery abolished.
Women's right should be no problem with Christians but Christians are also human and open to the ways of the world, which includes subjugation of women.
LGBTQ+tolerance should not be a problem with Christians but they do want to promote their moral values in society and in this form of Governance, democracy. So Christian morals are going to be promoted where Christians are allowed into Governments.

Here's more of that humanist influence, pushing the god's role back further. This is essentially the deist god, but one that unlike the deist god, also intervenes with revelation, miracles, and answering prayer, and which judges and damns. All of these are also undergoing transformation. Revelation is decreasingly often called literal or infallible. Instead, we see the word inspired a lot. Myth is called allegory, miracles aren't expected by many any more, being called a thing of the past, and hell theology is softening. I've heard both that God doesn't send us to hell; we send ourselves, and that there is no literal hell or that separation from God without torture is hell.

There is probably more humanist, or just skeptic influence on Biblical interpretations these days within the church and professional theological thinking. This creep has been happening for a long time however and it is not all bad, as some of it probably gets Christians thinking about older interpretations and how they could be wrong.

You don't seem to understand that the critical thinker doesn't accept a proposition without sufficient supporting evidence, but also doesn't call it false without sufficient supporting evidence. There is a place between believing that something is true and believing is false. I call these two belief and disbelief, reserving unbelief for the agnostic position, which is neither. Incidentally, these are not standard definitions for unbelief and disbelief, which most people use as synonyms.

The critical thinker doesn't say that "God had nothing to do with it," which is a faith-based statement of disbelief (as I've defined it here). He says that he finds no evidence that a god was involved, and therefore do not believe that one did, but this is unbelief, because he also doesn't say none did. He's agnostic.

I was complaining about someone saying God was not involved, which you say is a faith based statement.

No. This is incorrect. There's a middle ground between belief and disbelief: unbelief, which is neither, and is synonymous with agnosticism as I use the terms.

You might be unsure and want to say that you do not believe, but I believe that extra dimensional unicorns peeing are not involved in underground thermal springs.
You of course are not referring to that example specifically and I appreciate that.

And here it is again. This failure to acknowledge the possibility of unbelief is very common on these threads. It would be more accurate reworded, "You don't know, so you neither believe that pixies were involved, nor that they weren't, but lacking evidence pixies, you remain agnostic (unbelief)."

OK

Agreed, but once again, this is not the position of the agnostic atheist.

Why do so many believers keep doing this however many times he is corrected? It's so common, that I'm coining a new term for it using my preferred definitions: unbelief/disbelief conflation. I wonder why it's so common? I think that most people doing this - transforming not believing to believing not (unbelief to disbelief) - are not aware that they do. The alternative is that they are and are deliberately and knowingly making straw man arguments in bad faith, and I feel like that's the minority. I don't see you in those terms. I see you as having the inability to make the distinction between these two things, but that confuses me.

Why should so many believers do this, and apparently only believers? Atheists don't seem to have trouble making the distinction, even the strong atheists who deny the existence of gods in an unjustified and unnecessary leap of faith. The know that they are not unbelievers like their agnostic atheist cohorts. They know that their disbelief is different from the agnostic atheist's unbelief.

Yes I guess us theists do it at times because of the language that some skeptics use, which comes out as disbelief and not unbelief. This was the case in this instance and I was calling the person out on it, but that has been sorted.

 

[Brian2]

Why do you insist on using strawman arguments? Is it because you understand faith to be a weakness and not plus that you try to accuse others of having faith when they do not? You are also using false dichotomies due to your position. You forget that there is a third possibility. One can believe that something exists. One can believe that something does not exist. You live in those two worlds because your belief in God forces you to believe that other supernatural beings such as pixies and leprechauns do not exist. Or, and you need to pay attention and try to understand this, one can have a lack of belief about the existence of an item. Having a lack of belief is often the superior stance to take. One can act as if the thing exists or does not exist depending upon the evidence and if there is a good reason to hold such a belief or not, but if evidence arrives that shows that one or the other beliefs is correct one can easily adopt what one can now reasonable believe without faith. I know that you do not like it, but the Christian God is on the same level of beliefs as a belief in pixies and leprechauns. It is even worse in some ways due to the various contradictory views many Christians have.

OK I can understand it you wanting to believe without faith is strange. I guess we have different definitions of faith and you see it as believing without evidence, probably because you do not see any evidence for God or the Bible God in particular or just do not agree that it is evidence (iow you want verifiable evidence).

So right now I lean strongly towards everything being natural since that is where the evidence lies. Could a god be involved in the unanswered questions? Yes, but since those unanswered questions keep being answered it does not look very good for God.

That statement imo involves a wrong belief that when science comes up with a mechanism for something, or even a possible mechanism, that it has eliminated the need for God for that thing.
A problem with that is that the Bible God has not claimed to have done things that have been eliminated. God said He created and gave life. So the Bible God has not been eliminated by that "god of the gaps" idea.

 

[Brian2]

What does that mean?

That God's design of atoms means that amino acids can form in the right circumstances.

Well, not "all". But I'll go with it.
Here's the thing though.... life adapted to those environments. Those environments weren't "meant" for those life forms.

But here's the thing, God designed genetics so that adaptation could happen and life could fill the niches.

What does that mean?

You seem to be shifting your claim also.
First you said god made the amino acids. Now you're saying god made the chemistry that made the amino acids...
But knowing what chemistry actually is, that doesn't make any sense to me.

The laws of chemistry, physics, etc... are descriptive, not prescriptive.
So please elaborate.

No I did not say that God made the amino acid, even though I think He probably did make other things that science is looking for answers to.
But knowing what He created initially means He knew what it would evolve into, atoms, molecules, light etc and knew what these things would produce (planets, stars, etc etc) and knew that with some help on a suitable planet, life would be able to grow and evolve and fill the niches.
It is the "with some help" bit that science will never be willing to accept.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That God's design of atoms means that amino acids can form in the right circumstances.

So your god is like some sort of deism where he sets the universe in motion with a basic design of a hydrogen atom, after which physics and chemistry simply take over from there, with everything that follows afterwards (stars, planets, galaxies, life,...) being the natural outcome of the interactions between matter, gravity etc?

So you accept natural origins of life, natural origins of stars, planets, atoms heavier then hydrogen (formed in stars and supernovae), evolution etc?

But here's the thing, God designed genetics so that adaptation could happen and life could fill the niches.

Huh?
So shifting your claim once again?
You said he just made the chemistry that makes it possible (which would include genetics)
And now you shift again and say god came and MacGuyvered RNA / DNA?

It kind of feels like you are making it up on the spot whenever it suits you...

No I did not say that God made the amino acid, even though I think He probably did make other things that science is looking for answers to.

Hilarious groundwork for a god-of-the-gaps argument.
Lemme guess... you believe god can fill those gaps until science comes up with an explanation (which doesn't include any gods)?

But knowing what He created initially means He knew what it would evolve into, atoms, molecules, light etc and knew what these things would produce (planets, stars, etc etc) and knew that with some help on a suitable planet, life would be able to grow and evolve and fill the niches.

Why would it need "some help"?
Isn't your all-knowing, all-powerful god knowledgeable and powerful enough to make a universe in which laws operate that can take care of all these things?

So how does this "help" work in your opinion?
He comes down and starts fiddling with atoms and molecules?
Why do you believe this? What evidence do you have to support such a wild claim?

It is the "with some help" bit that science will never be willing to accept.

Because there is no evidence for it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That's a science answer. This is a religious forum.

He made it to wear out. He made it so that we die. The natural universe is the first creation, the spiritual one comes next, the one that does not wear out or die or have defects associated with this physical universe. The inheritance of those who inherit eternal life.
He had His reasons. He knew what was going to happen and did not want people living forever doing evil acts.

Why is your religion afraid of science? The forum name is Evolution vs Creationism. If it is evolution, then how science can be avoided?
In that case the name of the forum should have been 'Evolution according to Religions and Creationism'.

But he had no problem if they did evil acts in their life-time?
What evidence do you have for your 'spiritual universe'? What is your evidence for inheritance of eternal life.
What is the brand name of the snake-oil that you are selling? Christianity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK I can understand it you wanting to believe without faith is strange. I guess we have different definitions of faith and you see it as believing without evidence, probably because you do not see any evidence for God or the Bible God in particular or just do not agree that it is evidence (iow you want verifiable evidence).

That is the definition of faith. You do not seem to even understand the concept of evidence since you have not posted any for your God. If you think that you have start a separate post and I will explain to you why what you have is not reliable evidence. Believers often trick themselves into thinking that they have evidence, but I have not seen any that is reliable yet.

That statement imo involves a wrong belief that when science comes up with a mechanism for something, or even a possible mechanism, that it has eliminated the need for God for that thing.
A problem with that is that the Bible God has not claimed to have done things that have been eliminated. God said He created and gave life. So the Bible God has not been eliminated by that "god of the gaps" idea.

Then you do not understand rational thought. Natural processes, if they exist, are always a better explanation than "magic" which is what saying a god did it is. And you keep making some very very basic errors when it comes to the Bible. You do not get to claim that "God said" anything. What you can do is to say that the Bible makes that claim, but we know a lot of that is just nonsense. Such as the Adam and Eve myth, the Noah's Ark myth, the myths of the Nativity. The list is pretty long and keeps going and going and going.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you are speaking the language of science and I'm talking the language of religion.
The truth is however that science cannot say that God is not involved and so to say that gods are not required is speaking faith.

That is a mistake when discussing an event that is in the realm of the sciences. Just as it would be a mistake to try to analyze that a god said.

Perhaps instead of believing that God magicked the first life form into existence why not just give him credit with starting the universe? Why demote him to a Step and Fetch It God?

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. why not just give him credit with starting the universe?

There is no evidence that he did even that.
God is a imaginary product of human fear of difficulties and death. Perhaps also of the guilt of our own evil acts, like the thugs worshiped Goddess Kali.