Life From Dirt?

[Subduction Zone]

Science is fine when it is not speculation about how nature did thing that God has said that He did.
Why do you think that science is 100% correct about these things when all science can do is look at chemistry and speculate about how nature did it?



Of course He has a problem when people do evil in their life-time.
Evidence for the existence of a creator and designer is so strong that it is amazing that people want to close their eyes to it.

What makes you think that God ever "said" anything? I need to remind you that you have been repeatedly shown that Moses is fictional.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Saying that the universe made itself and came to life is more magic than to say it was designed and created imo

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.

You do not get to say that you know that the Bible is wrong. That is another claim of faith,,,,,,,,,,,, which you claim not to have.

 

[Brian2]

That is a mistake when discussing an event that is in the realm of the sciences.

Every event is in the realm of the sciences according to people who see the spiritual as not real. But that is a faith.

Just as it would be a mistake to try to analyze that a god said.

Maybe you should stop trying to analyse what God said if you think you cannot do it.

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?

I just believe what God has said that He did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Saying that the universe made itself and came to life is more magic than to say it was designed and created imo



You do not get to say that you know that the Bible is wrong. That is another claim of faith,,,,,,,,,,,, which you claim not to have.

I didn't say by magic. Quantum mechanics may seem magical by lay people, but it is understandable, if you can do the math.

And yes, since I have repeatedly shown the Bible to be wrong using history, archaeology, science, logic, and morals I do get to say that. You are the one that has to use faith. Not me. I may have a lot of failings of my own, but faith is not one of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Every event is in the realm of the sciences according to people who see the spiritual as not real. But that is a faith.



Maybe you should stop trying to analyse what God said if you think you cannot do it.




I just believe what God has said that He did.

As usual you have the burden of proof wrong. You do not get to assume the spiritual. And you make the error of assuming that I deny it. There are problems that are clearly scientific problems. There was are problems that are clearly historical problems. There are problems that are clearly moral problems. You should learn how to separate problems into appropriate categories.


And once again you make claims that are worthless since you won't and can't support them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Saying that the universe made itself and came to life is more magic than to say it was designed and created imo

Yet you easily believe that a god with magic powers magically exists. What magic gives reality gods? What magic makes them capable of creating the universe that you can't believe exists absent an intelligent designer?

It's a logical error (special pleading aka unjustified double standard) to insist that a universe needs an intelligent designer, but a god doesn't. If gods can exist uncreated, then so can anything else. Postulating gods adds nothing but another layer of unexplained complexity without adding any explanatory power. "God did it" explains nothing when there is no visible god, no clear manifestation of any god, and no apparent mechanism for a god to exist or act.

You do not get to say that you know that the Bible is wrong.

Sure he does, as do I and as does anybody else who is aware of its internal contradictions and the degree to which it has been falsified empirically.

Every event is in the realm of the sciences according to people who see the spiritual as not real.

That's worded improperly. Nothing can be said to be real until it is confirmed as such empirically, and nothing should be believed to exist that does not reveal itself to the senses in some manner, including spirits. There is no reason to call spirits or an alleged spiritual realm they are said to be hidden in real until they manifest themselves to the senses (empirically).

I see that you still haven't understood the difference between saying that something doesn't exist and saying that one lacks reason to believe that it does - what I have called unbelief/disbelief conflation. For whatever reason, many faith-based thinkers can't separate these into distinct ideas. They are equivalent and interchangeable to them. Tell one you don't believe in gods, and it is quickly transformed into a claim that gods don't exist, which straw man is then correctly called a faith-based declaration, but not one actually made.

You had no comment the last time I mentioned this to you. Is that because you didn't understand it then or because you had no response and preferred ignoring it? Also, is that because you don't mind doing that or because you are unaware that you do?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why do you think that science is 100% correct about these things when all science can do is look at chemistry and speculate about how nature did it?

Evidence for the existence of a creator and designer is so strong that it is amazing that people want to close their eyes to it.

Who said science is 100% correct. Science is investigating hehre the things are not clear, but there are a lot of things where science is on a better footing. Those include cosmogony and evolution.

Strong? There is not an iota of evidence. Otherwise kindly mention just one here.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

At least some of those seem to be instruments able to measure real physical properties.
Do you see ghosts and ESP as natural phenomena that haven't been investigated enough by science and would have a scientific explanation eventually or do you think that the paranormal is forever inaccessible by science?

Speaking from personal experience, I'm aware that some unusual phenomena can have natural causes, but I don't think this is the case for all of them. In fact, I 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. As I stated in an earlier post, 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 investigate a location. But despite all the advanced, cutting-edge ghost-hunting equipment that I use, there are still some paranormal encounters that I was unable to properly document because they happened so quickly and ended just as quickly as they began. I've explained in another thread how I normally conduct my paranormal investigations, and if you're interested in knowing my usual methods, you can read my post here. Finally, I'm pleased to say that belief in the paranormal is becoming more common and acceptable in our modern society. I think that this is a very positive improvement, given my lifelong experiences with the paranormal.

As I previously stated in other threads, the negative stigma associated with believing in the paranormal has significantly lessened during the last twenty-two years. In fact, it is more widely accepted and common in today's society to acknowledge the reality of ghosts and other paranormal phenomena. According to a survey from October 2021, 63 percent of its participants (2,000 people aged 21 and over) believe in the paranormal in some form. The people surveyed said the most common unexplained beings they believe exist include ghosts (57%), aliens (39%), and Bigfoot (27%). A third (35%) of the people surveyed said they have felt an unexplained presence in their home, prompting them to believe that they are being haunted. Here is a link to the survey: "Paranormal Nation: Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe in ghosts or aliens." FYI, every year on May 3rd, there is a day set aside for those who believe in paranormal phenomena. It's known as National Paranormal Day. I've participated in it by conducting a paranormal investigation on that day.

The following articles demonstrate how there has been a steady increase in people believing in paranormal phenomena over the past 23 years.

Gallup Poll: One Third of Americans Believe in Ghosts (2000)

Americans' Belief in Psychic and Paranormal Phenomena Is up Over Last Decade (2001)

Three in Four Americans Believe in Paranormal (2005)

Brilliant Scientists Are Open-Minded about Paranormal Stuff, So Why Not You? (2012)

Spooky Number Of Americans Believe In Ghosts (2013; updated 2017)

Pew Research Center: 18% of Americans say they’ve seen a ghost (2015)

Paranormal America 2017 Chapman University Survey of American Fears (2017)

Paranormal America 2018 Chapman University Survey of American Fears (2018)

You Gov America: Many Americans believe ghosts and demons exist (2019)

Reports Of Paranormal Activity On The Rise During Coronavirus Stay-At-Home Orders (2020)

57 Percent of Americans Believe in Ghosts — and Many Think There's Paranormal Activity in Their Home (2021)

You Gov America: Two-thirds of Americans say they've had a paranormal encounter (2022)

Many Americans report interacting with dead relatives in dreams or other ways (2023)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Speaking from personal experience, I'm aware that some unusual phenomena can have natural causes, but I don't think this is the case for all of them. In fact, I 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. As I stated in an earlier post, 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 investigate a location. But despite all the advanced, cutting-edge ghost-hunting equipment that I use, there are still some paranormal encounters that I was unable to properly document because they happened so quickly and ended just as quickly as they began. I've explained in another thread how I normally conduct my paranormal investigations, and if you're interested in knowing my usual methods, you can read my post here. Finally, I'm pleased to say that belief in the paranormal is becoming more common and acceptable in our modern society. I think that this is a very positive improvement, given my lifelong experiences with the paranormal.

As I previously stated in other threads, the negative stigma associated with believing in the paranormal has significantly lessened during the last twenty-two years. In fact, it is more widely accepted and common in today's society to acknowledge the reality of ghosts and other paranormal phenomena. According to a survey from October 2021, 63 percent of its participants (2,000 people aged 21 and over) believe in the paranormal in some form. The people surveyed said the most common unexplained beings they believe exist include ghosts (57%), aliens (39%), and Bigfoot (27%). A third (35%) of the people surveyed said they have felt an unexplained presence in their home, prompting them to believe that they are being haunted. Here is a link to the survey: "Paranormal Nation: Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe in ghosts or aliens." FYI, every year on May 3rd, there is a day set aside for those who believe in paranormal phenomena. It's known as National Paranormal Day. I've participated in it by conducting a paranormal investigation on that day.

The following articles demonstrate how there has been a steady increase in people believing in paranormal phenomena over the past 23 years.

Gallup Poll: One Third of Americans Believe in Ghosts (2000)

Americans' Belief in Psychic and Paranormal Phenomena Is up Over Last Decade (2001)

Three in Four Americans Believe in Paranormal (2005)

Brilliant Scientists Are Open-Minded about Paranormal Stuff, So Why Not You? (2012)

Spooky Number Of Americans Believe In Ghosts (2013; updated 2017)

Pew Research Center: 18% of Americans say they’ve seen a ghost (2015)

Paranormal America 2017 Chapman University Survey of American Fears (2017)

Paranormal America 2018 Chapman University Survey of American Fears (2018)

You Gov America: Many Americans believe ghosts and demons exist (2019)

Reports Of Paranormal Activity On The Rise During Coronavirus Stay-At-Home Orders (2020)

57 Percent of Americans Believe in Ghosts — and Many Think There's Paranormal Activity in Their Home (2021)

You Gov America: Two-thirds of Americans say they've had a paranormal encounter (2022)

Many Americans report interacting with dead relatives in dreams or other ways (2023)

And that may be. The problem is that those that believe tend to avoid proper testing. If you really want to convince people that reason rationally use the scientific method when you gather data. Right now you do not have any scientific evidence for your beliefs. That takes a bit more bravery on the part of the believer.

 

[Valjean]

So you are talking the language of science and I'm talking the language of religion. Maybe you are on the wrong forum.

What is "the language of religion?" Vague blandishments? Poetic gobbledygook? Unevidenced claims? Nebulous, imprecision?
These have never gotten anyone anywhere. Different religions, with different world-views, different narratives and different belief systems proliferated. Only when the precision, reason, and and methodology of science was generally adopted did our understanding of reality take off.

 

[YoursTrue]

Polish up on your reading comprehension. I didn't tell you that no one had direct input from god, I'm telling you that no author of any scripture, that I know of, has claimed to have direct input from god.

Since you don't believe that Moses, David, Solomon, Daniel and others had what you call direct input with God, ok,have a good day. Bye for now...

There is no known Hebrew writings found at the time of Exodus to confirm the Biblical claim is accurate. The earliest writings are after ~600 BCE when the Hebrews had sufficient writing to compile the Pentateuch. If Moses existed there is no writings that even mention him at the time Exodus was described to have happened.

As I understand it, there have been civilizations that when assailed or gone against and defeated do not write their accounts.

 

[Valjean]

You don’t adhere to any a priori beliefs? Riiight.

You say you don't have any emotional investment in this….
Yet your replies drip with sarcasm and sometimes vehemence. (In fact, when I read them many times, I picture you yelling.) Tu quoque claims and ad homs?

Huh? “…no amount of "documented supernatural encounters" with thor or allah will convince you of the truth of viking theology or islam.” ??
Actually, everything I have observed in this world, all empirical knowledge I’ve come across so far, ie., reality (and some of what I’ve been trained to reason on & deduce), supports my POV. I’ve even adjusted my understanding to fit it…. And it fits nicely. (I’ve willingly accepted some help, too.) I try not to ignore anything, either. Read on….

There are documented encounters of battles between Aslan and the Ice Queen. Documentation doesn't require truth.
What is this empirical knowledge you've come across? If it exists, why are your views not universally held?

And here is where you are wrong. I accept evolution….to a point.

If it didn’t occur, there’d be no MRSA, or LTEE or Drosophila experiments, or new species arising.

I understand that you support science to the hilt.
Well, be informed that when scientists resort to explanations that employ suppositional language, like “probably”, or “likely”, or “could have been”… that’s belief / philosophy; and until it’s either proven or superseded / recanted, to portray these explanations as factual, is not exactly truthful, is it?

Yes. Science acknowledges uncertainty; it's theories are the most likely explanations -- given current data. "Proof" is not in the scientific lexicon. Theories are the explanations most strongly supported by empirical evidence.

 

[Valjean]

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

That is to say, evidence, reason and testing do not apply.

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.

Preaching.

 

[Valjean]

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

Isn't "life from dirt" Christian doctrine?

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.

Science is very close to he origins of life, and the origins of the universe is under active investigation. Are you actually using this as support for your magical, religious claim?

 

[Valjean]

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

So a Deistic God,who created the laws and constants of our reality, and then bowed out?

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.

Many claim evidence that really isn't evidence.

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.

Withholding belief of unevidenced claims is reasonable, is it not?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

And that may be. The problem is that those that believe tend to avoid proper testing.

Yes, that is true, and it is most unfortunate. I addressed this issue in an earlier post in this thread (read it here).

If you really want to convince people that reason rationally use the scientific method when you gather data.

That is true as well, but I'm not interested in convincing others that the paranormal is real.

Right now you do not have any scientific evidence for your beliefs.

I have evidence of the paranormal that has been repeated, but because I don't give readings online or over the phone, I can't demonstrate it in this thread or anywhere else on RF. However, I have shared my stories of giving readings to people in real life in my threads, in this thread, or in other threads relating to the paranormal (such as this one). I've been sharing my experiences for two years now on RF. While I don't mind sharing them, I won't argue or debate them with anyone. As far as I'm concerned, other people can accept or reject what I've written in my posts. It's their decision whether to believe me or not.

I also have repeatable evidence of poltergiest activity that I've collected from both suspected and well-known haunted locations, including laser grid data, digital pictures, thermal images, SLS images (with no objects or people in the vicinity of the camera to explain the SLS images), and EVPs recorded on a digital recorder with no people in the vicinity of the recorder. For the record, I've started threads about the investigations I've done in different haunted locations across the country, like the Old North Church in Boston, MA; the historic Ryman Auditorium in Nashville, TN; an old plantation turned into a hotel resort in South Boston, VA; and the historic Crescent Spa & Hotel in Eureka Springs, AR, which is reputed to be the most haunted hotel in the United States.

I've worked with skeptics many times during my paranormal investigations. And while I'm not interested in convincing them that the paranormal is real, I do, however, know how to pique their interest enough to make them want to investigate the paranormal either with me or research it on their own. First, I encourage them to take part in a legitimate paranormal investigation of a notoriously haunted location (such as the 1886 Crescent Hotel & Spa). I will either suggest somewhere nearby or I will invite them to participate in one of mine. Second, I'll suggest that they get a reading in person from a genuine psychic medium, which, if done properly, they won't be able to rationally explain or debunk. And if that is the case, then their curiosity will take over, and they will begin to research the paranormal themselves. I've seen it happen myself. I have given readings if the opportunity arises, and I also have a close friend who gave me permission to recommend her if I'd like it, but I don't often do so. Of course, what I've written here is my personal opinion and beliefs.

That takes a bit more bravery on the part of the believer.

Yes, that is true, and I agree with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, that is true, and it is most unfortunate. I addressed this issue in an earlier post in this thread (read it here).



That is true as well, but I'm not interested in convincing others that the paranormal is real.



I have evidence of the paranormal that has been repeated, but because I don't give readings online or over the phone, I can't demonstrate it in this thread or anywhere else on RF. However, I have shared my stories of giving readings to people in real life in my threads, in this thread, or in other threads relating to the paranormal (such as this one). I've been sharing my experiences for two years now on RF. While I don't mind sharing them, I won't argue or debate them with anyone. As far as I'm concerned, other people can accept or reject what I've written in my posts. It's their decision whether to believe me or not.

I doubt if you do have evidence. You may have observations, but evidence requires a clear coherent testable argument. What you probably have is an ad hoc explanation. Those are not evidence.

I also have repeatable evidence of paranormal activity that I've collected from both suspected and well-known haunted locations, including laser grid data, digital pictures, thermal images, SLS images (with no objects or people in the vicinity of the camera to explain the images), and EVPs recorded on a digital recorder with no one in the vicinity of the recorder. For the record, I've started threads about the investigations I've done in different haunted locations across the country, like the Old North Church in Boston, MA; the historic Ryman Auditorium in Nashville, TN; an old plantation turned into a hotel resort in South Boston, VA; and the historic Crescent Spa & Hotel in Eureka Springs, AR, which is reputed to be the most haunted hotel in the United States.

You may have repeatable observations, but observations on their own are not evidence. And even a one time event can be "repeatable" if one's recording of the evidence is done properly. For example a fossil can be evidence for evolution but one has to carefully document where it was found, precisely. What strata it was in. Photos of the operation are almost a must. Plus the fossil itself has to be available for others to investigate, either through the fossil itself, or very detailed photographic and other evidence available to anyone that wants to investigate it. I doubt if your work meets those rigors.

I've worked with skeptics many times during my paranormal investigations. And while I'm not interested in convincing them that the paranormal is real, I do, however, know how to pique their interest enough to make them want to investigate the paranormal either with me or research it on their own. First, I encourage them to take part in a legitimate paranormal investigation of a notoriously haunted location (such as the 1886 Crescent Hotel & Spa). I will either suggest somewhere nearby or I will invite them to participate in one of mine. Second, I'll suggest that they get a reading in person from a genuine psychic medium, which, if done properly, they won't be able to rationally explain or debunk. And if that is the case, then their curiosity will take over, and they will begin to research the paranormal themselves. I've seen it happen myself. I have given readings if the opportunity arises, and I also have a close friend who gave me permission to recommend her if I'd like it, but I don't often do so. Of course, what I've written here is my personal opinion and beliefs.

Perhaps, and perhaps that is mainly selective memory. I am sure that many did not agree with your findings.

Yes, that is true, and I agree with you.

I wish that you would consider some of the steps necessary that need to be taken to call your work "evidence". If your beliefs are true they will be confirmed, but you do take the risk of being shown to be wrong if you are wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

Since you don't believe that Moses, David, Solomon, Daniel and others had what you call direct input with God, ok,have a good day. Bye for now...

As I understand it, there have been civilizations that when assailed or gone against and defeated do not write their accounts.

As you understand it?!?!?

Not true, especially when a religion claims to have written accounts as the Jews and most Christians claim Moses wrote is an extreme claim that such volumes, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, were written by Moses and not one shred of the texts survived. Virtually all religions that claim to have religious texts have them that date at least close to when the authors lived.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I doubt if you do have evidence. You may have observations, but evidence requires a clear coherent testable argument. What you probably have is an ad hoc explanation. Those are not evidence.

You may have repeatable observations, but observations on their own are not evidence. And even a one time event can be "repeatable" if one's recording of the evidence is done properly. For example a fossil can be evidence for evolution but one has to carefully document where it was found, precisely. What strata it was in. Photos of the operation are almost a must. Plus the fossil itself has to be available for others to investigate, either through the fossil itself, or very detailed photographic and other evidence available to anyone that wants to investigate it. I doubt if your work meets those rigors.

I'm quite meticulous when I'm researching and investigating something that I think could be potentially paranormal. I'm often my harshest critic when it comes to examining what I think could be potential evidence of the paranormal. I'm also willing to learn new alternative methods of examining what I documented during my investigations that I'm not currently utilizing. I'm willing to listen to other paranormal investigators' advice, as well as listen to a skeptic's suggestions, and thoughtfully consider what they say. There have been times when I reexamined some of my potential evidence and debunked what I initially thought could be paranormal after listening to the suggestions and opinions of a skeptic. I don't shy away from admitting I was wrong.

I am sure that many did not agree with your findings.

Most definitely. There have been people who didn't agree with me regarding potential paranormal activity, but that doesn't bother me.

I wish that you would consider some of the steps necessary that need to be taken to call your work "evidence". If your beliefs are true they will be confirmed, but you do take the risk of being shown to be wrong if you are wrong.

I'm willing to utilize different analytical methods if I'm aware of them because I want to learn. I'm also willing to debunk what I initially thought could be paranormal. I'm not afraid of debunking my documentation or admitting I was wrong. As I've explained in other posts (such as this one here), my primary goal when analyzing any prospective evidence that I document is to try and debunk it first in order to determine whether I can authenticate it or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm quite meticulous when I'm researching and investigating something that I think could be potentially paranormal. I'm often my harshest critic when it comes to examining what I think could be potential evidence of the paranormal. I'm also open to learning alternative methods of examining what I documented during my investigations that I'm not currently utilizing. I'm willing to listen to other paranormal investigators' advice, as well as listen to a skeptic's suggestions, and thoughtfully consider what they say. There have been times when I reexamined some of my potential evidence and debunked what I initially thought could be paranormal after listening to the suggestions and opinions of a skeptic.

Okay do you remember the audio recordings? Would you like to discuss those?

Most definitely. There have been people who didn't agree with me regarding potential paranormal activity, but that doesn't bother me.

Maybe it should. You could have asked them why they disagreed.

I'm willing to utilize different analytical methods if I'm aware of them because I want to learn. I'm also willing to debunk what I initially thought could be paranormal. I'm not afraid of debunking my documentation or admitting I was wrong. As I've explained in other posts (such as this one here), my primary goal when analyzing any prospective evidence that I document is to try and debunk it first in order to determine whether I can authenticate it or not.

Okay, I would suggest that we work on one technique at a time. If you tell me how you study something and how you analyze it I may be able to come up with some helpful suggestions and valid criticisms.