Life From Dirt?

[Brian2]

You keep repeating your claims and keep avoiding answering questions about them.

I can only repeat: what makes you think there is a "why" in the first place?

My faith in a designer/creator who does things with a purpose in mind.

 

[ratiocinator]

It doesn't look like a baseless superstition to me. It has history and fulfilled prophecy on it's side

Baseless superstitions have history (including all the other religions) and the "fulfilled prophecy" is laughable.

You want verifiable evidence for a God. What is verifiable evidence for a God in your opinion?

Some fact about the world that is consistent with your god 'hypothesis' (which you'd have to present exactly precisely enough) and not compatible with alternatives, plus some way that it might be falsified.

...Bible as evidence for God...

Is this a joke? The bible is an incoherent mess, riddled with self-contradiction and containing no overall message.

It sounds like you don't want to go on the journey of finding God and His Kingdom.

Been there, done that, got the tee shirt, got better.

There is just a purpose that people might assign to things unless there is a purpose beyond that, the purpose they exist, as given by a creator who does things for a reason.

Eh?

It is evidence to me, so my faith is not blind faith,,,,,,,,,,, I have my reasons, my confirmation.

'Evidence to me' really isn't evidence. Evidence needs objectivity.

 

[ratiocinator]

The whole idea of a long molecule storing information and using it is evidence for a designer God imo. The genetic system for adaptation to environments was designed imo and in your opinion, without evidence that it was not designed, it was not designed.
How does something like that come about naturally?
Genesis does not say that God did not use evolution.

Looks like you don't understand the science. But I guess the main point is that, while it's remarkable as a natural process, as a design it's a bit crap. Doubly so if the designer didn't like suffering and death.

So the opinions of science about evolution theory are almost set in concrete.

The general idea that it happened and some of the main processes are beyond reasonable doubt. As I said, there is lots of work still to be done about all sorts of the details.

Is it any wonder that skeptics can't see that science cannot tell us whether God was involved directly in designing and making life forms.

Direct design of lifeforms goes against the idea of evolution. It also means the designer was bad at its job. On the other hand, the idea that some god tinkered with evolution is basically an evidence-free and unfalsifiable proposition, that science has, therefore, nothing to say about.

 

[viole]

Maybe life sprang from dirt 3.5 billion years ago though abiogenesis but I’m beginning to seriously doubt it. The God theory is sounding more and more plausible.

What God theory? The one where man is still from dirt, and woman from a rib?
Yup. That sounds vastly more credible.

Ciao

- viole

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are a few options that various Christians have used.
Some dig their heels in and say that evolution does not prove one type of animal changed to another. This is true, but there is an implication in science that it could happen and so some Christians go down this path and agree with all of evolution as a means God used to make the different kinds of life.
I just think that science is partly right about evolution but goes too far because basically nobody was there and science just presumes that it all happened naturally.

Embedded therein is an exposure of a strawman of evolution (more specifically, the part of "one type of animal changing to another")
I have yet to meet someone who objects to evolution theory, or part of it, without strawmanning it.

Also, for the bazzilionth time, there is no "presumption" that it happened naturally. There is only evidence that it did and no evidence that it didn't. So there is no reason to believe otherwise. Furthermore, the process of evolution as established within evolution theory is more then sufficient to explain the diversity of species on the planet. So next to having no evidence of "unnatural" components, there is also absolutely no need for it either.

It cannot be proven that God was not involved along the way and of course at the beginning.

It also cannot be proven that undetectable graviton pixies are not involved in regulating gravity.
So what?

Sorry, that is just a mistake on your part. Science wants to look into the past but does not know that a God was not involved or that pixies were not involved. Science just presumes naturalistic forces every step of the way.

False. When there is no evidence of gods or pixies, then you do not require a presumption they weren't involved.
Once more: the presumption is entirely on the side of those that wish to include gods or pixies while having no evidence of them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Different people either reject it or accept it as evidence for God based on whether they agree or not. I see the genetic system as evidence for God

Based on WHAT?
You are just repeating your claims instead of answering the question.

and other people say BS, and cannot see any further than the chemistry.

No. We just refuse to see further then what the evidence shows. Without evidence, there is nothing other to look at.

That is like seeing a working car and rejecting that it needed a designer because you can see how it works.

We have plenty of independently verifiable evidence of how cars are the result of designers.
We also have zero natural processes that explains the existence of cars.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What evidence is that?

The evidence you, by your own admission, reject for for example alien abductees.
It's the exact same type of "evidence" as you have for your beliefs: people making claims. "testimony".

Oh dear, now I'm being a hypocrite because I believe something instead of believing nothing.

No. Rather because you accept "testimony" when it matches your beliefs but happily reject it when it doesn't.
Double standards.

The truth is that I try to offer evidence for my faith that you might have a hope of seeing (but don't anyway) but that the real reason I believe in Jesus is because I have been drawn to Jesus by God.

Which is the same type of reason people believe in scientology, islam, alien abduction, etc.
The point. You keep missing it.

It must be me. I must be holding double standards, I should just believe every contradictory belief there is or believe none of them except the place that objective evidence might lead me eventually, if it ever does.

Finally we are getting somewhere.
Too bad you are saying it in misplaced sarcasm.
Which is quite ironic

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now you're getting it.

I got it all along. It's called confirmation bias through blind faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So the opinions of science about evolution theory are almost set in concrete.

They are not mere "opinions". Just like germ theory of desease, atomic theory, general relativity, plate tectonics, etc are not "mere" opinions.

Is it any wonder that skeptics can't see that science cannot tell us whether God was involved directly in designing and making life forms.

Only because gods are unfalsifiable things which are indistinguishable from imagination.
Science can't tell us either wheter graviton pixies are directly involved in gravity.
But that doesn't add any credibility to the claim of such pixies in your mind, does it?

Your double standard is showing again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is evidence because it points to the truth of something.

You are just repeating your claims instead of explaining them.
HOW can something point to the truth of something, if you can't verify if it actually points to the truth of something???
Stop being vague. Stop simply repeating your claims. Be specific.

It is a matter sometimes of belief in a story or being incredulous that something could happen without a designer.

I love how you now are simply acknowledging that that which you call "unverifiable evidence" is really no more then the logical fallacies of confirmation bias and argument from ignorance / incredulity.

It's one of those things that needs an operating system that works or not, nothing in between.

Yeah, it's called biology.

If you say so.

No, YOU actually said so. See above.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

With faith in whatever deity it is, all these things can become evidence for that deity.

When everything can be evidence of anything, it is evidence of nothing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yet there are commonalities in the corrollaries that come from being atheist/skeptic.

You keep claiming this...........

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What I said is that if what appears to be facts shows that the Bible is wrong then I have to just accept that. But as I have also said, the full scientific theory of evolution is not known to be factual all the way through, and in fact it is not known if a God or pixies were involved in the establishment of different life forms or of the system of Genetics etc.

Again with the claims of negative evidence.

You can say the exact same thing about general relativity and graviton pixies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But of course you don't know that common sensing design is wrong do you?

I don't even understand this question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My faith in a designer/creator who does things with a purpose in mind.

And round and round the merry goes

 

[shunyadragon]

But of course you don't know that common sensing design is wrong do you?

Huh?!?!?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It doesn't look like a baseless superstition to me. It has history and fulfilled prophecy on it's side

This was in response to, "The world is full of so called 'revelations', they can't all be real because they contradict each other. Why would I believe that a sane, just, and fair god would play silly games of hide-and-seek by hiding its revelation so it looks exactly like a baseless superstition?"

How do you think your response addresses the point being made?

You want verifiable evidence for a God. What is verifiable evidence for a God in your opinion?

You're the god believer. It's your evidence to present.

We do things based on our feelings a lot of the time, not on our evidence based weighing of options.

Irrational people do, yes. Some people are concerned about actually holding rational views, and will weigh out the evidence before drawing conclusions.

We both can see what I call evidence for God, but I cannot verify that it is evidence for God. That part is self evident if you can see it.

You've yet to tell anyone what that evidence is. Is it just Bible prophecies, or something more substantial than "It looks designed to me so the god I already believe in must have done it" ... ? (Logical fallacy)

I can point to nature and fulfilled prophecy in the Bible as evidence for God and historicity of the gospel and fulfilled prophecy as evidence for Jesus.
It is not proof but I can reason the truth of God and Jesus from that.

How is nature evidence for God?
The "fulfilled propechy" that you've given us from the Bible in the past have been wholly inadequate in making your case.
You still have all your work ahead of you in showing that the god you believe in had anything to do with it.

It sounds like you don't want to go on the journey of finding God and His Kingdom.

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.
Found nothing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is just a purpose that people might assign to things unless there is a purpose beyond that, the purpose they exist, as given by a creator who does things for a reason.



As I said, we all see the same things (what I call the evidence) but not all of us see it as evidence for God. It is evidence to me, so my faith is not blind faith,,,,,,,,,,, I have my reasons, my confirmation.



It's beyond reasonable doubt to me. It is irrelevent to you.
I keep saying as much over and over and over and over and skeptics keep coming back and telling me how stupid I am for not having verifiable and objective evidence for God. But for me it is clear.
I have a reasonable belief imo whether people accept that it is reasonable or not.

The arguments you present for your "beyond reasonable doubt" belief in the god you believe in are riddled with logical fallacies.
And so there is nothing reasonable or rational about the position you have presented to us.
It should be of no surprise to you that people who are trying to be as rational and reasonable as possible would reject an argument built upon logical fallacies (i.e. errors in thinking).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well yes, it's no good without belief that they might be true experiences. But it's a start and it can lead to finding a cosmic purpose.



With faith in whatever deity it is, all these things can become evidence for that deity.

Thank you for once again, demonstrating that anything can be believed on faith, and therefore faith cannot be a reliable pathway to truth. Faith is unjustified belief.
You've demonstrated this so many times in this thread, you've pretty much done all my work for me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yet there are commonalities in the corrollaries that come from being atheist/skeptic.

Such as?