Life From Dirt?

[TagliatelliMonster]

However bypassing that, I would say that their tests do not show that all life forms evolved from the one life form without any tweaking of genes by God, as opposed to natural processes.

Again with those negative statements as if that means anything.

The tests of gravity and general relativity also don't show that gravity works "without any regulating by undetectable graviton pixies".

Try POSITIVE evidence FOR your claims, instead of just pointing out that we have no evidence that there is "no role" for any "undetectable and unfalsifiable entity or process".

Your statements are utterly meaningless and don't advance your claims for even only an inch.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is like the question that asks: What are the criteria by which you can say that something was not designed?

No, it's not. First, because that one is a negative question and a claim that nobody makes.
And second, because my question touches precisely upon that which you (or your side) claims to be able to do: to detect design in things of unknown origin.

So, by what criteria is this done?
If there are no such criteria, then on what basis is it claimed?

I might decide intuitively but others, who work in science, want to try to do it rationally and so Michael Behe came up with the idea of irreducible complexity.

You mean, the nonsense that even courts could see was pseudo-scientific nonsense?

There is no such thing as "irreducible complexity". It is nothing but an argument from ignorance and has been shown to be such more times then I can count.
"i don't know how this can be reduced, therefor it can't" - IC in a nutshell.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

At least they are conclusions and not just "We don't know" statements as atheists/skeptics give.

I don't even know how to respond to that....
What is there left to say to someone who simply states that they prefer illogical, unjustifiable bs "conclusions" over honest acknowledgement of ignorance?

There are no conclusions from science or skeptics and atheists that say there is no God

There are also are no such conclusions that say there aren't undetectable graviton pixies.
How many more times are you going to repeat this fallacious nonsense?

Theists have something and atheists have nothing.

When the "something" is fallacious reasoning, I prefer to be on the side that doesn't have any of that.

But at least atheists can be sure of their conclusion

What conclusion? You just said we don't have any........
At least try to keep track of your own strawman.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that they don't know and don't have any beliefs about the God hypothesis. LOL

There is no god hypothesis.
Hypothesis are well defined and independently testable proposed explanations for sets of facts within a well-defined scope.

 

[ratiocinator]

I did not read the whole article but did note that they said they are not certain of the absolute truth of their results as they have not tested all other possible scenarios.

Absolute truth is not something anybody (with any understanding) would expect from science. What we do have is plentiful evidence. Since all the evidence we have tells us that we evolved from a common ancestor, and these statistical tests confirm it in yet another way, the case really should be closed.

However bypassing that, I would say that their tests do not show that all life forms evolved from the one life form without any tweaking of genes by God, as opposed to natural processes.

Or tweaking by aliens, or evolution fairies, or any other untestable and unfalsifiable story anybody could make up....

 

[ratiocinator]

At least they are conclusions and not just "We don't know" statements as atheists/skeptics give.

You say that like it's a good thing! You'd really rather have any old nonsense as a fixed answer rather than acknowledging that there are some questions we don't have enough evidence to answer yet?

Really?

Theists have something and atheists have nothing.

Everybody has the evidence. Some theists seem to want to add baseless blind faith to create false certainty where none is justified.

But at least atheists can be sure of their conclusion,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that they don't know and don't have any beliefs about the God hypothesis. LOL

From where I'm standing the joke's on you. Your attitude just seems bizarre to me.

There is also no 'god hypothesis', that is, unless you can tell me of some test that could falsify it.

 

[LuisDantas]

For those who think that life could not originate spontaneously... I think that a lot can happen when you have millions of years and a whole planet to work with.

Sometimes people ask why it isn't happening again. I think that it would be unlikely to, given how short is human history and how much of the biomass is occupied in living organisms.

 

[Brian2]

This is the selective over reaching the objective verifiable evidence to justify a reality that does not fit the objective evidence as a whole.

It is a faith after all, so objective verifiability is not applicable.
It is the same for belief in the truth of the resurrection and that the apostles were witnesses and their witness is seen in the writings of the New Testament.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is a faith after all, so objective verifiability is not applicable.

Here you are telling us yet again that your beliefs are not rational, and that you don't really seem to care.

It is the same for belief in the truth of the resurrection and that the apostles were witnesses and their witness is seen in the writings of the New Testament.

Blind faith. Believing what you want to believe, because you want to believe it.

Thanks for demonstrating again that faith is unjustified belief, and not a reliable pathway to truth.

 

[LuisDantas]

At least they are conclusions and not just "We don't know" statements as atheists/skeptics give.

Careless conclusions are very much worse than honest ignorance.

There are no conclusions from science or skeptics and atheists that say there is no God unless a few assumptions etc are thrown into the logic.

There is no god-concept in science, period.

Theists have something and atheists have nothing.

Do you think that works to your benefit or advantage?

But at least atheists can be sure of their conclusion,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that they don't know and don't have any beliefs about the God hypothesis. LOL

Oh, we have beliefs alright. We doubt it and (more often than not) find it quite worthless to begin with.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, I feel that there must be some intermediary steps that you did not come to write down. I am not following.

I was just trying o make it clear about evolution and differences of interpretation of the Bible along with that. I believe God enabled life to form from the beginning, but once Adam sinned the genetic capability was altered. By that I mean that perfection, including the opportunity to physically and spiritually attain to everlasting life was and is dependent on the one who enables it. I hope that helps to explain my position on the matter. This does not mean that we do not or cannot reproduce genetically, and that things like skin color, size of limbs, etc., cannot be transmitted, however the situation is no longer held in perfection. God cares about life. He also cares about His creation. (I believe that since I don't want it to be said that I'm "preaching." But that is what I have come to believe. I'll stop there for now.) That's how I look at it now. No matter how detailed the science is I am not convinced that the ideas are final or absolutely accurate in the assessment. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

Careless conclusions are very much worse than honest ignorance.




There is no god-concept in science, period.




Do you think that works to your benefit or advantage?


Oh, we have beliefs alright. We doubt it and (more often than not) find it quite worthless to begin with.

In my humble ? opinion, science relies upon magic. I won't go into detail now as to what exactly I mean, but it reminds me of the account of Moses and his appearance before the magic-practicing priests. Amazing things happened on both sides. Take care.

 

[LuisDantas]

In my humble ? opinion, science relies upon magic. I won't go into detail now as to what exactly I mean, but it reminds me of the account of Moses and his appearance before the magic-practicing priests. Amazing things happened on both sides. Take care.

No, that is not humble, and not really an opinion either.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that is not humble, and not really an opinion either.

Moses contended with Pharaoh's magic-practicing priests before the exodus. Perhaps you are aware of the account. But anyway -- I was just trying o make it clear about evolution and differences of interpretation of the Bible along with that. I believe God enabled life to form from the beginning, but once Adam sinned the genetic capability was altered. By that I mean that perfection, including the opportunity to physically and spiritually attain to everlasting life was and is dependent on the one who enables it. I hope that helps to explain my position on the matter. This does not mean that we do not or cannot reproduce genetically, and that things like skin color, size of limbs, etc., cannot be transmitted, however the situation is no longer held in perfection. God cares about life. He also cares about His creation. (I believe that since I don't want it to be said that I'm "preaching." But that is what I have come to believe. I'll stop there for now.) That's how I look at it now. No matter how detailed the science is I am not convinced that the ideas are final or absolutely accurate in the assessment. That is how I see it as far as genetics go right now. There is no proof whatsoever otherwise regarding evolution except -- guesses and evaluations from fossils. Yes, I know no proof in science. So in actuality, there is nothing but conjecture and 'science.' Meaning looking at dna, rna, and making analyses. No certainty, no proof. Have a good one, take care.

 

[ratiocinator]

In my humble ? opinion, science relies upon magic.

Then your "humble ? opinion" is simply wrong.

There is no proof whatsoever otherwise regarding evolution except -- guesses and evaluations from fossils. Yes, I know no proof in science. So in actuality, there is nothing but conjecture and 'science.' Meaning looking at dna, rna, and making analyses.

Yet again you demonstrate ignorance. If you know science doesn't do proof, why keep using it? There is easily 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' of evolution in genetics alone (without any other evidence at all). None of it is mere conjecture.

This has been pointed out you together with some with some detailed links, but you seem to be too afraid to consider it because you just dismiss it out of hand.

Either life evolved or any creator is a liar.

 

[LuisDantas]

Moses contended with Pharaoh's magic-practicing priests before the exodus. Perhaps you are aware of the account. But anyway -- I was just trying o make it clear about evolution and differences of interpretation of the Bible along with that. I believe God enabled life to form from the beginning, but once Adam sinned the genetic capability was altered. By that I mean that perfection, including the opportunity to physically and spiritually attain to everlasting life was and is dependent on the one who enables it. I hope that helps to explain my position on the matter. This does not mean that we do not or cannot reproduce genetically, and that things like skin color, size of limbs, etc., cannot be transmitted, however the situation is no longer held in perfection. God cares about life. He also cares about His creation. (I believe that since I don't want it to be said that I'm "preaching." But that is what I have come to believe. I'll stop there for now.) That's how I look at it now. No matter how detailed the science is I am not convinced that the ideas are final or absolutely accurate in the assessment. That is how I see it as far as genetics go right now. There is no proof whatsoever otherwise regarding evolution except -- guesses and evaluations from fossils. Yes, I know no proof in science. So in actuality, there is nothing but conjecture and 'science.' Meaning looking at dna, rna, and making analyses. No certainty, no proof. Have a good one, take care.

Feels like you simply value believing in a God that chose to create life. The science of it is simply irrelevant to you, far as I can figure.

That is fair, far as it goes. Your feelings about a Creator God, the writings in Genesis and the science of biology and its findings are, quite simply, three different things and the former two are apparently a significantly closer match to each other than either is to the latest.

I don't really know where we can go from there or even why, but that seems to be how things stand.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In my humble ? opinion, science relies upon magic. I won't go into detail now as to what exactly I mean, but it reminds me of the account of Moses and his appearance before the magic-practicing priests. Amazing things happened on both sides. Take care.

It sounds like you're the one relying upon magic here.

 

[YoursTrue]

For those who think that life could not originate spontaneously... I think that a lot can happen when you have millions of years and a whole planet to work with.

Sometimes people ask why it isn't happening again. I think that it would be unlikely to, given how short is human history and how much of the biomass is occupied in living organisms.

Now that you mention it, it really DOES make sense that it could/should/might happen again. in a way, because there could be/should be nothing to stop it from happening again. But it does not insofar as I have heard about. And that leaves it wide open to doubt even through millions, billions of years from the supposed abiogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now that you mention it, it really DOES make sense that it could/should/might happen again. in a way, because there could be/should be nothing to stop it from happening again. But it does not insofar as I have heard about. And that leaves it wide open to doubt even through millions, billions of years from the supposed abiogenesis.

Why it is not happening now has been explained to you many times.

 

[YoursTrue]

Feels like you simply value believing in a God that chose to create life. The science of it is simply irrelevant to you, far as I can figure.

That is fair, far as it goes. Your feelings about a Creator God, the writings in Genesis and the science of biology and its findings are, quite simply, three different things and the former two are apparently a significantly closer match to each other than either is to the latest.

I don't really know where we can go from there or even why, but that seems to be how things stand.

I am bringing out the fascinating detail I consider in the Bible, that Pharaoh had magic-practicing priests and Moses contended with them. So when someone says God did it by "magic," actually it's magical that things (evolution) just happened to happen by of forces beyond control of a superior intelligence. So it's kind of like magic against magic.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why it is not happening now has been explained to you many times.

As a matter of fact, I just did. I wonder if he noticed.