Life From Dirt?

[YoursTrue]

What? Possible is always more probably than mpossible.

There are forces unknown to scientists that can overcome what is thought by scientists to be impossible. You think one way, I think another. Thus your posits cannot be proved, and I'm looking forward to what is currently deemed impossible to be overturned.

 

[wellwisher]

There are forces unknown to scientists that can overcome what is thought by scientists to be impossible. You think one way, I think another. Thus your posits cannot be proved, and I'm looking forward to what is currently deemed impossible to be overturned.

DNA does not work in any solvent except water. Why is that and what is the significance? DNA evolved in water with water always the majority component of life, defining natural chemical selection at the nanoscale. Water is not tuned to DNA, DNA is tuned to water, allowing DNA to work properly.

If you mix water and oil and agitate, you will get an emulation; chaos. If are allow this chaos to settle, order will appear. We will slowly get bubble and two phases; layers, which will separate out. This reversal is not random. Water allows order to appear from apparent chaos of the emulsion. We need to add energy to make the two phases of water and oil, random; an emulation. Water wants to lower the surface tension and shed this added energy, and in doing so allows order to reappear.

Life is made primarily of water and organics, with the majority component; water, forcing the organics to phase out into various distinct organic phases; organelles. Once phospholipids molecules formed in water, there was only one way to minimize surface tension, between the water and "this oil". We call this a lipid bi-layered membrane. It still happens every time, because the dice are loaded by water. The casino science odds makers do not yet understand how water loads dice and counts cards. This must seem like magic to them.

DNA was a logical consequence of the interaction of the organics of life (oil) and water. When water forces any oil to phase separate, it does so in a way to minimize surface tension, by minimizing surface contact area. A sphere is a minimal surface for any volume; bubbles. However much we minimize, the remaining contact surface area is an energized surface. How does water deal with this last bit of energy? An energized surface has extra energy for change, with the goal to lower and lower surface tension. Organics can form endless combinations; variety of molecules, with some better for lowering the residual surface tension; water selects protein for the membrane.

DNA is a very hydrated molecule, with lots of water attached. There is a double helix of water in the major and minor grooves of the DNA or organic double helix. DNA sort of defines a state where organic and water become almost one, in terms of shared potentials. The DNA is soluble in water, but it is also a very large macromolecule that also appears to be insoluble, since it does not disappear, like salt or sugar, due to its huge size. It is sort of the logical result of the surface tension of the 3-D sphere; oil bubble, flattening al the way a 1-D line; almost minimal surface tension, where they become one composite thing.

When protein fold and pack, to minimize surface tension in the water, the hydrophobic cores are isolated from the water. All the water will see are the protein surface area. But DNA can stay fully exposed, unless you add packing protein, thereby adding extra surface tension in water, so the DNA-protein composite has to fold; bubble up. Unpacking the chromosomes, allows the naked DNA, in part or full, to be an extension of the water, so the DNA can be become integrated to all the organics via the continuity of the surface tension in the cellular water; integrated organic cellular differentiation.

 

[shunyadragon]

How is my evidence going to be evidence for you if you do not believe it is evidence?

Evidence by definition is objective verifiable evidence. Reasons for personal subjective belief is NOT evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How do you determine what is actual from the merely possible?

We consult reality directly by examining its evidence to see how it actually works and what it actually contains. Isn't that your answer to any question from daily life? "Is [favorite restaurant] open on Mondays?" "It's possible" "I know that, but is it actually open?" "Maybe you should call them and ask." If you generalize this principle to all belief, and only call actual that which has been detected by the aided or unaided senses, you're an empiricist.

some atheists speak as if they believe there is no god, and argue strongly that there is no god, but then use the "atheism is just a lack of belief in god" card when it suites.

I haven't seen that, but why would you consider that important even if correct? Is that a criticism of atheism in your mind? I'd call it a criticism of the unsound thinking of a particular atheist. And look at your demeaning and dismissive language. What's your objection to such behavior? I don't care what such a person believes any more than I do what the believers believe. If my neighbor wants to dance around a tree in his back yard at midnight baying at the full moon while shaking a stick with a bloody chicken claw nailed to it in order to center himself and to give his like meaning, that's fine as long as he isn't violently insane or sacrificing animals if he keeps the noise down.

For me, whatever I call evidence for God does support that belief but is probably not the source of it, just a support.

But the evidence doesn't support your belief according to academic standards for deciding when reasoning is valid and the conclusions following it sound, such as in a courtroom. Suppose that the defense claims that pings from the defendant's phone off of a cell tower an hour away from the scene of the crime at the time of the crime exonerate him. Suppose the defense can't produce the records and wants hearsay admitted. The jury should acquit. But suppose those records are produced and can't be rebutted. Now, they should acquit. Suppose further that a photo of the driver driving his car in the area of the crime at the time of the crime were produced to impeach the ping data to indicate where the phone owner was when his phone was pinging in the next county - perhaps a traffic camera or a camera at a bridge crossing - now they convict again.

The point is that claims that "my evidence supports my conclusions" can be rejected by those who conform to the rules of reason applied to the available evidence, even if the claimant says he has his own way of reasoning that does connect evidence to conclusion.

the only way my God can be shown to not exist is to show that Biblical history is not true and the teaching do not match science

That's been done. It's not enough to pierce the veil of belief by faith. We know for a fact that short of some variation of Last Thursdayism, the biblical description of creation is incorrect, and that if the tree of multicellular life didn't evolve from currently extinct forms hundreds of millions of years ago, that we are the victims of a hoax perpetrated by some deceptive, superhuman power capable of arranging the evidence to appear as if evolution had occurred. Did your God do that?

But notice that ruling out the beneficent god of the Genesis has zero effect on belief among believers. I assure you that none are interested in that argument, which I have been making on RF for some time now. Here are some recent examples. I assure you that no believer has ever commented on that argument, much less rebutted or accepted it. Here are a couple of recent examples:

science, which of course is always correct and everything must answer to it.

Science and empiricism are the standard for truth about reality. Believers unwittingly give homage to this by trying to make scripture conform better to the science, as when literal days become metaphorical days to accommodate the science. We see it in Craig's Kalam argument, which begins with the assumption that the world had a beginning now that we have a Big Bang theory. We see it with creationist apologists attacking the science with pseudoscientific arguments about mutation only being capable of degrading genetic code, or in statements that we can't observe or reproduce the past (a misunderstanding of the place of those two activities in science), or visions of 747s self-assembling in junkyards during tornadoes. Just as "hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue" in an effort to imitate or claim it, this is the homage the faith-based thinker pays reason. He wants to be seen as reasonable even if he has had little interest in learning critical thinking or even discovering what it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are forces unknown to scientists that can overcome what is thought by scientists to be impossible. You think one way, I think another. Thus your posits cannot be proved, and I'm looking forward to what is currently deemed impossible to be overturned.

That is only because reality is too much for some.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a good point.
And the only way my God can be shown to not exist is to show that Biblical history is not true and the teaching do not match science, which of course is always correct and everything must answer to it.

But that has already been done. Your particular version of God has been shown not to exist. You are now at the point like many other creationists where you have to claim that your God is a liar.

Why do you believe that? Why not adjust your belief in God instead? Why insist that the parts of the Bible that are clearly not meant to be read literally as being history?

 

[Valjean]

Yes, believing that which is actual is preferable to believing things that are possible but less certain.
How do you determine what is actual from the merely possible?

Critical analysis. Reason and logic. Objective evidence.

I just believe, as you said, that some atheists believe there in no god. I also believe that some atheists speak as if they believe there is no god, and argue strongly that there is no god, but then use the "atheism is just a lack of belief in god" card when it suites.

Yes, "strong atheists assert that there is no god, but for ordinary atheists, and atheism in general, it's merely lack of belief.

For me, whatever I call evidence for God does support that belief but is probably not the source of it, just a support.

It supports belief for you. It can't be used as evidence for the general public or in philosophic discourse.

 

[Valjean]

That's a good point.
And the only way my God can be shown to not exist is to show that Biblical history is not true and the teaching do not match science, which of course is always correct and everything must answer to it.

Poor reasoning.

 

[Valjean]

There are forces unknown to scientists that can overcome what is thought by scientists to be impossible. You think one way, I think another. Thus your posits cannot be proved, and I'm looking forward to what is currently deemed impossible to be overturned.

If they're unknown to scientists they're probably unevidenced, and indistinguishable from non-existent.
We think, you do not. At best you feel.
Our posits need not be proved. It's you theists making the claim. The burden of proof is on you. Non-existence is assumed. It's the default.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'd call it a criticism of the unsound thinking of a particular atheist.

Why should you say that? The atheist has not come across any evidence of God or soul, therefore, the person negates it. Well, that way even the FGM (and so many other imaginary critters) could exist.

You are now at the point like many other creationists where you have to claim that your God is a liar.

No. God is not a liar, since he is imaginary. IMHO, it is those who claim to be God-sent prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations, mahdis, and their followers who expanded the stories, who are liars. They created stories to fool people.

 

[Valjean]

So long, maybe I'll look at some of your posts.

Regardless of the criticisms of the Bible, to me it makes the most sense of all.

To you. What makes sense to you is not derived from evidence. It's a gut reaction.

 

[Valjean]

That's a good point.
And the only way my God can be shown to not exist is to show that Biblical history is not true and the teaching do not match science, which of course is always correct and everything must answer to it.

Your God need not be shown not to exist. He's assumed not to exist, inasmuch as there's insufficient evidence he does.
The burden of demonstrating a claim is on the claimant.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why should you say that? The atheist has not come across any evidence of God or soul, therefore, the person negates it.

Being an atheist is a sound position. Being an agnostic atheist is also a sound position. But being an atheist who says gods don't exist (gnostic atheist) is not.

If I recall correctly, that's your position, but I don't know how you justify it. I'll bet we each lead the same lives we would if we traded positions, and it was you saying "I don't know" and me saying "There are no gods," so it's a moot point except that I consider gnostic atheism in small part faith-based, since I don't think that one can construct a sound argument ending, "therefore, gods do not exist," and therefore if one makes that last step, he can't justify it.

And an even less sound position than gnostic atheism was suggested, where an atheist says what I believe no atheist has ever said: "some atheists speak as if they believe there is no god, and argue strongly that there is no god, but then use the "atheism is just a lack of belief in god" card when it suits." I answered, "I haven't seen that, but why would you consider that important even if correct? Is that a criticism of atheism in your mind? I'd call it a criticism of the unsound thinking of a particular atheist." The illustrated atheist waffles between gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism according to what is expedient at the moment. That's the "particular atheist" to whom I referred, one I think doesn't exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. God is not a liar, since he is imaginary. IMHO, it is those who claim to be God-sent prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations, mahdis, and their followers who expanded the stories, who are liars. They created stories to fool people.

I agree. But believers in God are making that claim about their God without realizing it. By the way, it does not need to be a lie if the verses in question were meant to be allegorical. But as it is these people are refuting their own version of God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. where an atheist says what I believe no atheist has ever said: "some atheists speak as if they believe there is no god, and argue strongly that there is no god, but then use the "atheism is just a lack of belief in god" card when it suits."

My position goes far beyond that. I believe neither in existence of God nor of soul. Therefore, all that I consider as 'clap trap' is wiped out - heaven, hell, judgment, deliverance, reincarnation, moksha, etc. Of course, there are things that I (taking on the mantle of science) do not know - the problem of existence. But God does not answer that in any way. Surely, of gaps, there is a God.

 

[Brian2]

Lots. I will point them out in the future
as the come along.

OK Great.
I do make up alternative possible conclusions for the evidence that is presented at time. That's OK I would say.
I do present reasons why some people come to the conclusions they do at times. That's Ok too as what I present represents real reasons that would be part of the reasoning (assumptions), even if not part of the conscious reasoning process.

 

[Brian2]

Evidence by definition is objective verifiable evidence. Reasons for personal subjective belief is NOT evidence.

Evidence can be objective and can also be subjective.
I might say that it's a warm day and that is my subjective opinion about a temperature that can be objectively verified, but someone else might say it is cool in their opinion. So each of the opinions are subjective evidence.
I might say that I feel tired. The evidence for the tiredness is not objective but is my report on how I feel.
I might say that something shows to me that there is a God.
That something is subjective evidence because it is not objective evidence that there is a God even if it is evidence for some people, or even maybe for all people who believe in a God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence can be objective and can also be subjective.
I might say that it's a warm day and that is my subjective opinion about a temperature that can be objectively verified, but someone else might say it is cool in their opinion. So each of the opinions are subjective evidence.
I might say that I feel tired. The evidence for the tiredness is not objective but is my report on how I feel.
I might say that something shows to me that there is a God.
That something is subjective evidence because it is not objective evidence that there is a God even if it is evidence for some people, or even maybe for all people who believe in a God.

No, objective evidence is evidence that can be observed by anyone. Subjective is the opposite. Please note, objective can be observed by anyone. That does not mean that it is because there are those that use the ostrich defense.

 

[YoursTrue]

DNA does not work in any solvent except water. Why is that and what is the significance? DNA evolved in water with water always the majority component of life, defining natural chemical selection at the nanoscale. Water is not tuned to DNA, DNA is tuned to water, allowing DNA to work properly.

If you mix water and oil and agitate, you will get an emulation; chaos. If are allow this chaos to settle, order will appear. We will slowly get bubble and two phases; layers, which will separate out. This reversal is not random. Water allows order to appear from apparent chaos of the emulsion. We need to add energy to make the two phases of water and oil, random; an emulation. Water wants to lower the surface tension and shed this added energy, and in doing so allows order to reappear.

Life is made primarily of water and organics, with the majority component; water, forcing the organics to phase out into various distinct organic phases; organelles. Once phospholipids molecules formed in water, there was only one way to minimize surface tension, between the water and "this oil". We call this a lipid bi-layered membrane. It still happens every time, because the dice are loaded by water. The casino science odds makers do not yet understand how water loads dice and counts cards. This must seem like magic to them.

DNA was a logical consequence of the interaction of the organics of life (oil) and water. When water forces any oil to phase separate, it does so in a way to minimize surface tension, by minimizing surface contact area. A sphere is a minimal surface for any volume; bubbles. However much we minimize, the remaining contact surface area is an energized surface. How does water deal with this last bit of energy? An energized surface has extra energy for change, with the goal to lower and lower surface tension. Organics can form endless combinations; variety of molecules, with some better for lowering the residual surface tension; water selects protein for the membrane.

DNA is a very hydrated molecule, with lots of water attached. There is a double helix of water in the major and minor grooves of the DNA or organic double helix. DNA sort of defines a state where organic and water become almost one, in terms of shared potentials. The DNA is soluble in water, but it is also a very large macromolecule that also appears to be insoluble, since it does not disappear, like salt or sugar, due to its huge size. It is sort of the logical result of the surface tension of the 3-D sphere; oil bubble, flattening al the way a 1-D line; almost minimal surface tension, where they become one composite thing.

When protein fold and pack, to minimize surface tension in the water, the hydrophobic cores are isolated from the water. All the water will see are the protein surface area. But DNA can stay fully exposed, unless you add packing protein, thereby adding extra surface tension in water, so the DNA-protein composite has to fold; bubble up. Unpacking the chromosomes, allows the naked DNA, in part or full, to be an extension of the water, so the DNA can be become integrated to all the organics via the continuity of the surface tension in the cellular water; integrated organic cellular differentiation.

ok. Thank you for the explanation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Evidence can be objective and can also be subjective.
I might say that it's a warm day and that is my subjective opinion about a temperature that can be objectively verified, but someone else might say it is cool in their opinion. So each of the opinions are subjective evidence.
I might say that I feel tired. The evidence for the tiredness is not objective but is my report on how I feel.
I might say that something shows to me that there is a God.
That something is subjective evidence because it is not objective evidence that there is a God even if it is evidence for some people, or even maybe for all people who believe in a God.

None of the above addresses the problem of considering subjective religious claims and beliefs in comparison to the objective evidence supporting science and the nature of our existence,

Fundamentally there is absolutely no 'objective' evidence for the existence of God(s), and claims of spiritual souls and worlds beyond our physical world.

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/subjective-vs-objective-information-explained

What Is Subjective Information?​

Subjective is a term that refers to someone’s personal opinions or feelings regarding a particular subject matter. Subjective views or opinions are not based on truth or fact. They are one person’s unique interpretation of an idea and their own thoughts, feelings, and background. A subjective observation is influenced by a number of factors, including many different types of biases. In grammar, subjective means any qualities that refer to the subject of a sentence.

What Is Objective Information?​

The word “objective” refers to factual, data-based information that is not informed by bias. Although feelings and personal opinions are not objective, objective data like facts or historical information can form the basis for an opinion or feeling. When someone gives you an objective assessment of a topic, it is formulated from data, verifiable facts, or other irrefutable evidence without considering the speaker’s personal feelings. Journalists strive to objectively report facts, as not to influence their readership with their subjective personal biases. Objectivity in grammar can also refer to the “object” or a sentence, meaning a noun that the subject of the sentence acts on.

In science:

Objective and Subjective Claims - TIP Sheet - Butte College

www.butte.edu

Objective means making an unbiased, balanced observation based on facts which can be verified. Subjective means making assumptions, making interpretations based on personal opinions without any verifiable facts. Objective observations or assessments can be used before arriving at any decisions.