Life From Dirt?

[Subduction Zone]

This is an interesting site to at least skim through.

Abiogenesis is mathematically impossible

Abiogenesis is mathematically impossible https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1279-abiogenesis-is-mathematically-impossible Open questions in prebiotic chem

reasonandscience.catsboard.com

It certainly opens the eye to some problems in the abiogenesis field.
It makes God into what is not eliminated by occam's razor if we are to believe what it says.
But who in their right mind would believe stuff like that which is compiled by Christians.



But showing the Bible history to be fanciful does destroy the idea of the Bible God.
When I look at the reasoning and the evidence that is used to say Bible history is not correct, it helps me see that Bible history is accurate. But I accept archaeological and other evidence that many people reject.

You have to be kidding. He openly admits to being a science denier, how is that supposed to help you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence we have is what is given by God.
The atheist position is made to look stronger for the atheist because they deny the theist has evidence.
The atheist position is also made to look stronger for the atheist because they do not realise that their evidence is as much subjective evidence as the theist position.
The atheist and skeptic commandeer science for themselves and lie about science showing that God does not exist when sceince does not do that but the atheist makes up their evidence from things that science does not claim.

Why can't you post any such evidence? I have asked several times and you never provide any. Al that you have done is to claim to have evidence.

When one claims to have evidence but refuses to demonstrate any of it then it is rather obvious to most that at best that person is just fooling himself.

 

[Valjean]

The truth is that the atheist position has no objective evidence. But who cares. Atheists don't and when theists mention it we get the "Oh we don't need to justify our position, it is the job of the theist to prove their claim not us atheists, we don't claim anything".

And this is true. You make an extraordinary claim. Where is your evidence?
The atheist non-position needs no evidence, objective or otherwise. It is logically assumed if contrary claims fail to meet their burden.

If there were any evidence for atheism it would be a miracle and would show magic is real.

Again, we need no evidence. It's you who cite miracles as evidence.

How does evolution know anything? It is a matter of evidence.

And it's about the most extensively evidenced process in all of science.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5408/0022-1368-36.3.143?journalCode=ujge19#:~:text=There%20are%20three%20varieties%20of,of%20gaps%20are%20both%20artificial.

No denial of evolution here.

The evidence gathered is fitted into a purely evolution framework. But that is pseudo science I am told (starting with the answer and making the evidence fit)
But the evidence seems to fit a creation framework going hand in hand with evolution.

No. The creation framework is magic poofing. It's not an explanation. You have no evidence for magic, and we don't claim any.

Science and you do not know if God had a hand in things. The evidence suggests that this could be the case imo. But science will never say that. But then again science does not say that the evidence points to there not being a God who did it. That is more of the subjective evidence that atheists/skeptics want to claim as being objective and science but which is not.

If God had a hand in things he left no objective evidence; no evidence that couldnt be replaced with familiar, natural processes.
The evidence also does not say that transdimentional constructor mice or the FSM didn't do it, either. The evidence for all three claims: God, mice, or FSM, are epistimically equal.
How many times do we have to illustrate why subjective evidence is worthless?

So I guess I could say that the fossil record is evidence for the Bible God.
You believe the subjective evidence you call science but probably won't believe my subjective evidence. (the fossil record)

You're being dishonest. You know perfectly well that science rejects subjective evidence. The scientific method has been explained numerous times.
Calling concrete, fossil evidence subjective does not make it so.

Shown that there was a beginning to the universe.
And yes the people of the Bible did not understand science and described what they saw around them, just as we do. They said the sun rose and we do. You understand that sort of thing but skeptics want to say this phenomenological language just shows that the Bible is wrong scientifically.

Your point? Which claim do you accept? Which is evidenced and reasonable?

There are good reasons the full process has not been observed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, yet. The whole process is not that simple.

But each step is pretty simple. An observed sequence of the familiar, simple steps, that would produce proto-life is just a matter of time, IMHO.
Magic poofing, on the other hand.....

 

[Valjean]

What questions are you asking?

How?

I don't even know what "epistemic validity" is. Is it important?

It is evidentially and argumentatively useless.

It does not appear to assemble readily without the right materials and conditions for each phase.

True, and these conditions appear common.

So science and theology explain different things. Theology is not meant to give a mechanism then, just to say who did it. OK

Great! Now we're getting somewhere. Opinions about values, purpose, propriety and meaning are the magisterium of religion. Also, religion doesn't explain, it doesn't deal with mechanism.
Questions of validity, reason and thinking are the bailiwick of mathematics or logic.
Questions of fact or reality are the realm of science. The existence of God is a question of fact and reality. It is firmly in the realm of science.

You mean like, Hydrogen and Oxygen join to make water so God is not necessary and had nothing to do with it.
That's pretty stupid for a logical and reasonable person.

Again, you miss the whole point. Nobody's making a positive claim that God, or, the FSM, or leprechauns 'had nothing to do with it. All we claim is that, inasmuch as alternate explanations are known, Goddidit cannot be logically asserted. We claim God is an unnecessary proposition, not an impossible one.
What we're left with is an assessment of relative probability and explanatory power.

For the rest of us, the theists, it only gets worse I suppose.
We and the universe are here so God did it. That's as bad as "We and the universe are here so abiogenesis and natural forming of the universe must be true"

Inasmuch as the universe exists, and appears to have a sort of beginning, a question of mechanism obtains. This is the realm of science. The question of agency is a horse of a different color. "...the natural forming of the universe must be true" is the most reasonable explanation
Propositions:
1. "Goddidit."
2. Physics did it.
4. "The natural forming of the universe must be true"
5. "The natural forming of the universe" is more likely than Goddidit.

Natural formation is the only explanation. Goddidit is the only claim of of agency.
Physicsis the claim of mechanism.
"More likely" is more likely than "must be."
"Must be" is non sequitur and logically unsupported.

That is good if all you say is that you don't know. Sometimes it feels as if atheists/skeptics are trying to show that theism is wrong. Maybe I'm paranoid.

Boo!

 

[blü 2]

Yes I guess we can't speculate on how common it is for some components to throw themselves together.
I see there is a theory that primitive pumps in the primordial life forms helped more them leave deep sea hydrothermal vents to colonise other sites (where other parts might be able to form) and somehow power chemical reactions. Testing it is proving problematic.

Yo, Brian

I trust all things are good at your place?

To show that abiogenesis is mathematically impossible is itself impossible unless and until you know how abiogenesis can occur, no?

If it occurs in a manner different to the manner which is said to be mathematically impossible, the 'mathematically impossible' claim, whether well argued or fallacious, is simply irrelevant, no?

It's correct to say that we presently have no chemistry-to-self-reproducing-cell biochemical route-map, but progress is being made, new discoveries are added, and we have an excellent chance of getting there in the end.

Meanwhile, the fact that we're here shows that abiogenesis is possible.

And the evidence shows that it happened on earth more than 3 bn years ago.

That's more than 3 bn years before Yahweh first appears ─ in about 1500 BCE, when [he]'s the god of a particular tribe and a member of the Canaanite pantheon, with, it appears, the usual consort (Asherah, though evidently there was a divorce at some time before the bible was written). As you know, Yahweh starts out as a tribal god in a henotheistic society and doesn't become sole god till the end of the Babylonian captivity (see the first commandment and Judges 11:23-24 for a couple of the many examples in the text).

In a free country you (like the rest of us) are welcome to believe anything ─ well, anything not harmful ─ that you like, but there's a certain comfort in being able to show your claims are well-argued from examinable evidence. And there, unfortunately for your argument, the Genesis account doesn't qualify.

 

[Valjean]

Brian2 said:
The evidence we have is what is given by God.

Apparently God's not much interested in whether or not anyone believes He exists. All His"evidence" is subjective, emotional, or based on questionable premises.

The atheist position is made to look stronger for the atheist because they deny the theist has evidence.

Is this not true?

The atheist position is also made to look stronger for the atheist because they do not realise that their evidence is as much subjective evidence as the theist position.

You don't understand objective vs subjective, or what constitutes valid evidence, or how science or logic work.

The atheist and skeptic commandeer science for themselves and lie about science showing that God does not exist when sceince does not do that but the atheist makes up their evidence from things that science does not claim.

We need commandeer nothing. Our lack of belief is the default.
We do not lie about science or claim God does not exist.
When you, believers, make unsubstantiated scientific claims, the scientific among us do correct you. Don't jump to the conclusion that our responses are an "atheist position.

 

[Audie]

Apparently God's not much interested in whether or not anyone believes He exists. All His"evidence" is subjective, emotional, or based on questionable premises.

Is this not true?

You don't understand objective vs subjective, or what constitutes valid evidence, or how science or logic work.

We need commandeer nothing. Our lack of belief is the default.
We do not lie about science or claim God does not exist.
When you, believers, make unsubstantiated scientific claims, the scientific among us do correct you. Don't jump to the conclusion that our responses are an "atheist position.

When you see so much that is simply
made up, it says so much about
the "evidence" a person interprets into
existence

 

[Brian2]

Yo, Brian

I trust all things are good at your place?

To show that abiogenesis is mathematically impossible is itself impossible unless and until you know how abiogenesis can occur, no?

If it occurs in a manner different to the manner which is said to be mathematically impossible, the 'mathematically impossible' claim, whether well argued or fallacious, is simply irrelevant, no?

It's correct to say that we presently have no chemistry-to-self-reproducing-cell biochemical route-map, but progress is being made, new discoveries are added, and we have an excellent chance of getting there in the end.

Possibly. Discoveries in chemistry may mean that adding some chemicals into a certain environment is all that is needed and all those hard things just happen like magic. And this would show something.

Meanwhile, the fact that we're here shows that abiogenesis is possible.

The fact that we are here shows that we are here I am told.

And the evidence shows that it happened on earth more than 3 bn years ago.

That's more than 3 bn years before Yahweh first appears ─ in about 1500 BCE, when [he]'s the god of a particular tribe and a member of the Canaanite pantheon, with, it appears, the usual consort (Asherah, though evidently there was a divorce at some time before the bible was written). As you know, Yahweh starts out as a tribal god in a henotheistic society and doesn't become sole god till the end of the Babylonian captivity (see the first commandment and Judges 11:23-24 for a couple of the many examples in the text).

In a free country you (like the rest of us) are welcome to believe anything ─ well, anything not harmful ─ that you like, but there's a certain comfort in being able to show your claims are well-argued from examinable evidence. And there, unfortunately for your argument, the Genesis account doesn't qualify.

Israel was monotheistic from the time of Moses till Israel, on and off, turned to idols. Not everyone, but many. That happened because Israel was not forced to be purely monotheistic. Examinable evidence can show us this if we interpret it that way. But there are always people who interpret things another way.

 

[Brian2]

Apparently God's not much interested in whether or not anyone believes He exists. All His"evidence" is subjective, emotional, or based on questionable premises.

There are many believers.

Is this not true?

Is what not true?

You don't understand objective vs subjective, or what constitutes valid evidence, or how science or logic work.

I see that science does not say that God does not exist. That is the subjective opinion of atheists who want to use science as their subjective evidence.

We need commandeer nothing. Our lack of belief is the default.
We do not lie about science or claim God does not exist.
When you, believers, make unsubstantiated scientific claims, the scientific among us do correct you. Don't jump to the conclusion that our responses are an "atheist position.

Mostly your responses are probably not an atheist position.
When you atheists and science make unsubstantiated claims, you can jump to the conclusion that my responses are a theist position.

 

[Brian2]

Your accusation of lying is disgusting
and uncpnscienable.
Is that what your god- faith does for you?

I said, The atheist and skeptic commandeer science for themselves and lie about science showing that God does not exist when sceince does not do that but the atheist makes up their evidence from things that science does not claim.

Does that mean that you think that science does not show that God does not exist?
Or does it mean that you think that the science that atheists use to show that there is not God, actually does objectively show that there is not God, and is not a subjective interpretation?

 

[Brian2]

OK. Explain it. Why is your 'evidence' anything but subjective? Why are facts, reason or logic unconvincing to you?

My evidence is subjective and facts, reason and logic are convincing to me.
Show me a fact that shows that there is no God.
All I am doing is showing that a position that says that there is no God is subjective.

You really aren't paying attention. You aren't reading our posts, or, if you do read them, they go right over your head.
When did we ever claim science showed God doesn't exist? When did we ever have to make up evidence?

The burden is on you, not us. We claim you have not met it, and that God remains poorly evidenced and an unnecessary and unevidenced proposition. Until you meet your burden, lack of belief stnds, as the reasonable position.

OK good, science does not show that God does not exist.
We don't know is a reasonable position for those who don't accept the subjective evidence of a theist.
I believe is a reasonable position for those who accept the subjective evidence of a theist.

 

[Audie]

I said, The atheist and skeptic commandeer science for themselves and lie about science showing that God does not exist when sceince does not do that but the atheist makes up their evidence from things that science does not claim.

Does that mean that you think that science does not show that God does not exist?
Or does it mean that you think that the science that atheists use to show that there is not God, actually does objectively show that there is not God, and is not a subjective interpretation?

"Commandeer, lie, make up their evidence"

All the above is you making things up

Of COURSE science cannot show " god" does not
exist. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

You think atheidts are idiots? We sure average a higher iq and education.
It's impossible to show God doesn't exist.
Why are you even talking about it?

You are being really insulting, with these phony
claims you make up.

Going by evidence I'd say you don't believe in
your so- called God, since you utterly disregard
the directives about how to behave.

 

[Brian2]

So actually your claim is that abio
never worked and is impossible.

It obviously worked or we would not be here. My claim is that it needed God to set up the right environment and it required God to have created the right material and it required God to start things off. And God may have done this more than once with different types of life forms. Gaps in the fossil record can cope with that instead of the theory of rapid evolution that has been suggested. Science can't cope with a God doing anything of course.

You did not attempt to address
what life even is. As nobody really
knows, that is fair.
The claim that life can only exist
as a ( hugely complex) cell, as you
seem to imply, is a made up fact.

It is hard to say what is a complex machine and where life begins isn't it.

As for that moldy Pratt about
mathematical impossibility ( as
opposed to actual impossibility)
we refer you to proof that bumblebee cannot fly.

OK

And note that the oh so typical creationist
Position is that no number of researchers world
wide and for 150 years could be right about
evolution. But ONE GUY, working outside his
field, he is the Auhority of Record, ifn that
is, the blighter is a creationist and says
he can prove ToE is a bunch hooey.

(Of course, abio is actually irrelevant to
ToE but the selection of " authority" is
the same.

It only needs one person to show something is wrong. The site gives views of many people however.
That's fine, they might all be wrong.
But really abiogenesis seems to be evolution in chemistry to get the right things that chemicals form and eliminate the wrong ones, so that you end up with a functioning machine which may or may not be life, but ends up as life at some point.

 

[Audie]

My evidence is subjective and facts, reason and logic are convincing to me.
Show me a fact that shows that there is no God.
All I am doing is showing that a position that says that there is no God is subjective.



OK good, science does not show that God does not exist.
We don't know is a reasonable position for those who don't accept the subjective evidence of a theist.
I believe is a reasonable position for those who accept the subjective evidence of a theist.

But zero for it to be reasonable or even sane
to think your God in the Bible is real.

Abundant proof that " He" is not real, for lo,
and for example,
there was no flood, so the "god" who directed it
is fiction. Like the " flood".

 

[Brian2]

The ' atheist posiition"? You mean like that we don't believe in God? Thats the only. " position".

Do you believe batboy has a secret lab in the moon?

Youve no objective reason for your disbelief, if you dont.

So what, I have no objective reason for God, do I.

 

[Brian2]

Stop doing that. I have a friend who is a theist, old earth believer, believer in biology and a biologist.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Audie]

It obviously worked or we would not be here. My claim is that it needed God to set up the right environment and it required God to have created the right material and it required God to start things off. And God may have done this more than once with different types of life forms. Gaps in the fossil record can cope with that instead of the theory of rapid evolution that has been suggested. Science can't cope with a God doing anything of course.



It is hard to say what is a complex machine and where life begins isn't it.



OK



It only needs one person to show something is wrong. The site gives views of many people however.
That's fine, they might all be wrong.
But really abiogenesis seems to be evolution in chemistry to get the right things that chemicals form and eliminate the wrong ones, so that you end up with a functioning machine which may or may not be life, but ends up as life at some point.

So your whole argument is simply about how
you happen to feel. Own it.

 

[Brian2]

The problem is that there is more than one version of God, so we are not a we for the first claim.
The rest are irrelevant as for atheists, because you can find atheists, theists and other kinds of religious people, who accept science.
There is no one version of the theist position, because there is no group of we of theists, that are only like you.

That's true.
I'm a Christian theist and I find that whether I think the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literal or not it does not make a difference and there is always something to attack.
And it goes beyond that to all parts of the Bible that are attacked by atheists/skeptics.
All Bible believing theists are in the same boat in that regard.

 

[Audie]

So what, I have no objective reason for God, do I.

As I said, it's all about how you just happen to feel.

Great way to make all of lifes important decisions

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's true.
I'm a Christian theist and I find that whether I think the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literal or not it does not make a difference and there is always something to attack.
And it goes beyond that to all parts of the Bible that are attacked by atheists/skeptics.
All Bible believing theists are in the same boat in that regard.

Your version of theism is not the only one around. You are not even the only type of a Christian.