Life From Dirt?

[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.

You mean the one who says tht Adam comes from dirt?

ciao

- viole

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Don’t be so nit picky. People find it annoying

I don't.

Nor do I, @Mock Turtle. After all, @Moon, you started a thread on a subject which was inevitably going to lead to nit-picking, and very quickly, too.

 

[Heyo]

I suppose there is a middle ground somewhere but at the end of the day I guess believers and skeptics will always disagree no matter where a Christian might draw the line.

I suggest to use NOMa. Science should not touch on non measurable things like a soul and religion should stay out of the realm of science. Life is measurable, it is a physical thing. The soul is not. You can claim knowledge about the soul and you can claim souls being created by a god without science interfering. So everyone has their playground and no strife is necessary.
But I guess that will never happen as believers are greedy and arrogant. They can never accept that there is another game in town than theirs. Which drives people to atheism. You are saying "you are either with me or against me" and make people choose. And many people have a problem denying what is right before their eyes.

 

[Alien826]

When it comes to the beginning of the universe, the first cause of all things, we are willing to say anything to come up with an explanation, even that everything could come from nothing (if the maths can be tweaked enough to cope with it), but we are not willing to say that a God started it. Everything from nothing is fine as long as a God did not do it.

OK, let's accept the argument that there has to be a first cause, allow the possibility that the cause is not material, apply some logic and see where it goes.

What is implied by the existence of a first cause? Nothing more than that "something" caused the universe. Let's refer to it as X.

Now we have a new question. What do we know about X? Well, one thing is sure, it has the ability to create at least one universe. What else, that is of any use to a theist? To get to even the most basic theist god, we need a few more things.

Intelligence.

Continued existence.

To get to something like the Christian God, we need a few more things.

The creation of the human race.

The continued interest in the creation and the human race in particular.

Continued "adjustments" to the universe (miracles).

Lots of other stuff about morality, rewards and punishments and so on.

What's my point? Simply that the creation of the universe, even if established, gives you almost nothing to support Christianity in general. So maybe it's not just the scientists that can honestly say "I don't know" about it.

 

[gnostic]

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.

No, it would only be plausible, only if Adam was really a bacteria, not human.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The expansion of the universe suggests a beginning of it.
If you want to call whatever there was at the beginning, the universe then the universe existed before the BB, but that is speculation.
IMO time could not have gone to infinity into the past or we would not be here yet, so time began and so the universe began.

In a way your right.

I'd say all matter had a beginning and subsequent ending, but I also suspect there is an infinite component to matter that enables the dynamics that are at play for all forms in the universe to undergo the beginnings and endings that we see and experience.

 

[Brian2]

Well life obviously is chemically based, there is no question about that.

No educated Christian that I know feels the need to draw a line in the sand and say "beyond this, I refuse to apply science". That would be intellectual dishonesty.

But you have not answered my question about why you think the study of the origin of life life should be treated differently from lightning in a thundercloud. I suspect that if I can understand that, it may help me understand your point of view.

So, what's so special, to you, about the origin of life?

Bodies are obviously chemically based. Bodies aren't automatically alive when all the chemicals are assembled correctly.

 

[Brian2]

There is no witness evidence for the events that we are discussing. So how could witness evidence make any difference?

It claims to be witness evidence, I believe it is witness evidence.
If you thought it was witness evidence it would make a difference to you.

 

[Brian2]

I suggest to use NOMa. Science should not touch on non measurable things like a soul and religion should stay out of the realm of science. Life is measurable, it is a physical thing. The soul is not. You can claim knowledge about the soul and you can claim souls being created by a god without science interfering. So everyone has their playground and no strife is necessary.
But I guess that will never happen as believers are greedy and arrogant. They can never accept that there is another game in town than theirs. Which drives people to atheism. You are saying "you are either with me or against me" and make people choose. And many people have a problem denying what is right before their eyes.

A body is measurable but that does not mean that a body is the life/spirit that is in the body and not measurable.

 

[Brian2]

OK, let's accept the argument that there has to be a first cause, allow the possibility that the cause is not material, apply some logic and see where it goes.

What is implied by the existence of a first cause? Nothing more than that "something" caused the universe. Let's refer to it as X.

Now we have a new question. What do we know about X? Well, one thing is sure, it has the ability to create at least one universe. What else, that is of any use to a theist? To get to even the most basic theist god, we need a few more things.

Intelligence.

Continued existence.

To get to something like the Christian God, we need a few more things.

The creation of the human race.

The continued interest in the creation and the human race in particular.

Continued "adjustments" to the universe (miracles).

Lots of other stuff about morality, rewards and punishments and so on.

What's my point? Simply that the creation of the universe, even if established, gives you almost nothing to support Christianity in general. So maybe it's not just the scientists that can honestly say "I don't know" about it.

Science I suppose is the neutral. But a universe that just appears with no creator does away with creator gods and all their other attributes.
It seems to be skeptics and atheists who use science to say that there was no need for a God in creation but I don't think that science can say that even if many scientists are skeptics or atheists and think it.
Many are also believers in a God and think other things about what science shows theologically.
Having a mechanism for lightning for example does not mean that God did not set up that mechanism.

 

[Brian2]

In a way your right.

I'd say all matter had a beginning and subsequent ending, but I also suspect there is an infinite component to matter that enables the dynamics that are at play for all forms in the universe to undergo the beginnings and endings that we see and experience.

Then the question might turn into one of intelligent design or just dumb chance producing everything including our intelligence.
But of course matter might have more in it than I give it credit for. It might have a potential for intelligence and life and consciousness etc.
I see it more as the building blocks, designed to be used to build stuff with by something that is intelligent and then by us who have also been given the ability to use it to create.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It claims to be witness evidence, I believe it is witness evidence.
If you thought it was witness evidence it would make a difference to you.

Then it is hardly "evidence". So do the Harry Potter books and Star Wars. Worse yet many of the claims have been refuted making that evidence even weaker.

 

[Brian2]

Then it is hardly "evidence". So do the Harry Potter books and Star Wars. Worse yet many of the claims have been refuted making that evidence even weaker.

People saying "I don't believe those claims" is not refutation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People saying "I don't believe those claims" is not refutation.

People pointing out that the "evidence" is garbage is.. You will notice that I explained to you why it is weak. It is no different from a book of fiction that claims to be true, and even worse specific claims have been refuted. As have almost every prophecy.

You tried to use a strawman argument.

 

[Brian2]

People pointing out that the "evidence" is garbage is.. You will notice that I explained to you why it is weak. It is no different from a book of fiction that claims to be true, and even worse specific claims have been refuted. As have almost every prophecy.

You tried to use a strawman argument.

People saying "The evidence is garbage" is not refutation and is just a personal view.
You said nothing about a book of fiction that claims to be true, nor of specific claims that have been refuted nor of specific prophecies that have been refuted. Saying that something has been refuted does not make it refuted.
You have your opinions but that does not make them true.

 

[Heyo]

A body is measurable but that does not mean that a body is the life/spirit that is in the body and not measurable.

You introduced a thing that is not physical here: "spirit".
What about you concentrating on the spiritual aspect and let science investigate the physical aspects? The (most used, there are several) scientific definition of life is having a body (cell) that interacts with its environment (metabolism) and (react to stimuli) to keep its composition (homeostasis) to eventually (grow) and (reproduce) with variation (mutation).
All these are measurable and an entity is called physically alive when they show them.

You may add to this and call it spiritually alive when additional criteria are met (or subtract from the list).
Just don't tread into science's magisterium and try to tell them how to do their job.
Deal?

 

[Subduction Zone]

People saying "The evidence is garbage" is not refutation and is just a personal view.
You said nothing about a book of fiction that claims to be true, nor of specific claims that have been refuted nor of specific prophecies that have been refuted. Saying that something has been refuted does not make it refuted.
You have your opinions but that does not make them true.

Oh my. Read the explanation of why it fails.

Come on, you can do it. And you should know of at least one failed prophecy. They Ture prophecy tests the honesty of the believer. When the writer of it himself admitted that it failed it really is hard for them to justify it. And didn't we also go over how Luke's Nativity is mythical? You can't claim to have evidence and then ignore the stories of the Bible that are refuted by evidence. That demonstrates hypocrisy. That tells everyone that you have no evidence.

 

[Brian2]

Oh my. Read the explanation of why it fails.

Come on, you can do it. And you should know of at least one failed prophecy. They Ture prophecy tests the honesty of the believer. When the writer of it himself admitted that it failed it really is hard for them to justify it. And didn't we also go over how Luke's Nativity is mythical? You can't claim to have evidence and then ignore the stories of the Bible that are refuted by evidence. That demonstrates hypocrisy. That tells everyone that you have no evidence.

Still it is just a matter of opinion verses opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still it is just a matter of opinion verses opinion.

No, it is much more than that. You have appear to have an almost worthless definition of "evidence" where anything, fact or fiction would be counted as evidence. I have noticed at times when you know that you are wrong you try to claim that it is a matter of opinion. It is not. It is one side with all of the reliable evidence and the other relying on myth and legend.

 

[Brian2]

You introduced a thing that is not physical here: "spirit".

You had already introduced the soul.

What about you concentrating on the spiritual aspect and let science investigate the physical aspects? The (most used, there are several) scientific definition of life is having a body (cell) that interacts with its environment (metabolism) and (react to stimuli) to keep its composition (homeostasis) to eventually (grow) and (reproduce) with variation (mutation).
All these are measurable and an entity is called physically alive when they show them.

You may add to this and call it spiritually alive when additional criteria are met (or subtract from the list).
Just don't tread into science's magisterium and try to tell them how to do their job.
Deal?

I can't promise anything, the line gets blurred when science does not even recognise any distinction between life and bodily life and spirit life etc.