Life From Dirt?

[Polymath257]

What, and if they only find one answer, that has to be the way it happened?

No, it is quite possible they have missed something in that case. And the way to determine that is through further testing and investigation.

In science the God did it answer is not acceptable, that is true.

It is not acceptable in the same way that an Earth centered solar system isn't acceptable. It doesn't make correct predictions (in the case of a deity, it makes NO predictions) about actual observations.

The answer that God did not do it because we have found what we think of possible ways something could have happened may be acceptable in skepticism but logically it is not acceptable for me.

Once again, logical possibility is a very, very weak filter for truth. many things are logically possible, but false in fact.

For a skeptic the places where abiogenesis etc might fall down don't really matter anyway, the theory is accepted already, after all God and spirit cannot be found by science.

No, there is no accepted theory of abiogenesis. We know that at some point things that were not alive changed into things that were. But that is true of the God story as well. it's just that science knows that life is a type of complex collection of chemical reactions, so the most reasonable place to start investigations into how it started will begin with chemistry.

In contrast, we have NO evidence of a supernatural, so postulating a supernatural to explain the origin of life just makes two unknowns in place of one. It has absolutely no explanatory power.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The answer that God did not do it because we have found what we think of possible ways something could have happened may be acceptable in skepticism but logically it is not acceptable for me.

I submit that you find it logically perfectly acceptable for any other subject that doesn't involve any gods in which you have a priori beliefs.

For example...
A cake is missing from your kitchen.
Suppose there is evidence that your kid an his friends ate it. Such evidence might be that they have chocolate stains on their T-shirt and had both access to the kitchen and opportunity.

Would you find it "logically not acceptable" to then state that extra-dimensional aliens did NOT materialize in your kitchen to steal said cake?

Let's even forget about the children and evidence. Suppose you have no evidence of anyone doing it. The cake is just missing and you have no idea what happened and no leads at all.

Would you in that case find it "logically not acceptable" to state that extra-dimensional aliens or demons did NOT do it?


I posit that you only find it "logically not acceptable" when it concerns things that you already believe on faith as part of your religion.

For a skeptic the places where abiogenesis etc might fall down don't really matter anyway, the theory is accepted already

There is no "theory" of abiogenesis. There are only hypothesis. Several, competing, ones at that.

, after all God and spirit cannot be found by science.

Neither can extra-dimensional aliens.

 

[Brian2]

Quote me the part where Paul's Jesus ascends to heaven.

Quote me the part where Mark's Jesus ascends to heaven.

Quote me the part where Matthew's Jesus ascends to heaven.

Quote me the part where Luke's Jesus ascends to heaven.

Quote me the part where John's Jesus ascends to heaven.

Quote me the part where Acts's Jesus ascends to heaven.

Paul did not write a gospel account and I don't think he mentioned the ascension. But Paul mentions things like Jesus sitting down at the right hand of the Father, so an ascension is known by Jesus. (Col 3:1)
Mark mentions the ascension at Mark 16:19. But as I said, this is accepted as a later addition. The gospel ends at verse 8, so Mark does not have an ascension as such even though Jesus mentions His coming death and resurrection in Mark and Mark knew of Jesus going to heaven and sitting at the right hand of the God (Mark 14:62)
Quoting you a part where the ascension is mentioned in the others is just work for me that is a waste of time. I have answered your objections to the resurrection being in different places.
Matthew has no ascension but knowing that the risen Jesus goes to heaven is known by him.
John has no ascension, but the same.
Acts 1 is the ascension in Acts and Luke has the ascension at the end of Luke 24.
So 2 accounts of the ascention, both agreeing and written by Luke.

 

[Brian2]

First.

What is “subjective evidence”? DEFINE it.

Subjective evidence is evidence that believers see as evidence for God but is no evidence that can be used in science to verify or falsify God.

How would you USE “subjective evidence” is?

Regardless of how define and use, being “subjective” is regards along similar lines as having -

(A) personal opinion,​

​

(B) personal preference (eg taste in looks, in beauty, personal preferences are about personal likes or dislikes)​

​

or (C) personal belief (in which what you have accepted is based on faith)...​

...NONE OF WHICH are “reliable” to Natural Sciences or to Physical Sciences.

They are unreliable because they are subjected to biases. Therefore, they are not “evidence” at all.

Don’t get me wrong, “being subjective” is great, because they have their uses outside of Physical Sciences or of Natural Sciences.

For instances, there are places for “being subjective”, like in psychology, psychiatry, behavioral science, psychological therapy, etc (in which these fields all under the umbrella of Social Sciences), where knowing patients or clients, like how they feel (their emotions), how they behave, what do they think about, all of these matter so the patients can be treated in some ways.

Another examples within Social Sciences, like in anthropology which are studies of human cultures. Or sociology, which are studies of how people behave in social settings like in communities or in societies, so their relationship or interactions with one another in groups.

There are many other sciences in Social Sciences, like archaeology, political science, economics, laws, ethics, etc.

Social Sciences don’t require to restrict itself to Scientific Method, and that’s why Social Sciences, like psychology, are commonly referred to as “soft science”.

Maybe theology is a soft science then.

But “being subjective” isn’t restricted to Social Sciences, because a person’s imagination and creativity involved being subjective. So their are uses for “being subjective” outside of all sciences, like in arts (eg drawing, painting, sculpture, etc), music composition, song writing, writing literature (eg epic, poetry) or novel fiction, etc. all of these fall under the category of Humanities. This is where “being subjective”, where creativity and imagination thrive, and great masterpieces are achieved in arts, music or literature.

Humanities are non-scientific disciplines or studies, which also include history, languages (eg spoken or written languages, philology), morals, etc.

What you need to understand Brian2, is there are time and place for “being subjective”, but subjective have very little use in Natural Sciences or in Physical Sciences, because subjective leads to biases, so it isn’t reliable.

So what is this “subjective evidence”?

I already sort of defined subjective evidence and it seems to agree with what you said.

 

[Audie]

With or without God, the 2 alternatives. Science doesn't know but just studies what it finds to study and comes up with the materialist version of what might have happened back then.

Science certainly know that what YOUR chosen. Ersi9n of a God supposedly did is simply false.

" Materialist version" so called by you
is in fact the only explantation that is
consistent with data.

You might as well say " god" put Australia in the atla tic
as say there is one speck of " flood" evidence.


Magical realism stories like Genesis
flood are a 100 percent fail, total
mismatch with the data.

Are you going to quit your utterly
false claims re " theory as fact"?

For a person who seems to think he
has God, Bible, angels and all of reality
on his side, it's odd that you constantly
employ falsehood, strawman and " facts"
that you make up...don't you think so?

 

[Audie]

Paul did not write a gospel account and I don't think he mentioned the ascension. But Paul mentions things like Jesus sitting down at the right hand of the Father, so an ascension is known by Jesus. (Col 3:1)
Mark mentions the ascension at Mark 16:19. But as I said, this is accepted as a later addition. The gospel ends at verse 8, so Mark does not have an ascension as such even though Jesus mentions His coming death and resurrection in Mark and Mark knew of Jesus going to heaven and sitting at the right hand of the God (Mark 14:62)
Quoting you a part where the ascension is mentioned in the others is just work for me that is a waste of time. I have answered your objections to the resurrection being in different places.
Matthew has no ascension but knowing that the risen Jesus goes to heaven is known by him.
John has no ascension, but the same.
Acts 1 is the ascension in Acts and Luke has the ascension at the end of Luke 24.
So 2 accounts of the ascention, both agreeing and written by Luke.

Paul's ridiculous snake story kills any
credibility he might have had.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why are we even talking about the existence of something that is not needed to explain anything?

Can you answer your own question here? Why do you expend so much effort, so many words, so many convoluted arguments, on something you don’t believe exists?

 

[Audie]

Subjective evidence is evidence that believers see as evidence for God but is no evidence that can be used in science to verify or falsify God.



Maybe theology is a soft science then.



I already sort of defined subjective evidence and it seems to agree with what you said.

Theology is more like the opposite of
science.
What you call "subjective" evidence is
only evidence of someone's state of mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Subjective evidence is evidence that believers see as evidence for God but is no evidence that can be used in science to verify or falsify God.

Give an example.
And explain how you think it qualifies to be described with the word "evidence".

 

[Brian2]

Second.

Everything you see, people, animals and planets, the lands and seas, mountains, forests, deserts, the planet Earth, the sun and other stars, and so on, all matters are made of molecules, which are made of atoms, and atoms are made of smaller particles.

So essentially, all matters, inorganic or organic, relied on two very basic and fundamental sciences:

1. Physics
2. Chemistry

So even, when you dealing with biology of life, every cells in any organisms are made of chemical molecules or compounds with carbon atoms.

Carbon by itself, isn’t organic. To be organic, it relied on compounds or molecules containing also oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc, blinded chemically in some ways to form some types of molecules.

What do you think molecular biology and biochemistry are?

They are the studies of biological molecules (or more precisely macromolecules) like proteins, nucleic acids and carbohydrates, which are essential in every cells of every living organisms. Without these macromolecules, there are no cells, and without cells, there can be no life.

Yes I did some chemistry at school.
But I stopped there because I would not say that without cells there can be no life.
That is one view of life, biological life forms, but not necessarily "life".

Both biochemistry and molecular biology are required understanding of how cells work.

Abiogenesis is simply using knowledge of biochemistry & molecular biology together to form the basis of Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis involved the basic principles of both physics and chemistry being implemented together.

Abiogenesis therefore relied on the understanding of natural processes, such as chemical reactions, to determine the origins of the 3 essential biological macromolecules (proteins, nucleic acids & carbohydrates, as well as lipids).

As I have you and other creationists, “God did it” or the “Designer did it” aren’t explanations, and you cannot the existence of either God or Designer, which would make creationism and Intelligent Design both pseudoscience - both unfalsifiable concepts.

Unfalsifiable concept is one that cannot be tested, so it cannot be verified, nor can you refute it, because there are zero evidence for this God or for this Designer existing.

No zero evidence, but just not evidence that can be used in science to verify or falsify the existence of God or designer.
Belief in God and creator is a matter of faith, but can be confirmed to a person through subjective evidence and/or the experiences of those people or others.

 

[Audie]

Give an example.
And explain how you think it qualifies to be described with the word "evidence".

While walking across campus with this other girl,
we had a nice autumn leaf fall at our feet.

"Look", she says, " a Sign from God, it represents
thecTrinity!"

I asked why then it has five lobes (red maple leaf)
she said, " oh, you are right, it represents the pentarch!"

THAT is "subjective evidence"

 

[Audie]

Yes I did some chemistry at school.
But I stopped there because I would not say that without cells there can be no life.
That is one view of life, biological life forms, but not necessarily "life".



No zero evidence, but just not evidence that can be used in science to verify or falsify the existence of God or designer.
Belief in God and creator is a matter of faith, but can be confirmed to a person through subjective evidence and/or the experiences of those people or others.

Will you ever figure out belief in God does
not require belief in nonsense or ftm
being a Christian at all?

 

[blü 2]

Paul did not write a gospel account and I don't think he mentioned the ascension. But Paul mentions things like Jesus sitting down at the right hand of the Father, so an ascension is known by Jesus. (Col 3:1)

Ah, you're finally looking at the text!

Mark mentions the ascension at Mark 16:19.

Okay, then let's agree forever after that Mark ends at 16:8. That rules out any authority for the added part, regardless of context. Is that fine with you?

If so, then like Paul, Mark has nothing to say,

Quoting you a part where the ascension is mentioned in the others is just work for me that is a waste of time. I have answered your objections to the resurrection being in different places.

Matthew 28:16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.

And Jesus announces that God has retired and no longer has anything to do with the earth and that all future correspondences should be addressed to him, Jesus instead.

So are you saying that according to Matthew, Jesus never ascended?

Or do you accept that Jesus ascended, and the logical inference is that he ascended from Galilee?

Acts 1 is the ascension in Acts

Yes, in Acts 1 Jesus ascends from Jerusalem.

and Luke has the ascension at the end of Luke 24.

Luke 24:51, actually ─ Luke ends at 24:52. And of course here Jesus ascends from Bethany.

And John doesn't mention an ascension, but when John ends, they're all at the Sea of Tiberias. Now you know from John 6:1 that the Sea of Tiberias is "the other side of the sea of Galilee".

So do you think Jesus went back to Jerusalem to ascend, or went back to Bethany to ascend, or do you think he ascended from the Sea of Tiberias, or do you think he couldn't be bothered ascending?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What, and if they only find one answer, that has to be the way it happened?

No, not necessarily. That is where analyzing answers comes in to play. The coins under your pillow may have come from the Tooth Fairy or they may have come from your parents. Guess which one is a more rational and likely answer?

In science the God did it answer is not acceptable, that is true.
The answer that God did not do it because we have found what we think of possible ways something could have happened may be acceptable in skepticism but logically it is not acceptable for me. For a skeptic the places where abiogenesis etc might fall down don't really matter anyway, the theory is accepted already, after all God and spirit cannot be found by science.

The "God did it" answer is not accepted because there is no more evidence for that then there is for the Tooth Fairy. The answers that science gives you are not only possible, they are probable. We do not even know if the existence of a God is possible. It is rather irrational to ever say "God did it", at least with any conviction, with what little we know about the God concept.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Some people do believe that God does not exist. They of course are willing to change their mind if needs be.

Yes, I know. You make the mistake of thinking that is the position of every atheist, despite my pointing out to you several times that atheism is just a lack of belief in god(s). In almost every one of your posts, you still make claims with the idea in mind that atheists say "there is no god." And it taints your view of science, because for some reason, you seem to think that scientists say "no god" and go from there, which of course, they don't and which of course, I've pointed out a bunch of times to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What, and if they only find one answer, that has to be the way it happened?

No, not necessarily. That is where analyzing answers comes in to play. The coins under your pillow may have come from the Tooth Fairy or they may have come from your parents. Guess which one is a more rational and likely answer?

In science the God did it answer is not acceptable, that is true.
The answer that God did not do it because we have found what we think of possible ways something could have happened may be acceptable in skepticism but logically it is not acceptable for me. For a skeptic the places where abiogenesis etc might fall down don't really matter anyway, the theory is accepted already, after all God and spirit cannot be found by science.

The "God did it" answer is not accepted because there is no more evidence for that then there is for the Tooth Fairy. The answers that science gives you are not only possible, they are probable. We do not even know if the existence of a God is possible. It is rather irrational to ever say "God did it", at least with any conviction, with what little we know about the God concept.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No I don't say I know God is there, I believe that God exists. It would be easier to converse with you in future if you could understand this.

You seem to jump between both positions. I've seen you claim that there is evidence for god and I've also seen you claim that you take it on faith. You appear to want it both ways.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It’s different obviously, since magic is fake; illusion. Creation is real and observable.

Wait, creation is observable? How so?

Finite human beings do not, nor can “demonstrate” the creative power and ability of an Infinite Creator. You either take His word or reject it.

So then how on earth are you detecting this creator in the first place and attributing all kinds of qualities to it?

And how does this answer my questions ...

How is that different than being poofed into existence by magic? Sounds like the same thing to me.
How does one "speak life into existence," exactly, and how would you demonstrate that such a thing occurred?

I mean, all you really said here is "we can't understand it." Oh great, then we can just make up anything, I guess.

…because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse…
Romans 1:19-20

This is just poetic nonsense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's poetic language meaning that it was a deliberate act of divine will. Similar to the idea of a command, I think, but without the implicaction of a 'comandee'.

And it tells us absolutely nothing about how anything actually happened.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can you answer your own question here? Why do you expend so much effort, so many words, so many convoluted arguments, on something you don’t believe exists?

That wasn't my question.

I'm here for a variety of reasons. I like debate. I like to construct and refine arguments, identify and name fallacies, and to practice writing skills. I also like to share ideas with like-minded people. I read their arguments and their turns of phrase making them. I learn science, philosophy, and mathematics here. And I like to introduce my arguments and demeanor to those with whom they resonate. That's the lecture section of humanism 101. The lab section is the interactions with the faithful, where one gets the opportunity to have extended, anonymous conversations with a wide assortment of believers and skeptics. This is where one sees the effect of faith on thought, the humanists serving as the control group.

But back to your concern. The faithful don't care for this trend. Once, "heretics" were silenced and closeted, and there really was little open resistance to Christian values and teaching. In my lifetime, atheists have been considered unfit to coach, teach, adopt, serve on juries, or give expert testimony, but no longer except in the heads of the Abrahamists who are still taught that atheists are immoral and accept that judgment uncritically.

Today, the skeptic has a platform and atheism enjoys a growing respectability. It's the church on the defensive now, and it's unprepared to deal with it.

Naturally, there is the effort to inhibit these kinds of comments that challenge church authority, which is what you are doing - hoping to embarrass me by defining what I do in terms of excessive effort expended on something pointless. You're not American, but we see the same thing there. The conservatives are pretty unhappy about all of the negativity about Trump, so they attempt to frame it as a psychological defect, as an inappropriate and laughable response - "Trump derangement syndrome" or "He lives in your head rent-free."