Life From Dirt?

[Subduction Zone]

Because let's face facts, you don't believe in "a" god, rather, you believe in a very specific God.

Believers often lash out when their specific version of God has been refuted. They will make all sorts of false accusations about others to be over their butt hurt.

 

[Polymath257]

Can you expand on the bold one?

Sure. The essence of science is NOT materialism nor physicalism. These are vaguely defined viewpoints with very little utility. The essence is testability.

If there is a way to detect something that yields consistent properties, then we can use that method of detection to test ideas, form models, etc. In other words, the scientific method (detection, hypothesis formation, testing of hypothesis by observation) can be used to learn about that subject.

So, if there is a spiritual realm with consistent properties that can be detected, the properties can be listed, patterns found, hypotheses made, and those hypotheses can be tested. In other words, science can be used to learn more about that realm.

This is, by the way, how to get out of solipsism. Look for patterns in what is experienced, form hypotheses, and test them against new experiences. Always try to show when the hypotheses are *false*. Any ideas that survive being tested can be held *provisionally* until further testing is done. Those ideas that cannot be tested can be dispensed with as, if nothing else, a way to eliminate useless ideas.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure. The essence of science is NOT materialism nor physicalism. These are vaguely defined viewpoints with very little utility. The essence is testability.

If there is a way to detect something that yields consistent properties, then we can use that method of detection to test ideas, form models, etc. In other words, the scientific method (detection, hypothesis formation, testing of hypothesis by observation) can be used to learn about that subject.

So, if there is a spiritual realm with consistent properties that can be detected, the properties can be listed, patterns found, hypotheses made, and those hypotheses can be tested. In other words, science can be used to learn more about that realm.

This is, by the way, how to get out of solipsism. Look for patterns in what is experienced, form hypotheses, and test them against new experiences. Always try to show when the hypotheses are *false*. Any ideas that survive being tested can be held *provisionally* until further testing is done. Those ideas that cannot be tested can be dispensed with as, if nothing else, a way to eliminate useless ideas.

So how do you test if an idea is useless and try to show that the hypothesis of useless ideas is "false"?
I want to know how you observe useless, measure useless and what the scientific idea of useless is? Do you got any link to a page on that, so I can replicate the test?

 

[Brian2]

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

How is it determined whether a potential route is the route taken by abiogenesis in the past?

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.

Both the "god did it" and the earth centered solar system are not acceptable, but for different reasons. One is testable and the other is not.

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

So you agree with me that just finding a possible way is not a good way to determine what happened.

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.

Beginning with chemistry is a good starting point, but when life is defined in terms of chemistry and what happens chemically in a body it does appear that the answer in general terms has already been decided for what life is not.

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.

I don't think postulating a supernatural is good in science, but pretending to have eliminated the supernatural for an answer to what life is, seems deceptive to me.
And maybe science never says "We have eliminated the supernatural" and that is the job of atheists and skeptics, but defining life a certain way etc does give the general public the impression that science actually knows what life is and what was needed for it's beginning on earth.

 

[Brian2]

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.

I find it logically unacceptable for science or skeptics or atheists to state that it is known that God was not needed to beging life on earth.

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

Side tracking waste of time.
Saying life began without God is not possible in science even if science claimed to have overcome all the chemical problems for the formation of bodies in nature.

Neither can extra-dimensional aliens.

Side tracking waste of time. We are talking about the origin of life and what life it. So it has no relevance even if science cannot also logically say that no extra-dimensional aliens exist.

 

[Brian2]

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?

Sorry I don't know what Ersi9n means.
But you seem to be saying that science knows that God is not needed when science does not know that.
I thought you were going to point out to me where and when I was making things up, but all you are doing is waving your hands around and not being specific at all.

 

[Brian2]

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

Are you talking about Luke's story at Acts 28:3.

 

[Brian2]

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

Belief, lack of belief, subjective evidence for God and how it is perceived by believers or non believers, all this is about peoples' state of mind.

 

[Brian2]

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

An example would be the gospel stories as being witness accounts of what Jesus did and said.
An example would be living creatures needing a life giver because atoms are not alive.

 

[Brian2]

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

I am a believer in God and a Christian and I know there are a variety of Christians from Biblical literalists to liberal, hardly believe the Bible at all Christians. I'm probably closer to the literalist end of the scale but not 100% that side and there are many more like me. Iow I'm not really extreme in the scale.
But here I am and people want to attack my beliefs.

 

[exchemist]

How is it determined whether a potential route is the route taken by abiogenesis in the past?



Both the "god did it" and the earth centered solar system are not acceptable, but for different reasons. One is testable and the other is not.



So you agree with me that just finding a possible way is not a good way to determine what happened.



Beginning with chemistry is a good starting point, but when life is defined in terms of chemistry and what happens chemically in a body it does appear that the answer in general terms has already been decided for what life is not.



I don't think postulating a supernatural is good in science, but pretending to have eliminated the supernatural for an answer to what life is, seems deceptive to me.
And maybe science never says "We have eliminated the supernatural" and that is the job of atheists and skeptics, but defining life a certain way etc does give the general public the impression that science actually knows what life is and what was needed for it's beginning on earth.

Are you saying the "God did it" hypothesis is not testable, then? If so, I would heartily agree.

Regarding the more general issue about abiogenesis, the point surely is that there is nothing special about life to suggest that for some reason the scientific method (i.e. methodological naturalism) is not applicable. All science is doing, in the case of abiogenesis research, is applying that principle.

In almost every other area of nature where there was once a supposition that a phenomenon was just an "Act of God", we now have a scientific explanation for it. There is no reason to think an understanding of the origin of life is not susceptible to the same methodology, surely?

 

[Brian2]

Ah, you're finally looking at the text!

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,

Neither Paul nor Mark mention the ascension but what they say shows they know about it imo.

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?

Matthew does not mention an ascension. If you want the gospels to be contradictory then you can infer that Jesus must have ascended from Galilee however.

Yes, in Acts 1 Jesus ascends from Jerusalem.


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

At Acts 1:12 shows that they were in Jerusalem and went for a walk to Mt of Olives where Jesus ascended.

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?

I think John does not mention the ascension.

 

[Brian2]

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.

There is evidence for God but that does not prove there is a God.

 

[Brian2]

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?

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.

I suppose you actually believe there is no more evidence for God than there is for the Tooth Fairy.

 

[Polymath257]

How is it determined whether a potential route is the route taken by abiogenesis in the past?

Well, first we find as many possible routes. Then we collect whatever evidence still exists to distinguish between the routes.

Even if we find several possible routes, determining the specific historical one might be quite difficult. We might not eve know.

Both the "god did it" and the earth centered solar system are not acceptable, but for different reasons. One is testable and the other is not.

Precisely. Being untestable is a good reason to throw a hypothesis out of consideration.

So you agree with me that just finding a possible way is not a good way to determine what happened.

It is the first step. We first show that it is possible. Then we find as many ways it *could* have happened. Then we try to find evidence eliminating or supporting one specific way.

But we are still on the first step. No final conclusion has been made.

Beginning with chemistry is a good starting point, but when life is defined in terms of chemistry and what happens chemically in a body it does appear that the answer in general terms has already been decided for what life is not.

Life is NOT defined in terms of chemistry. We have simply determined, by observation, that life is a chemical process.

There is a huge difference between an assumption and a conclusion based on evidence.

I don't think postulating a supernatural is good in science, but pretending to have eliminated the supernatural for an answer to what life is, seems deceptive to me.
And maybe science never says "We have eliminated the supernatural" and that is the job of atheists and skeptics, but defining life a certain way etc does give the general public the impression that science actually knows what life is and what was needed for it's beginning on earth.

OK, I'll bite. What could *possibly* be a way to eliminate the supernatural? Because, if there is no way, even in theory, then the hypothesis is of no value for understanding. it is then literally a hypothesis with no substance.

 

[Polymath257]

I suppose you actually believe there is no more evidence for God than there is for the Tooth Fairy.

Yes. That is what I have concluded from my study. There is no more evidence of God than there is for the tooth fairy.

 

[Polymath257]

There is evidence for God but that does not prove there is a God.

What evidence?

More speccifically, what evidence serves to distinguish between the possibilities 'God exists' and 'God does not exist'? Be specific or drop the claim there is evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

So how do you test if an idea is useless and try to show that the hypothesis of useless ideas is "false"?

Useless is less than false. We determine usefulness (in understanding) if an idea leads testable conclusions.

I want to know how you observe useless, measure useless and what the scientific idea of useless is? Do you got any link to a page on that, so I can replicate the test?

Once again, usefulness in being an explanation requires testability against the alternative.

 

[Audie]

Sorry I don't know what Ersi9n means.
But you seem to be saying that science knows that God is not needed when science does not know that.
I thought you were going to point out to me where and when I was making things up, but all you are doing is waving your hands around and not being specific at all.

Mistyped, sorry. "Version".

Still can't recognize things you make up?
Guess I will have to keep pointing them
out till even Fred Astair couldn't dance around them.

 

[Polymath257]

An example would be the gospel stories as being witness accounts of what Jesus did and said.

OK, can this be substantiated?

An example would be living creatures needing a life giver because atoms are not alive.

Individual atoms are not alive. Collections of atoms can be.