Life From Dirt?

[Brian2]

No. To everyone.
Science requires evidence.

That your supernatural faith based things can't have evidence is a problem for your claims. It's not a problem of science.

I'm not wanting my supernatural faith based things to be part of science. It's not a problem for me or theology, just for people who want to base their beliefs on what science tells them is true and for those who believe the preaching of those people about the nature of reality and ignore what others have seen and experienced in their lives that shows that the supernatural is real.

 

[Brian2]

My wife very much enjoys my big d-ck and as such it has very much increased my chances to spread my genes.

Nevertheless those of us with smaller appendages still manage to procreate.

 

[Brian2]

No. Clearly you are not up to date to just how far the science of abiogenesis has come.

Clearly. Has it shown that a spirit is not necessary for life or is that just presumed because science doesn't know how to check for spirit?

That's a totally ridiculous argument, on par with saying that a freezer shows that ice requires "design" because the freezer was designed.
You might want to learn what a "controlled environment" is.

Also, you seem unaware that these building blocks are even found in space rocks.

My side comment is not the argument, just like your side comment about building blocks on space rocks is not an argument for anything.

Your ridiculous statement is on par by saying that just because all the evidence showed that the Manson crew killed Polanski's wife, that doesn't mean that extra-dimensional aliens didn't do it.

It's true, it does not mean that. But the justice system goes on to it's decisions just as science does and neither can be 100% certain.
Do you say that science is certain that God is not needed or is that something that comes from the logic of the skeptic in you?

 

[Audie]

I'm not wanting my supernatural faith based things to be part of science. It's not a problem for me or theology, just for people who want to base their beliefs on what science tells them is true and for those who believe the preaching of those people about the nature of reality and ignore what others have seen and experienced in their lives that shows that the supernatural is real.

It shows something but you choose to think
it shows "supernatural is real". Claiming
it as fact is dishonest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sure science does not eliminate that.

It does not eliminate that because there is no one that believes that strongly enough to form their beliefs as a testable hypothesis. And those that do not believe it do not see any reason to do that homework for others. Sometimes even when the believers in an idea are cowards and refuse to properly form a hypothesis for their beliefs they sometimes give enough details about their beliefs that others can form a testable hypothesis for them. That is why ideas like the Flood of Noah can be refuted.

The particular example given has no one holding that potentially harmful belief so there is no need to form a hypothesis based upon it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have mere belief.

And mere beliefs is pretty much worthless in the real world. It may help a person, it may harm a person. It may cause the person to act morally or it may cause the person to ask immorally. The problem with many religious beliefs is that they cause their believers to harm others.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The story tells us that God want to do away with all flesh and the story tells us that God did not do that.
The Bible story shows what happened where Noah was and maybe other flood stories tell us what happened there.
But I don't see the flood as having covered all the high mountains on the earth, all the high hills in that area yes, but we don't know what happened elsewhere.
There was flooding at around that time elsewhere and because the oceans were low and people were living probably near them in the low areas, the devestation was probably extreme there also.
We don't know exactly when the flood happened for Noah imo as it seems genealogies were not written to give all the details in those days, so generations were eliminated.

I think you've just demonstrated my point for me.

Here's the text again:

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 6 - New International Version

Wickedness in the World - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for...

www.biblegateway.com

That's not a description of a "local flood" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Clearly. Has it shown that a spirit is not necessary for life or is that just presumed because science doesn't know how to check for spirit?

You need to show that spirits exists first, before anyone is going to consider it. Why should anyone even bother looking for spirits in the first place?
You claim there's a spirit. Great! How do we know that? How can we demonstrate that? What even is a spirit? That's on you to show, not on other people to show that it isn't true. I really wish you could understand how the burden of proof works.

Do you consider the existence of invisible unicorns? Why or why not?
Do you consider the existence of universe-vomiting tortoises? Why or why not?
Do you think that when we posit explanations about how things in the universe work, that we should include the existence of universe-vomiting tortoises as having something to do with it? Do you think if we just leave them out of our explanations because they don't seem to be required in order for the explanation to make sense, that we are being illogical? Why or why not?

My side comment is not the argument, just like your side comment about building blocks on space rocks is not an argument for anything.



It's true, it does not mean that. But the justice system goes on to it's decisions just as science does and neither can be 100% certain.
Do you say that science is certain that God is not needed or is that something that comes from the logic of the skeptic in you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Faith is a gift from God

Critical thought is the gift, not belief by faith, and it's a gift of evolution and of Western academic culture. Children believe what they are told by faith because they have no way to evaluate what they are told beyond whether they like the idea or not. They all accept the Santa story if told it young enough, because they have no defense against it until they are older. That's what you are calling a gift.

Should it surprise us that a worldview that can only be believed by faith extols it as a path to truth?

I'm old and have rejected Santa and kept God. But of course in faith circles, faith in what is called the truth, is seen as a virtue.

You didn't address my post. You called faith a gift and I answered that it is not a gift, but rather, the only way we have to believe new things other than the evidence of our senses until we learn critical thinking (which is never for most), and suggested that faith is only called a gift because there is no other path to religious belief. You're reply was to repeat yourself, but not to try to address our differences. You don't explain why you have rejected Santa but not God when neither has sufficient supporting evidence to believe in, so I will tell you what that means to me. It means that somebody you trust has told you there was no Santa, but nobody you trust has told you that there is not god. It means that you call your beliefs truth and holding them a virtue, but can't say why you believe that.

Why demand detection of a spirit by physical methods?

I guess you don't see the problem there. Have you detected what you call spirit? Did you use your brain? If you answer yes, then that is the physical process that reveals what you call spirit to you. It also reveals it to me, but I interpret it differently than you do. But the key point is that like you, I do this using "physical methods." The material world doesn't begin outside your body. Your body and brain are material as well.

I think you just assumed that consciousness is produced by the brain.

Consciousness IS produced by the brain, just like light and heat are produced by the sun, and music by record players.

Did you want to try to address my comment? You are claiming to have detected spirit using your nervous system, a material entity, and then telling us that spirit can't be detected materially.

I don't know, I just believe God is real.

This - faith - is what you just called a gift from God. How is that a gift? What has this gift done for you so far that you couldn't have without it? I realize that you are expecting a reward after death, but we have no reason to believe that consciousness survives death however much we might like that to be the case, so you have believed a promise that cannot be verified and needn't be kept even were it possible. If mind ends when life does, was it still a better life for you lived that way? I hope so. I've lived it both ways, and this - the version without the "gift" of faith - has been better for me.

 

[YoursTrue]

Technically, it's not a nit pick. It gets to the very core of your post: the likelihood that God created life. Here's why:

A hypothesis in science is a falsifiable prediction. This is something like, "If I jump while I'm on the ground, then I will fall back down to the ground." You can test that claim through the experiment of jumping and seeing what happens. If you fall back down to the ground, then we say that the hypothesis has been sustained. If you don't, then the hypothesis has been falsified.

Hypotheses are what experiments are designed around. The reason for this is that it's very difficult to prove claims such as "all swans that have ever existed have been white." To prove it, you would have to directly observe every swan that has ever existed as well as prove that no other swans could have ever existed. That's pretty infeasible. However, it's a lot easier to prove that this claim is false, because then all you need to do is present a swan that is some other color such as black. A black swan would falsify the claim that all swans that have ever existed have been white.

That's why hypotheses have to be falsifiable; it's easier to prove that something is false than that it's true. If there is no potential observation or experiment that can prove that your claim is false, then how much more difficult would it be to prove that it's true? A lot. The answer is a lot. It would be a lot more difficult. Nigh impossible, even.

Another facet of science is the model. The model gives us a broader idea from which we can base our hypothesis off of. For instance, the model of gravity tells us that, if things are up in the air they will generally begin to fall back down. Within this model are a number of hypotheses, including "If I jump while I'm on the ground, then I will fall back down to the ground" but also "If I throw a ball in the air, then the ball will fall back down to the ground."

If either hypothesis is falsified, it calls the entire model into question.

So here's the big one: a theory is when all of the hypotheses that make up a model have been consistently sustained through organized and concerted efforts to falsify them. If a model is so good at creating hypothetical predictions that seem to always come true through observation, even when people deliberately try as hard as they can to find an exception to its predictions, then I would say it's pretty well-evidenced. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that theories are some of the most well-evidenced concepts in all of human thought.

Now let's get back to your post, because I'm sure you're tired of my lengthy sermon. Here's the problem. Abiogenesis is a hypothetical model, and many of its hypotheses have been tested and sustained. It's going through the process that all models must go through before they become a theory. This makes it well-evidenced, although not as well-supported as something like the theory of evolution.

By contrast, the claim that God made life does not lead to any falsifiable predictions. It's a model without any hypotheses. That's called speculation.

So, which is more likely? Speculation or a sustained hypothesis? Well, a sustained hypothesis has more experimental evidence supporting it, whereas speculation does not. So a hypothesis is more likely.

So, which is more likely? Speculation or a model composed solely of sustained and untested hypotheses? Which one has more experimental evidence supporting its likelihood? Well, speculation literally has no experimental evidence supporting it, because it doesn't even provide any hypotheses to conduct experiments on. So the hypothetical model is more likely.

So, which is more likely? The speculation that God created life or the hypothetical model of abiogenesis? It's abiogenesis. That's the only correct answer you can have, given everything I have outlined thus far.

May I ask what is what you call the hypothetical model of abiogenesis within the context of your last paragraph? I'm not asking about what you say is the only correct answer you allude to, but rather what do you know to be the ingredients or known elements of the hypothetical model of abiogenesis? Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

May I ask what is what you call the hypothetical model of abiogenesis within the context of your last paragraph? I'm not asking about what you say is the only correct answer you allude to, but rather what do you know to be the ingredients or known elements of the hypothetical model of abiogenesis? Thank you.

There is no one single "hypothesis of abiogenesis". There are a series of them. The problem is very complex so scientists have broken it down into different parts. So there is a hypothesis of cell wall formation, a hypothesis of RNA formation. And let me correct myself, some of these problems have multiple different hypotheses. When abiogenesis was first studied we did not even understand how life worked Now our understanding is much better which allows advancement in solving how it happened. Some problems have been solved more than once. In other words there are more than one possible ways that various steps could have happened. Some problems still are not solved. That is why abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. We have plenty of answers for parts of the problem but not for all of the problems. But because we do have some of the problems answered then we do have very strong evidence for abiogenesis, but we simply cannot answer all of them right now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are not in charge of what anyone else believes, or says they believe.

I didn't claim otherwise.

All I said was that claims have a burden of proof.
Prefixing a claim with "I believe..." doesn't change that.

You seem to be saying that you don't care and that you don't consider being rationally justified in your beliefs important.
Great, but just admit that then, instead of tying yourself in such knots.

Your judgement on the beliefs of others is therefor moot. Belief is irrelevant to whether or not a claim is being posited, or whether or not it's being posited as a universal truth.

I'm not talking about beliefs. I'm talking about claims (that are believed).
You seem to be doing your very best to avoid having to support the claims being believed. As if prefixing them with "i believe" somehow makes those claims exempt from a burden of proof.

The short reply to that is "no".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I don’t think we can just make anything up. If the biblical scriptures are God’s Word, then they are a revelation of reality and truth.

And if they aren't, then they aren't.
Pretty useless tautology you got there.

Why shouldn’t the One who claims to be the Creator of heaven and earth be capable of speaking things into existence?

Abracadabra, poof!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Difference between what?

Between what I said and what you said.

What else??

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The biblical scriptures are God’s word, therefore authoritative revelation, backed up by the evidence of creation everywhere.

Claiming it, does not make it so.

And the "biblical scriptures" are not "backed by evidence". Instead, they are contradicted by the evidence of the world / universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No one is compelled to rationally justify their beliefs to you

If people care about being reasonable, they should feel compelled to rationally justify their beliefs to themselves.
The thing is though, when it comes to religious beliefs, rational justification is generally not considered important. What is considered important there is for believers to just hold on to their beliefs no matter what.

But, when you come on to a public forum and make your religious claims / state your beliefs in the open, then you will be challenged on them and asked to rationally justify them.

That's how it goes on a public debate and discussion forum

"I claim X!" will be followed by "support that claim"
"I believe X" will be followed by "why?"

And both would be asking for the same thing: rational justification for the claim / belief.

You are not the judge of rational justification

Nope. Reason is.

, nor of anyone else's right to believe whatever they choose to believe.

I don't think I ever said that people don't have a right to believe whatever they wish.
But I also have a right to point out that the reasoning underpinning the belief is non-existent and / or irrational or invalid.

It's a two way street.

Sadly, you don't seem to be able to accept that.

You seem to be thinking that you have a right to remain unchallenged on a public forum.
Think again.

If you don't want your beliefs challenged, then keep them to yourself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We have no way of assessing that. Ideas either work for us when we apply them, or they don't. It's just that different people apply them to different tasks. And then disagree on whether they work or not.

Right and wrong are thus relative.

Count on people who hold unjustifiable beliefs to try and pull up a fog between right and wrong, as if what is true and isn't true about the universe is "relative".

 

[PureX]

I didn't claim otherwise.

All I said was that claims have a burden of proof.
Prefixing a claim with "I believe..." doesn't change that.

Of course it does. Anyone can believe anything they want. And they don't have to answer to anyone else for it. For some strange reason. though, you seem to think they have to answer to you for it. As if you are in charge of what everyone else chooses to believe.

You seem to be saying that you don't care and that you don't consider being rationally justified in your beliefs important.

In MY beliefs, yes. But what others believe, and how they arrive at them is their own business, not mine. I can ask them, but they owe me nothing.

I'm not talking about beliefs. I'm talking about claims (that are believed).

The problem is that you're not differentiating between what one claims to believe to be true, and what one claims is universally true. These are not the same things, but you assume they are so you can place yourself in charge of what other people believe, and condemn them for not believing as you believe.

You seem to be doing your very best to avoid having to support the claims being believed. As if prefixing them with "i believe" somehow makes those claims exempt from a burden of proof.

Your (and others) endless demands for "support" is just another way that you place yourself in charge of the conversation. So I just ignore it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And *why* can science not do that? Is it simply because the concept of God is too vaguely defined to be testable? Or is it that no tests are possible, which eliminates the reasons to believe?

There is one test that is available to each of us. Search honestly within yourself; keep an open mind and and an open heart, bypass the ego, silence the chattering monkey-mind, abandon yourself to whatever conception of God makes sense to you. Seek, and ye shall find.

 

[PureX]

There is one test that is available to each of us. Search honestly within yourself; keep an open mind and and an open heart, bypass the ego, silence the chattering monkey-mind, abandon yourself to whatever conception of God makes sense to you. Seek, and ye shall find.

That really is true. And it's not about being convinced. It's about being able to trust in the possibility.