Life From Dirt?

[YoursTrue]

You failed to read RestlessSoul's post thoroughly. And so failed to seek an idea of a God that YOU could accept as plausible. And then you failed to test it using your own methodology. You tanked the whole inquisition right from the start. Faith works, but it has to be plausible. And it's not perfect, as nothing ever is. Faith is not about establishing accurate predictions. It's about hope fulfilled through positive vision and action.

No. First, it's not "what science says is true". It's rather "what evidence shows is true".
Subtle difference, sure.

A sharp difference. There is no evidence that shows evolution the theory of to be true. None. I'm not saying some might put pieces in line as if in a jigsaw puzzle without the outline truly being there, even if it was for the theory, it doesn't make it true. That seems to be a hard lesson for many.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A sharp difference. There is no evidence that shows evolution the theory of to be true. None. I'm not saying some might put pieces in line as if in a jigsaw puzzle without the outline truly being there, even if it was for the theory, it doesn't make it true. That seems to be a hard lesson for many.

Your wording is very very poor. There is evidence that confirms the theory. Evidence that confirms a theory is usually evidence that did not exist but the theory says should exist if the theory is correct. The other sort of evidence is what should be observed if the theory is false. There is no direct confirmation of that evidence. But its possibility of existing is a must for any theory.

About five years back the last of Einstein's predictions for General Relativity was finally confirmed. That was the existence of gravity waves. He predicted that they existed about a hundred years before we had the technological ability to detect them. Darwin made some similar predictions that were confirmed. The first that I am aware of was during his lifetime.

 

[SkepticThinker]

A sharp difference. There is no evidence that shows evolution the theory of to be true. None. I'm not saying some might put pieces in line as if in a jigsaw puzzle without the outline truly being there, even if it was for the theory, it doesn't make it true. That seems to be a hard lesson for many.

There is a boatload of evidence for evolution. Biology doesn't make sense without it. You just stubbornly refuse to look at any of it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Like Christ?

Sarcasm noted, but no. The history of Christians is not flattering to Christ.

 

[Astrophile]

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

Everything we know that is alive consists of atoms. If your supposed life giver does not consist of atoms, in what sense is it alive?

 

[Astrophile]

There of course is a good reason that people cannot detect God. God is spirit.

Do you think that you can detect God or communicate with him? If you can, why are other people unable to?

 

[Nakosis]

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.

I don't think "life sprang from dirt".
I think this concept is an over simplification of the process and so no reason to try to defend an idea that is not even close to understanding where life came from.

 

[Polymath257]

The words “Einstein was wrong” should always be used with extreme caution imo. Wasn’t the point of the EPR thought experiment to show that either quantum theory was incomplete, or it implied a fundamental reality which was non-local? Almost a century later, and sixty years after John Bell, weren’t they right on both counts?

I want to expand on this a bit because it is often misunderstood. Einstein disliked the probabilistic aspects of QM for philosophical reasons. The EPR thought experiment was proposed as an example where QM gave results that Einstein thought would not be possible in the real world (spooky action at a distance). Because QM predicted those results, Einstein thought it was incomplete.

Later, Bell showed that a local deterministic theory could not make the same predictions that QM does and so there is a clear experimental method for determining if QM is wrong. Bell's inequalities universally hold in local deterministic theories, but fail in QM.

Later, an actual experiment was done by Aspect that showed that Bell's inequalities are violated in the real world. Furthermore, they are violated in exactly the way that QM predicted they would be.

Remember that Einstein thought that the QM predictions were wrong. he thought that the simple fact that QM made such predictions showed it could not describe the real world. Instead, the Aspect experiment showed that QM *does* agree with the real world. That implies that the real world is non-deterministic or non-local or both.

QM is local and non-deterministic. It is inherently probabilistic in its predictions. In contrast, Bohmian mechanics is non-local and deterministic. Einstein would not have liked Bohmian mechanics either. That said, Bohmian mechanics does not extend well to relativistic situations, especially those involving anti-matter. QM, on the other hand, deals with these things quite well (in the form of QFTs).

At this point QM has been extensively tested in a huge variety of different situations. And in every case, its predictions have been validated, even when those predictions were incredibly counter-intuitive (EPR is only the first of many--quantum erasers are another fun case).

So, Einstein had an intuition that QM would be replaced because of the predictions it made in the thought experiment. When the actual experiment was done, QM was vindicated and Einstein was shown to be wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

A sharp difference. There is no evidence that shows evolution the theory of to be true. None. I'm not saying some might put pieces in line as if in a jigsaw puzzle without the outline truly being there, even if it was for the theory, it doesn't make it true. That seems to be a hard lesson for many.

Evolution is certainly true to 'a preponderance of the evidence' and even 'beyond a reasonable doubt' based on the evidence collected and the tests it has passed.

At this point, to dispute the overall correctness of thenotion that species change over time due to mutation and natural selection is way beyond that of a reasonable doubt. It is similar to try to dispute that the Earth is round and that the sun is millions of miles away. People do still dispute those facts, but they do so in an unreasonable way.

It is impossible to convince someone who is determined not to be convinced and refuses to consider and understand the evidence.

This is why 'faith' is a vice and not a virtue.

 

[Jimmy]

I don't think "life sprang for dirt".
I think this concept is an over simplification of the process and so no reason to try to defend an idea that is not even close to understanding where life came from.

“And be a simple kind of man
Oh, be something you love and understand
Baby, be a simple kind of man
Oh, won't you do this for me son, if you can?”

 

[Nakosis]

“And be a simple kind of man
Oh, be something you love and understand
Baby, be a simple kind of man
Oh, won't you do this for me son, if you can?”

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution is certainly true to 'a preponderance of the evidence' and even 'beyond a reasonable doubt' based on the evidence collected and the tests it has passed.

At this point, to dispute the overall correctness of thenotion that species change over time due to mutation and natural selection is way beyond that of a reasonable doubt. It is similar to try to dispute that the Earth is round and that the sun is millions of miles away. People do still dispute those facts, but they do so in an unreasonable way.

It is impossible to convince someone who is determined not to be convinced and refuses to consider and understand the evidence.

This is why 'faith' is a vice and not a virtue.

The problem is you are not admitting what is fact. The fact is there (1) is no proof of evolution, (2) evidence is construed to piece into the theory. That's it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think "life sprang from dirt".
I think this concept is an over simplification of the process and so no reason to try to defend an idea that is not even close to understanding where life came from.

The energy giving life didn't just emerge from a chemical by chance meeting. To think it did is absurd, untenable, and then again, declared by believers in the theory to be inadmissible Nonsense.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution is certainly true to 'a preponderance of the evidence' and even 'beyond a reasonable doubt' based on the evidence collected and the tests it has passed.

At this point, to dispute the overall correctness of thenotion that species change over time due to mutation and natural selection is way beyond that of a reasonable doubt. It is similar to try to dispute that the Earth is round and that the sun is millions of miles away. People do still dispute those facts, but they do so in an unreasonable way.

It is impossible to convince someone who is determined not to be convinced and refuses to consider and understand the evidence.

This is why 'faith' is a vice and not a virtue.

Plus not all having faith are thinking or believing correctly.

 

[Nakosis]

The energy giving life didn't just emerge from a chemical by chance meeting. To think it did is absurd, untenable, and then again, declared by believers in the theory to be inadmissible Nonsense.

Of course not. My favorite explanation for how life started is space fairies.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Hmmm...and I have learned to be skeptical of it.

But you have seriously never found that voice to be mistaken? Really?

For me, that 'silent voice' is just about as accurate as any other tested source of ideas: it can randomly get them right, but is usually wrong.

Again, until an idea is tested by trying to prove it *wrong*, I don't give it much credence.

There is a place of silence at the core of our being, a place we can learn to access; there we can be connected with the infinite and eternal silence that exists within and without all things* and in that silence, yes, we may occasionally hear the silent voice of our own divine nature. I have learned to trust that voice.

In this world, we must take action. Our actions are more likely to be beneficial to ourselves and to others, when we are acting from a place of clarity and calm. Prayer and meditation can help us achieve that clarity and calm.

Once the action is taken, whatever it may be, the outcome is no longer our concern; it’s in the hands of God or the Universe. That’s where faith comes in. I have faith that a great plan, some divine pattern unfolding with hidden purpose, underlies all things; the fact that there is infinitely complex order in nature, seems to me evidence for the existence of such a plan. But really, the evidence is in my heart; the voice that speaks to us in the silence doesn’t speak the language of the head, it speaks the language of the heart.

* The silence that lives in the grass
on the underside of each blade
and in the space between stones.
- Rolf Jacobson

 

[RestlessSoul]

Correct.

"the easiest person to fool, is yourself"

It’s usually the ego that does the fooling. You can learn to silence that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yet Einstein and Stephen Hawking, two of the greatest scientific minds of the last century, were both intuitive thinkers.

Neither ever wrote a paper without evidence saying "my gut tells me this is true".

Instead, they brought out models and supported them with evidence.

IN FACT.............. eventhough Einstein's model HAD evidence, his "intuition" told him that he had to be wrong somewhere because "intuitively" he "felt" like the idea of black holes was absurd.

So he assumed he had to be wrong somewhere in relativity, because his "intuition" couldn't make sense of black holes.

It's kind of ironic that you picked out Einstein as an example for your case, because his theory of relativity AND his "intuition" telling him that he had to be mistaken is a prime example of how evidence wins from intuition. Every. Single. Time.

But what works in one domain doesn't necessarily work in another. The doctrine of falsifiability - developed by Popper as a means of demarcation - doesn't really work outside the natural sciences. We have to have some other way of testing our faith in God.

The problem is that the type of "test" that is proposed for gods, works just as well for mutually exclusive gods, scientology, astrology, tarot card readings, etc....
This is so because such type of tests do not work.

They are literally designed to exploit confirmation bias.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A sharp difference. There is no evidence that shows evolution the theory of to be true.

That's perversely wrong. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away.

None. I'm not saying some might put pieces in line as if in a jigsaw puzzle without the outline truly being there, even if it was for the theory, it doesn't make it true. That seems to be a hard lesson for many.

The only hard lesson here, seems to be for creationists who are unwilling to learn.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is you are not admitting what is fact. The fact is there (1) is no proof of evolution, (2) evidence is construed to piece into the theory. That's it.

In science, theories are never proven by "proof". Only supported by evidence.
If that is your "objection" here to evolution, then your objection is to all of science.

Including germ theory, atomic theory, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, heliocentrism, round earth,.... and every other theory under the sun.

So your stance here is not just anti-evolution. It's anti-science.