Life From Dirt?

[Kidron]

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.

So, you take a bag of seeds.
The seeds are dead.

You put these in the ground.
You end up with a Huge Sunflower, many, as tall as you are.

How did "dead seeds", stuck in the ground..."LIVE" ?? (come to LIFE )

See that?

Now you can "wikipedia" and "science says" and you can find many explanations, but if you have a brain, and you realize that DEAD became ALIVE once you stuck it in the ground...

A.) Magic

A.) Mystical

A) God stuff

Thats a fact.

Accept no substitute.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We all have biases, so who is not going to agree with that. But some seemingly will not admit that any part of their history might contribute to this, including religious beliefs. Hence why some might have their 'soul' speaking to them where so many others of us have never had such - and mainly probably because we never had a religious indoctrination. That is my issue, that some can't accept that their religious beliefs might just be the motivation for any 'inner voices' - not that I can prove such or that I might be wrong, but that such is a possibility. Given that at the core of our minds we have a self-preservation system determined to keep us alive even if truths are discarded in the process.

You really like to bash religion as a special negative. It is not that with any evidence nor is it a special postive. Just as non-relgious people are neither special postives or negatives. It is a bit more complicated than that.
In general all humans are born into a culture with biases and that is not limited to the religious ones.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You really like to bash religion as a special negative. It is not that with any evidence nor is it a special postive. Just as non-relgious people are neither special postives or negatives. It is a bit more complicated than that.
In general all humans are born into a culture with biases and that is not limited to the religious ones.

Oh so harsh.

I don't want to and I don't bash religions. I try to suggest why some of us who don't have such might explain as to why they have the experiences they have and many of us just don't have such - but we do have similar experiences and as to such there will be explainable reasons as to these.

 

[Jimmy]

So, you take a bag of seeds.
The seeds are dead.

You put these in the ground.
You end up with a Huge Sunflower, many, as tall as you are.

How did "dead seeds", stuck in the ground..."LIVE" ?? (come to LIFE )

See that?

Now you can "wikipedia" and "science says" and you can find many explanations, but if you have a brain, and you realize that DEAD became ALIVE once you stuck it in the ground...

A.) Magic

A.) Mystical

A) God stuff

Thats a fact.

Accept no substitute.

Huh???

 

[PureX]

Well, truth always functions and falsehoods fail occasionally, so functioning is a very good filter for ideas.

That's just a delusion. Lies work so often that people tell lies for a living. Lies work so well that people will even lie to themselves. What works has very little to do with what is true. Life proves that to us all the time ... if we're willing to see it.

Can you come up with a truth that does not function or something that functions under testing that we wouldn't say is true?

We can't test for truth. We can only guess at relative truthfulness. It's why our prisons have innocent people in them. And why guilty people are still roaming the streets. Judicial function does not equal judicial truth.

Also, as I have said many times, science cannot address many crucial questions. Such things as morality, aesthetics, and personal taste are simply not questions science can address (it can inform, but not resolve).

Then it is not a fountain of truth, is it.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

View attachment 78862

Gotta laugh. Wonder what a scientist would say...hmm?

 

[YoursTrue]

You really like to bash religion as a special negative. It is not that with any evidence nor is it a special postive. Just as non-relgious people are neither special postives or negatives. It is a bit more complicated than that.
In general all humans are born into a culture with biases and that is not limited to the religious ones.

Yup. And from my experience I believe God is stronger than one's bias.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's just a delusion. Lies work so often that people tell lies for a living. Lies work so well that people will even lie to themselves. What works has very little to do with what is true. Life proves that to us all the time ... if we're willing to see it.

We can't test for truth. We can only guess at relative truthfulness. It's why our prisons have innocent people in them. And why guilty people are still roaming the streets. Judicial function does not equal judicial truth.

Then it is not a fountain of truth, is it.

Yes about prisons. And juries can be convinced that the evidence proves it. Even though the accused is innocent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gotta laugh. Wonder what a scientist would say...hmm?

Wait a second. You laugh at that but not at an invisible old man friend mumbling incantations? That seems to be a bit inconsistent on your part.

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

Why do you think the Almighty God must be composed of atoms? We can't even understand our own bodies, how they are formed (please don't get started). Much less to figure out about God except what He tells us...through creation and the Bible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yup. And from my experience I believe God is stronger than one's bias.

Yeah, that solves nothing as we properly can't agree which God it is, thus we are back to bias.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, that solves nothing as we properly can't agree which God it is, thus we are back to bias.

And that comes to the question, if you search for God he will find you. Isaiah 55:6 "Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:"
I searched for a long time, I didn't find him. Finally I prayed. He then let himself be found.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes about prisons. And juries can be convinced that the evidence proves it. Even though the accused is innocent.

You really do not want to go with the trial analogy. But let's do it. The evolution side has endless evidence that supports it. Let's call the side trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is evolution. And the creationists side is the defendant. But unlike a typical criminal trial,, both have to prove their claims. The evolution side has endless evidence that supports it. The creationist side has claims of "It was done by magic" and that is all. Which one do you think would win? To make it even worse the creationist side can refute the evidence of the other only by claiming that their God lied and planted false evidence. You might want to rethink your argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that comes to the question, if you search for God he will find you. Isaiah 55:6 "Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:"
I searched for a long time, I didn't find him. Finally I prayed. He then let himself be found.

That is only the claim of one of many religions. And that claim has failed many many times. One thing that you have to remember when it comes to rather bogus claims like that, you cannot count the hits unless you count the misses.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And that comes to the question, if you search for God he will find you. Isaiah 55:6 "Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:"
I searched for a long time, I didn't find him. Finally I prayed. He then let himself be found.

Yeah, I have faith in a different God. So back to bias we get.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, both of those are falsehoods.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution, from genetics, to paleontology, to actual observations of mutation and selection, to computer modeling, etc. The evidence is spread across every species we have tested. That many ignore evidence or refuse to see how it is evidence doesn't negate that fact.

And no, we also seek evidence that would limit the theory or show it to be false. Unlike a religious idea, scientific ideas have to be testable and attempts have to be made to show them *wrong*. If those attempts repeatedly fail (and all attempts to show evolution wrong have failed), we gain confidence in the ideas.

Actually I hate to say this, but I am beginning to think you are the science denier. There is no proof of evolution. There is proof that polio vaccines can limit the extent of the disease. No proof of the vast theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, I have faith in a different God. So back to bias we get.

Hopefully we'll see.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually I hate to say this, but I am beginning to think you are the science denier. There is no proof of evolution. There is proof that polio vaccines can limit the extent of the disease. No proof of the vast theory of evolution.

Science is not about proof. But that is your bias against science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hopefully we'll see.

Yeah, so to me we both have bias, but you are of course a special exception to that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually I hate to say this, but I am beginning to think you are the science denier. There is no proof of evolution. There is proof that polio vaccines can limit the extent of the disease. No proof of the vast theory of evolution.

Sorry, but by your usage of the word "proof" there is proof of evolution. You simply deny it. Do you want to go over the concept of scientific evidence again? Or are you just going to keep claiming that your God is a liar?

One cannot reason rationally and consistently and believe in creationism. No one has managed to do that yet, and that includes people far better educated than you or me.