Life From Dirt?

[RestlessSoul]

Having value is different than being true.


Sorry, that isn't an honest test. An honest test would involve some way to determine if the idea is *false*. otherwise, you are simply encouraging confirmation bias.

Truth and value aren’t the same thing, no. They may be indirectly equivalent though.

An idea has value if it works. That’s the utilitarian approach to spiritual matters. Faith works, so true or false is an unnecessary value judgement in this instance.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Having value is different than being true.


Sorry, that isn't an honest test. An honest test would involve some way to determine if the idea is *false*. otherwise, you are simply encouraging confirmation bias.

That is not true, as the statement is not based on objective testing. Rather it is a first person evaluation of what matters to you, but that is a value and not true.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, I'm not. Meantime, aside from me not being wrong at "each point," there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that some "Unknown Common Ancestor" burgeoned into gorillas, humans, chimpanzees, etc. None -- As far as fossil records, again -- while grass may be green and lizards also may be green, there is not one iota of evidence that gorillas, chimpanzees and humans evolved from some "Unknown Common Ancestor." You can't prove it, of course, NOT EVEN WITH EVIDENCE. Because there IS NONE. whatsoever.

This is simply and categorically untrue. What's more, I know that you have been given links to plenty of the actual evidence because I've given you some of the links myself and I've seen the links others have given you.

It's not like I've ever seen you even try to address it and say exactly why you don't think it constitutes evidence, you seem to have your eyes tight shut and your fingers in your ears so that you can just ignore it and just pretend it doesn't exist.

If you won't listen to people who reject your idea of God, how about listening to a fellow creationist?

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.​

​

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)​

​

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

[Edited for typos]

 

[Brian2]

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

Does evidence show that there is not God or that God is not needed, and does this go beyond what science says is true?

Secondly, again: claims about things that are indistinguishable from imagination are not a problem for ME. I don't make such claims and I don't bother with such at all. I dismiss them at face value. You do the same btw. You just exempt the claims of your religion from that.
When it comes to any other subject, you treat it in the exact same way as I do.

To say there is not God or God is not needed is a claim that is in a person's imagination.
Do you do that or do you say that you don't know?

You ignore people's "experiences" when it comes to
- big foot
- lochness monsters
- quetzalcoatl
- odin
- voodoo
- scientology
- alien abductions
- any religion that is incompatible with yours
- .....


Don't act so surprised when I ignore your particular unverifiable experiences which you try to "explain" with extra-ordinary bare assertions ....

Saying I ignore the experiences of others is not true. I analyse them through my eyes as you might.

 

[Brian2]

In the exact same way that it has shown that life doesn't require fairy dust.

You might want to learn the difference between positive and negative claims.
If you wish to claim that a spirit IS necessary, then YOU have the burden to show that.

To say that any unevidence thing is "not" needed, is an exercise in futility and just ridiculous.

Show me that the first tree didn't require a magic dragon egg.
Show me that a rainbow doesn't require a leprechaun hiding a pot of gold.

The "not" in these sentences makes them irrational demands.

And so you agree that nothing has shown that spirit is not needed for life.
So all we can say without other evidence than what science can work with, is that we don't know.
But there is other evidence which I accept and you ignore I suppose.

It is presumed for the same reason that it is presumed that gravity doesn't require pink undetectable graviton fairies.

So you agree that it is just presumed.

Complex organic compounds in space rocks very much is an argument for something very specific.
That something being that complex organic chemistry is rather common in the universe. So common that we even encounter such chemistry in space-rocks.
You creationists always like the point, in a classic argument from ignorance, how "complex" and "rare" and "hard" it is for organic chemistry to occur naturally. And how that is a "problem" for a natural origin of life.

But the fact of the matter is that such complex chemistry is common that we even find such in space rocks.
These are the very compounds that creationists back in the day said are "too complex" to be natural.

Not only do we know and understand today how such compounds spontanously form under what type of conditions, we even know that they are abundant in space. So that type of chemistry isn't even exclusive to a specific type of planet surface.


What all this means, is that life likely isn't as rare or extra-ordinary as some would think it is.

No it does not mean that life likely isn't as rare or extra-ordinary as some would think it is.
That is the presumption.

Again with the word "not".

Please, learn the difference between a positive claim and a negative claim.
Then learn which one carries a burden of proof.

In the meantime, please show me that what you call god is NOT just an extra-dimensional alien playing you for a fool.
Or show me that an undetectable dragon is NOT following you around everywhere.
Or show me that gravity is NOT regulated by undetectable pink gravitons.
Or show me that my post is NOT the result of a timetravelling AI.



If such is your "defence" to justify your beliefs, then it is beyond weak.

So you don't say that it is certain that God is not needed.
Me too.
Actually I believe God is needed, but it is a belief and not a claim in any scientific way.
If I made a scientific claim I would have some burden of proof, but I don't and I don't.
I have weak everything when it comes to justifying my beliefs. Not good enough for you, but good enough for me.
If you don't believe them that is your subjective decision.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Therein lies the issue; your predetermined attitude and position. You have already made up your mind there is no God and any response or answer you may receive, if you bothered to search, would be nonsense.

Yes, his attitude and position prevent him from believing insufficiently supported claims. That is by design. He and other empiricists have told you what would change their minds. And there's a good reason for erecting that barrier to unjustified belief. It works well at preventing one from accumulating false and unfalsifiable beliefs. Critical thought and empiricism inform us of which ideas are useful and which are not. Unjustified beliefs are useless whether they are the conclusions of fallacious arguments or bare, unsupported claims.

These kinds of ideas can't be put to any practical use for the believer apart from comforting those that are comforted by such a thought. For the critical thinker who adopts those standards for belief, unsupported claims can be rejected out of hand (Hitchens' Razor), and unlike sound arguments, fallacious arguments can be successfully rebutted.

Replacing faith with reason applied to evidence as the only path to truth about reality has been a successful innovation in the history of intellectual progress, possibly the best idea man ever had and responsible for most (if not all) improvements in the human condition since the Middle Ages.

What you suggest is that he revert to that method for belief so that he can admit a god onto his map of reality. He won't without compelling evidence, which is your complaint and criticism.

Why should God reveal anything to you?

Nothing that exists needs to reveal itself to be sensed and experienced. Nothing that exists can hide from detection by the right sensor in the right place and time. If a god exists, it is detectible. Presumably, you claim to have detected it, or else why would you think it existed? Did you use your nervous system to do that?

Incidentally, I don't believe that these intuitions represent sensing any external reality. I've had and misunderstood them myself in the past. What we are detecting is generated by our brains. Man has a long history of mistaking his creative intuitions for external realities and messages. Before the ancient Greeks had a concept for the mind creating ideas de novo, they attributed these insights to muses whispering in their ears. Internal mental struggles were (and still are by many) seen as a devil and an angel sitting on opposite shoulders arguing through the ears. And people still think that their dreams are received messages rather than constructs of the creative mind. So, it's not surprising that when their nervous systems report a euphoric sense of connection and belonging that they understand that as experiencing a deity rather than as experiencing their own minds.

Passing on of traits do not constitute evolution as in the theory of changing forms

That's just a part of theory. In addition to heritability, you need to throw in random genetic variation and natural selection.

So you and others say. That doesn't make it true

Correct, but nobody is claiming that they are correct because they say so except perhaps you, as when you wrote, "There is simply, absolutely no proof (ok evidence for you) that there is an "Unknown Common Ancestor" burgeoning out to eventually morph to become gorillas, chimpanzees and humans. Not one shred. Not a hair. Nothing. Zilch. Sorry." The empiricist makes claims of truth based in reason applied to evidence, which demonstrates when an idea is correct - not mere insistence.

And to correct your comment, thanks to a faith-based confirmation basis that filters out contradictory evidence to defend such beliefs, there is no evidence of great ape common ancestry FOR YOU, but plenty for the open-minded thinker capable of evaluating an argument for soundness and willing to change his mind in the presence of a compelling argument.

 

[Polymath257]

Truth and value aren’t the same thing, no. They may be indirectly equivalent though.

An idea has value if it works. That’s the utilitarian approach to spiritual matters. Faith works, so true or false is an unnecessary value judgement in this instance.

Yes, faith is a nice psychological trick for training yourself to see things in a certain way and that can have certain psychological benefits. But, even in saying that the value is that it works, the question is what it works to do. Does it help to make me happier or to help me find the truth?

You see,I am interested in the truth, whether or not it makes me happy or more productive. I am interested in the truth whether or not it makes me rich.

And that means I am not interested in psychological tricks that amount to self-deception.

 

[Polymath257]

Give your head a wobble, I'm not arguing with you. I recommended a book I thought you might find interesting, apropos of your own observations about the history of The Bible. No agenda, no point to make.

I actually own this book. It has been on my (continually expanding) reading list for a while. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Does evidence show that there is not God or that God is not needed, and does this go beyond what science says is true?

Try rephrasing that without included a pointless / meaningless negative claim.
Positive claims require evidence. Negative claims concerning unevidenced shenannigans are pointless.

For example: a chocolate cake is missing from your kitchen.
Your child's hands, t-shirt and face is covered in chocolate cake. This is evidence supporting the case your child ate it.
Does that evidence show that there were no undetectable extra-dimensional aliens who stole the cake?

Technically: no.
But how pointless is such a consideration? Very.

If you can't provide evidence that there a god IS needed, or that there WERE extra-dimensional alien cake thieves, then that is where the story concludes.
There is no need at all to provide evidence against a claim for which there is zero supportive evidence to begin with.
And that is exponentially true when the claims in question are even unfalsifiable.

If your best defense is that the unfalsifiable negative claim can't be supported, then your case is as weak as it gets. So weak, it can and should be dismissed at face value.

To say there is not God or God is not needed is a claim that is in a person's imagination.
Do you do that or do you say that you don't know?

I say that I don't bother with unfalsifiable negative claims that are literally infinite in number. And I don't bother with them because they are utterly meaningless and pointless.

If you wish to include a god (or whatever) in anything, then it is upto you to provide evidence for that. Your claim, your burden.

I have no need to provide evidence for that unfalsifiable negative claim any more then I have a need to provide evidence against extra-dimensional alien cake thieves.

Saying I ignore the experiences of others is not true. I analyse them through my eyes as you might.

Then why aren't you a scientologist?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And so you agree that nothing has shown that spirit is not needed for life.

No. What I'm saying is that the very proposition of such is meaningless and pointless.
It's an invalid proposition that is completely irrational.

Yes, there is no evidence that any unfalsifiable thing does NOT exist. That is a true statement. But it is a true statement because it is literally logically IMPOSSIBLE to have such evidence, because the proposition itself is irrational.

It's meaningless, pointless and it can't have any evidence by definition.

So to point it out while pretending you are scoring points "for" the case of gods is just retarded.
Might as well be saying the same about undetectable fairies being needed for photosynthesis to work.

So all we can say without other evidence than what science can work with, is that we don't know.
But there is other evidence which I accept and you ignore I suppose.

No. There can't be any evidence by definition.
Evidence requires falsifiability. Claims of undetectable entities have no falsifiability.
They are infinite in number.

So you agree that it is just presumed.

Just like every other unfalsifiable nonsense human imagination can produce.
Just like you presume no undetectable extra-dimensional aliens are stealing cakes from your kitchen.

No it does not mean that life likely isn't as rare or extra-ordinary as some would think it is.
That is the presumption.

Nope. Sorry you can't follow a simple argument.

So you don't say that it is certain that God is not needed.
Me too.

No that's not what I'm saying.
Again, sorry you can't seem to comprehend the difference in merit between positive and negative claims.

Actually I believe God is needed, but it is a belief and not a claim in any scientific way.

Since it concerns physical phenomenon, it very much is a scientific claim.

If I made a scientific claim I would have some burden of proof, but I don't and I don't.

Not how the burden of proof works.

I have weak everything when it comes to justifying my beliefs.

At least you acknowledge that, I guess.

Not good enough for you, but good enough for me.

Yeah, I have far higher standards for my beliefs.
See, I actually care about my beliefs being rationally justified.
I actually consider it important to hold as much true beliefs and the least false beliefs as possible.
Apparently, you don't.

If you don't believe them that is your subjective decision.

*rational decision.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"I like heavy metal". This is not a truth statement. It's just an expression of personal taste. It's neither right or wrong.

I frame this kind of thing differently. Every time I eat Brussels sprouts, I get a dysphoric feeling from the taste, and so I avoid them. Though it's a subjective truth - not true for everybody - it's determined empirically and is as reliable a piece of knowledge as knowing that when I walk in the rain without an umbrella, I get wet. Both are facts for me, and one is a fact for everybody. I can repeat the experiences and reliably reproduce their outcomes. I use the information the same way - to reliably optimize pleasant feelings and minimize the various dysphorias, like eating Brussels sprouts in the pouring rain.

I put the “God idea” to the test every day, in my daily life. Consciously turning my will and my life over to the care of a power greater than myself each day, has kept me clean and sober for 21 years, and enriched my life in innumerable ways. Such is the power of faith.

We know that faith can work that way. It's why we tell children comforting lies about their deceased pets, for example. And I doubt that anybody begrudges you the belief if it helps you. I assume that if a god belief benefitted me in some way, I would hold one, too.

But if my purpose is to learn how the world works in order to effect desired outcomes, then faith is less than useless, It's undesirable. It's a very poor means for deciding what is true about external reality.

An idea has value if it works. That’s the utilitarian approach to spiritual matters. Faith works, so true or false is an unnecessary value judgement in this instance.

Faith doesn't work to determine what is true or false.

You have allowed your head to make a prison for your heart

No, he has learned to use his "head" (cognitive skills) to manage his "heart" (passions and imaginings). The horse and rider metaphor serves nicely.

you comprehend but you do not apprehend, and so you see nothing, beyond the bars of your cave.

It's interesting to see the faithful trying to guess what the inner life of the atheistic humanist is like. Believers are often taught that atheists are empty vessels that sense but don't feel - caricatures like Spock on Star Trek.

Here's a nice example, where people like me are depicted as being like robotic vacuum cleaners bumping into walls and correcting course automatically. What's interesting here is that he one-ups the religious, who do the same thing regarding atheists as you are doing now. He's spiritual, which is apparently the apex for him, but you're only religious, so your experiences are second-hand. But at least neither of you is a robot devoid of experience:

To say there is not God or God is not needed is a claim that is in a person's imagination.
Do you do that or do you say that you don't know?

Nobody has made that claim apart from you misrepresenting what is actually being claimed

Does evidence show that there is not God or that God is not needed

That evidence is not needed.

And so you agree that nothing has shown that spirit is not needed for life.

Everybody participating has, whatever it is you mean by spirit. Why are you still arguing this? Who present do you think you are disagreeing with?

So you don't say that it is certain that God is not needed.

No, he doesn't. Nobody has. But you keep tilting at this straw man.

 

[Polymath257]

So you and others say. That doesn't make it true, by the way.

Correct. Our *saying* it isn't what makes it true. The *evidence* is what makes it true. In the case of humans being apes, it is simply a matter of following the classification down.

We are animals. We are vertebrates. We are mammals. We are placental mammals. We are primates. And we are apes.

No, I'm not. Meantime, aside from me not being wrong at "each point," there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that some "Unknown Common Ancestor" burgeoned into gorillas, humans, chimpanzees, etc. None -- As far as fossil records, again -- while grass may be green and lizards also may be green, there is not one iota of evidence that gorillas, chimpanzees and humans evolved from some "Unknown Common Ancestor." You can't prove it, of course, NOT EVEN WITH EVIDENCE. Because there IS NONE. whatsoever.

Absolutely wrong. The genetics alone is evidence of a common ancestor. The fossil record (which is evidence) supports the conclusion from genetics. Comparative anatomy (which is evidence) supports that came conclusion. I can go on, but you will likely deny or ignore the evidence I give, so what is the point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct. Our *saying* it isn't what makes it true. The *evidence* is what makes it true. In the case of humans being apes, it is simply a matter of following the classification down.

We are animals. We are vertebrates. We are mammals. We are placental mammals. We are primates. And we are apes.

Absolutely wrong. The genetics alone is evidence of a common ancestor. The fossil record (which is evidence) supports the conclusion from genetics. Comparative anatomy (which is evidence) supports that came conclusion. I can go on, but you will likely deny or ignore the evidence I give, so what is the point?

This has been explained to @YoursTrue many times. But possibly because she sees evolution as an attack on her faith she will not allow herself to understand this. I have seen evidence that she may be a JW, and though we do have some members of that religion that can be somewhat reasonable here I have seen far too many that act almost totally brainwashed by that particular sect.

The fact of evolution, and just as there is a theory of gravity there is also the fact of gravity,. evolution to is more of a fact than just about any other concept, does not refute theism. It does not even refute Christianity. But it does refute certain sects of Christianity and it appears she knows hers is one such sect.

Overall she is a very decent human being, but the inability to accept this small nugget of reality does make obscure that at times.

 

[YoursTrue]

Correct. Our *saying* it isn't what makes it true. The *evidence* is what makes it true. In the case of humans being apes, it is simply a matter of following the classification down.

We are animals. We are vertebrates. We are mammals. We are placental mammals. We are primates. And we are apes.

Absolutely wrong. The genetics alone is evidence of a common ancestor. The fossil record (which is evidence) supports the conclusion from genetics. Comparative anatomy (which is evidence) supports that came conclusion. I can go on, but you will likely deny or ignore the evidence I give, so what is the point?

Sorry that I must say this again but there is no evidence making the theory true. Naturally you can't say prove so stick to making it true. (So stupid...)

 

[YoursTrue]

Correct. Our *saying* it isn't what makes it true. The *evidence* is what makes it true. In the case of humans being apes, it is simply a matter of following the classification down.

We are animals. We are vertebrates. We are mammals. We are placental mammals. We are primates. And we are apes.

Absolutely wrong. The genetics alone is evidence of a common ancestor. The fossil record (which is evidence) supports the conclusion from genetics. Comparative anatomy (which is evidence) supports that came conclusion. I can go on, but you will likely deny or ignore the evidence I give, so what is the point?

Absolutely untrue and of course not proven. Naturally. Humans remain humans, gorillas stay as gorillas etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

The problem is this.
Science is build on the following assumptions:
That the universe is real, i.e. e.g. no cheating God and/or Boltzmann Brains.
That the universe is orderly, i.e. that the same experinces of past, prestent and furture holds for also the past even if we haven't experinced it. That is so say that there was a past even if you haven't experinced it, but also that the memory of yesterday holds.
That the universe is knowable as such, i.e. that we can make general models of the universe.

Now you claim in effect that none of these assumptions are correct, but then that applies to you too.
So in effect the universe could have started last Thursday and you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe for which God made it so, that you are a program running on a computer simulation with a power source and that is all the universe is.

So either you accept that the universe is real and God doesn't cheat for real, orderly or knowable; or you can't claim you in effect know anything about the universe.
In effect you trust that when it suits you, but deny it when it doesn't suit you.
Have a nice one.

I don't know what you're talking about. Have a good one.

 

[ratiocinator]

Absolutely untrue and of course not proven. Naturally. Humans remain humans, gorillas stay as gorillas etc.

All the evidence says that it is you who is wrong. You've been given evidence. Pretending that it doesn't exist is not fooling anybody.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry that I must say this again but there is no evidence making the theory true. Naturally you can't say prove so stick to making it true. (So stupid...)

In what way does the evidence I pointed to NOT show evolution to be true? How else do you explain the differences in genetics between humans and the other apes? How else do you explain the fossil record (including the ages of the fossils)? How else do you explain the results of comparative anatomy, especially when the fossil record in factored in?

Saying there is no evidence while ignoring the evidence that is given isn't the way to find truth.

Absolutely untrue and of course not proven. Naturally. Humans remain humans, gorillas stay as gorillas etc.

Not on time scales of millions of years.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know what you're talking about. Have a good one.

Can you explain what it is you don't understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Absolutely untrue and of course not proven. Naturally. Humans remain humans, gorillas stay as gorillas etc.

I can "prove" that there is evidence for evolution. The problem is that you do not even understand the concept of evidence. Are you willing to learn?

And of course "gorillas stay gorillas". That is what the theory of evolution says. If they were suddenly no longer gorillas that would be more akin to your beliefs than ours.