Life From Dirt?

[InChrist]

That is your claim. The evidence and reason say otherwise.

Sorry, but I don't take the Bible as authoritative in any way. It's an amusing set of myths, but not much more.

Certainly Jesus’ life, death and resurrection is beyond human reason or full ability to comprehend, but it is not beyond that of a God capable of creating heaven and earth with the ability to supersede the physical realm.

If the Bible is God’s Word and revelation, which I believe it is, then it is authoritative irregardless of human opinion.

 

[InChrist]

No, I asked with an open mind and tried to figure out anything that would make sense. I also don't *start* with the assumption there is a God. I start with an open mind to determine *if* there is such a being (or beings).

So, for example, identifying God with the universe or with the natural laws doesn't seem to fit the usual meaning of the word 'God'. The Greek gods make no sense to me. They are clearly mythical and so not real. The concept of a supernatural seems to be self-contradictory, so any supernatural deities make no sense, so the Christian/Jewish/Moslem deity makes no sense. Many times, Hindu deities seem more like analogies or labels and so don't quite fit the concept of a God. The concept of a creator of the universe makes no sense because such a being would already have to exist and thereby be part of the universe.

I can go on. Don't think I don't search honestly simply because my conclusions differ from yours.

Now, maybe you have a new concept of God that *would* make sense to me. If you think you do, please let me know it.



Actually, I would very much like to know the truth of existence either way. I conclude non-existence because of lack of sufficient evidence. But I could easily be wrong about that conclusion. All I would need to change my mind is relevant evidence that is unambiguous.

And, if an all-knowing God exists, that entity would know this about me and know what sort of evidence would be convincing. So if such a deity exists, it isn't interested in whether I want to know (maybe it wants to be left alone, I don't know).

At this point, God believers come across like UFO enthusiasts: they believe because they want to believe and refuse to consider that they might be wrong. They accuse others of wanting to ignore the evidence when, in reality, if the evidence provided was even *close* to being relevant, skeptics would be excited and pursue it devotedly.

But those that want the truth are not going to see 'faith' as a positive value. It leads to confirmation bias and to bad reasoning. That is not the way to find truth.

There’s no legitimate reason not to start with the foundation position that there’s a Creator. That’s how I see it. If you don’t begin there then you’re thinking is off from the beginning.


“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.”

—Isaac Newton

 

[Subduction Zone]

Certainly Jesus’ life, death and resurrection is beyond human reason or full ability to comprehend, but it is not beyond that of a God capable of creating heaven and earth with the ability to supersede the physical realm.

If the Bible is God’s Word and revelation, which I believe it is, then it is authoritative irregardless of human opinion.

It does not matter what you believe. Others believe that of the Quran or the Vedas. It matters what you can support. How would you test that belief? How would you properly, that means that you cannot use logical fallacies, to support that belief?

Saying that you believe something should only elicit a "So what?" from those that do not believe. The burden of proof is upon you.

There are countless honest Christians that realized that Genesis cannot be literally true. The Bible still could be the "word of God" and not be real literally. That actually saves believers from all sorts of problems. Instead of using the excuse of "magic" and effectively claiming that one's God is a liar, one could say that the verses that so clearly pain God as being an immoral thug were not meant to be read literally.

 

[InChrist]

Ironic....
He's replying to a post where he is actually asked to have a "predetermined attitude and position" that there is even a god to be found in the first place.
Why don't you complain about that?



False.
Instead, he refuses to start the investigation by assuming that there IS a god.
The whole point is to find out IF there is.



Why would the evidence for the existence of X be dependent on the whims of X?
Now who is making assumptions..............

I didn’t say the evidence is dependent on the whim of God. Evidence of a Creator is obvious…

“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.”

—Isaac Newton


“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. “
Romans 1:20-21

I would say further evidence is dependent on God’s purpose in creating human beings to seek and relate to Him in a personal way. God is a Personal Spiritual Being, not a scientific fact to be discovered.

I don’t complain about starting from the foundation point of acknowledging a Creator, because anything otherwise is foolishness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn’t say the evidence is dependent on the whim of God. Evidence of a Creator is obvious…

“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.”

—Isaac Newton


“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. “
Romans 1:20-21

I would say further evidence is dependent on God’s purpose in creating human beings to seek and relate to Him in a personal way. God is a Personal Spiritual Being, not a scientific fact to be discovered.

I don’t complain about starting from the foundation point of acknowledging a Creator, because anything otherwise is foolishness.

More logical fallacies. Do you think that physics might have advanced just a mite since the days of Newton?

 

[InChrist]

It does not matter what you believe. Others believe that of the Quran or the Vedas. It matters what you can support. How would you test that belief? How would you properly, that means that you cannot use logical fallacies, to support that belief?

Saying that you believe something should only elicit a "So what?" from those that do not believe. The burden of proof is upon you.

There are countless honest Christians that realized that Genesis cannot be literally true. The Bible still could be the "word of God" and not be real literally. That actually saves believers from all sorts of problems. Instead of using the excuse of "magic" and effectively claiming that one's God is a liar, one could say that the verses that so clearly pain God as being an immoral thug were not meant to be read literally.

I realize there are all kinds of beliefs. And sure others can say, “So what?”. That’s okay. The burden of proof is not on me , it’s on God. I have no doubt, as Creator, God has taken all this into account and knows the intentions of each human mind and thoughts in dealing with the revelation He’s provided. As we each stand before our Creator with our souls fully exposed, there won’t be any excuses, claims of confusion, or lack of evidence of His existence.

…For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written:

“That You may be justified in Your words,
And may overcome when You are judged.”

Romans 3:3-4

 

[InChrist]

More logical fallacies. Do you think that physics might have advanced just a mite since the days of Newton?

Sure, but God is eternal and doesn’t change.

 

[ratiocinator]

There’s no legitimate reason not to start with the foundation position that there’s a Creator.

You don't start a rational investigation to find the truth with a baseless assumption. That would be irrational in the extreme.

“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.”

—Isaac Newton

Newton got a lot right but he also got a lot wrong. This is an instance of the latter. There was an awful lot that he simply didn't know. Even taking this idea at face value and leaving out other complications, he had no conception of the size of the universe, let alone the prevalence of planets, and just how many opportunities there are for some planet to be at the 'right distance' (the fact that we are observing from one is stunningly unsurprising, for obvious reasons).

 

[YoursTrue]

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.



Not on time scales of millions of years.

What do you mean by in what way does the evidence you pointed to not show evolution to be true? One question at a time please. Does the evidence show(?) -- I guess the expression show is better than prove -- that evolution is true?? Àfter you look at that question, you talk about differences in genetics between humans and chimpanzees, gorillas, etc.? Why does that prove/show/demonstrate evolution?

 

[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?

OK, well, I'm learning a little more about fossils re: "evidence." And just to reiterate, National Geographic put out the following in an explanation of fossils, etc. See what you think so far, if anyone like @Dan From Smithville or our resident specialist @shunyadragon cares to offer some insight that would be fine. "The word fossil comes from the Latin word fossus, meaning "having been dug up." Fossils are often found in rock formations deep in the earth." That's a beginning, of course. Fossil

 

[Polymath257]

What do you mean by in what way does the evidence you pointed to not show evolution to be true? One question at a time please. Does the evidence show(?) -- I guess the expression show is better than prove -- that evolution is true?? Àfter you look at that question, you talk about differences in genetics between humans and chimpanzees, gorillas, etc.? Why does that prove/show/demonstrate evolution?

Well, first, it shows their relatedness. By comparing the genetics of the other apes and the other primates, we can find natural groupings of genetic similarity (which is one good reason to classify humans as apes). Together with the fossil record, this allows us to say not only that we are related, but it can give a time scale on when the different species diverged (the fossil record is partly needed to calibrate the rate of genetic changes).

next, the way that genes mutate and the way they get passed on to the next generation allows us to model what would happen over the course of thousands of generations. Since no genetic barrier to change has been discovered, this shows that large scale change is not only possible, but predicted. When this is compared to the fossil record there is consistency.

Next, we can look at several different proteins in various species (say hemoglobin-a blood protein, maybe a digestive enzyme, and maybe a structural protein such as collagen). For each of these proteins, we can look at the degree of relatedness between different species. Evolution predicts that this pattern of relatedness should form a tree-like structure (related to actual decent). if evolution were false, such a tree-like structure would be uncommon.

And, of course, we find such tree-like structures of relatedness. But, what is more dramatic. We get the same trees for the different proteins. Again, this is exactly what evolution would predict (because the changes are due to decent), but it is almost impossible to explain without such common descent.

So, yes, genetics proved a LOT of evidence for evolution. Together with the fossil record, we obtain a consistent picture of how species have changed over time. And that *is* evolution.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, well, I'm learning a little more about fossils re: "evidence." And just to reiterate, National Geographic put out the following in an explanation of fossils, etc. See what you think so far, if anyone like @Dan From Smithville or our resident specialist @shunyadragon cares to offer some insight that would be fine. "The word fossil comes from the Latin word fossus, meaning "having been dug up." Fossils are often found in rock formations deep in the earth." That's a beginning, of course. Fossil

Well, yes. Living things died and their remains became part of the rocks we find today. So those fossils give us evidence of what sorts of things were alive in the past. One of the things we find is that the species alive today did not appear in the distant past and many species of the distant past do not show up today. The whole ecosystems were different in the past, with very different species across the globe.

This alone is enough to show evolution: that species have changed over geological time.

But, we can go further. When we look at the different species at different times, we find that those most similar are close together in time. Given that we know that living things reproduce, this shows that species change over time from reproduction. There is descent from the older species to the newer ones.

Again, that is solid evidence for evolution.

 

[InChrist]

You don't start a rational investigation to find the truth with a baseless assumption. That would be irrational in the extreme.


Newton got a lot right but he also got a lot wrong. This is an instance of the latter. There was an awful lot that he simply didn't know. Even taking this idea at face value and leaving out other complications, he had no conception of the size of the universe, let alone the prevalence of planets, and just how many opportunities there are for some planet to be at the 'right distance' (the fact that we are observing from one is stunningly unsurprising, for obvious reasons).

When I see a painting, I don’t think it’s a baseless assumption to know there was a painter. When I see a building, I don’t think it’s a baseless assumption to know there was a builder. When I see a rose garden, I know there’s a gardener. When I eat a delicious meal, I know someone cooked it. So it’s not a baseless assumption to see creation, the earth, the planets, the stars, and the vast universe and realize there is a Creator.

“The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament[a] shows His handiwork.
Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.”

Psalm 19:1-3

 

[Polymath257]

When I see a painting, I don’t think it’s a baseless assumption to know there was a painter. When I see a building, I don’t think it’s a baseless assumption to know there was a builder. When I see a rose garden, I know there’s a gardener. When I eat a delicious meal, I know someone cooked it. So it’s not a baseless assumption to see creation, the earth, the planets, the stars, and the vast universe and realize there is a Creator.

The painting, the building, the rose garden (as opposed to wild roses), and cooked meals are things we know are produced by humans and that don't occur naturally.

Now, we do NOT assume that a tree in the forest was planted by somebody, or that a dead animal had someone that killed it, or that a fallen rock had someone that pushed it.

Why not? because we know such things happen naturally and without intelligent intervention. Only a few things on Earth (a very small part of the cosmos) and that were influenced by humans are reasonably assumed to be formed by humans. Nothing else shows the properties associated with intelligent intervention.

And, in fat, the vast majority of structures (planets, stars, crystals, etc) all happen naturally and without any outside intervention.

So your analogy fails miserably. We attribute things to intelligence that we know are formed by intelligence and that do not otherwise occur naturally.

“The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament[a] shows His handiwork.
Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.”

Psalm 19:1-3

Which only shows the limited world of that writer. There is no firmament. And the heavens do NOT declare the existence of a creator, but rather of natural processes that require no intelligent intervention.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

That is the story of the whole Bible, since we weren't there to see it. Yet now the excuse is about genetics and evolution seems to be from an Unknown Common Ancestor "millions of years." And I go back to my younger days with the expression, Yeah, right...

 

[YoursTrue]

When I see a painting, I don’t think it’s a baseless assumption to know there was a painter. When I see a building, I don’t think it’s a baseless assumption to know there was a builder. When I see a rose garden, I know there’s a gardener. When I eat a delicious meal, I know someone cooked it. So it’s not a baseless assumption to see creation, the earth, the planets, the stars, and the vast universe and realize there is a Creator.

“The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament[a] shows His handiwork.
Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.”

Psalm 19:1-3

I had a similar experience today while driving. I saw signs with printing on them...and trees, and buildings. I thought someone made those signs. Someone built those buildings. The trees?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, yes. Living things died and their remains became part of the rocks we find today. So those fossils give us evidence of what sorts of things were alive in the past. One of the things we find is that the species alive today did not appear in the distant past and many species of the distant past do not show up today. The whole ecosystems were different in the past, with very different species across the globe.

This alone is enough to show evolution: that species have changed over geological time.

But, we can go further. When we look at the different species at different times, we find that those most similar are close together in time. Given that we know that living things reproduce, this shows that species change over time from reproduction. There is descent from the older species to the newer ones.

Again, that is solid evidence for evolution.

No, the stone is certainly not enough to show evolution. How do you figure that?

 

[YoursTrue]

The painting, the building, the rose garden (as opposed to wild roses), and cooked meals are things we know are produced by humans and that don't occur naturally.

Now, we do NOT assume that a tree in the forest was planted by somebody, or that a dead animal had someone that killed it, or that a fallen rock had someone that pushed it.

Why not? because we know such things happen naturally and without intelligent intervention. Only a few things on Earth (a very small part of the cosmos) and that were influenced by humans are reasonably assumed to be formed by humans. Nothing else shows the properties associated with intelligent intervention.

And, in fat, the vast majority of structures (planets, stars, crystals, etc) all happen naturally and without any outside intervention.

So your analogy fails miserably. We attribute things to intelligence that we know are formed by intelligence and that do not otherwise occur naturally.

Which only shows the limited world of that writer. There is no firmament. And the heavens do NOT declare the existence of a creator, but rather of natural processes that require no intelligent intervention.

Expressions and knowledge of the universe can change, that does not mean that understanding of a firmament was not valid in terms of recognizing a Creator and describing it as such. If that's what you insist on, however, unfortunately it's clear you do not want to go beyond that in reasoning. Seems like a wall for you. Which is sad when I see a person like you insisting on that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When I see a painting, I don’t think it’s a baseless assumption to know there was a painter. When I see a building, I don’t think it’s a baseless assumption to know there was a builder. When I see a rose garden, I know there’s a gardener. When I eat a delicious meal, I know someone cooked it. So it’s not a baseless assumption to see creation, the earth, the planets, the stars, and the vast universe and realize there is a Creator.

“The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament[a] shows His handiwork.
Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.”

Psalm 19:1-3

Your examples all have creators that are human for which evidence exists and evidence that you are using to consider those humans as creator. When we consider the universe there is no evidence for us to use to "realize" anything. That the universe has a creator does not logically flow from the facts that human creations have a human creator. You are using a logical fallacy. What you are describing is belief and merely claiming it is a realized fact, because you want your belief to be true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn’t say the evidence is dependent on the whim of God. Evidence of a Creator is obvious…

“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.”

—Isaac Newton


“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. “
Romans 1:20-21

I would say further evidence is dependent on God’s purpose in creating human beings to seek and relate to Him in a personal way. God is a Personal Spiritual Being, not a scientific fact to be discovered.

I don’t complain about starting from the foundation point of acknowledging a Creator, because anything otherwise is foolishness.

If evidence of a Creator is so obvious, where is it? What evidence can you name that definitively demonstrates a Creator?