Life From Dirt?

[Subduction Zone]

The standard model of cosmology is a mathematical model partially confirmed by observation. But the earliest observable evidence, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, occurred some 380,000 years after the Big Bang - if there even was a Big Bang. The earliest origins of the universe (and whether the universe had an origin) are certainly not known, nor is the standard model uncontested. Early images from the James Webb space telescope are already throwing the timeline into doubt.

From my understanding it is not putting the Big Bang or the date of it in doubt. What it is putting in doubt are current models of star and galaxy formation. That is not the same at all as the Big Bang. But I could be wrong. As "proof" that I am right all creationist sources disagree with me. And that is actually a good sign.

 

[Heyo]

From my understanding it is not putting the Big Bang or the date of it in doubt. What it is putting in doubt are current models of star and galaxy formation. That is not the same at all as the Big Bang. But I could be wrong. As "proof" that I am right all creationist sources disagree with me. And that is actually a good sign.

It is either - or. Either our models of star and galaxy formation are incomplete or the universe is much older than we think. Guess what's seen as more likely.

 

[RestlessSoul]

From my understanding it is not putting the Big Bang or the date of it in doubt. What it is putting in doubt are current models of star and galaxy formation. That is not the same at all as the Big Bang. But I could be wrong. As "proof" that I am right all creationist sources disagree with me. And that is actually a good sign.

If all you have in support of your understanding is the response of creationists, it seems you don't have much. But by all means take it as a sign - in the same way perhaps, that a comet was seen as a sign in the ancient world.

The Big Bang, incidentally, was recently endorsed by the Vatican. Not sure how the Pope agreeing with you might affect your understanding, if at all.

 

[ratiocinator]

Because there is a God who has told us the purpose.

Is there? How do you know that? I've never been told of a purpose by any god(s).

So a designer/creator is not postulated in science and the evidence for a designer/creator is not verifiable anyway.

If there is no way to verify (test) it, then it really doesn't count as evidence.

But that has nothing to do with whether a designer/creator exists or not and the evidence in nature is pretty plain for a designer and so a creator imo.

Now you've contradicted yourself.

PLUS there is evidence in human experience for God and spirits.

Notoriously unreliable subjective experiences, eh? Then you've got plenty of 'evidence' for multiple mutually contradictory versions of god and gods, endless unrelated spirit worlds, alien abductions, homoeopathy, and so, on, and so on...

Wow, you must be very confused.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If science comes up with naturalistic answers for the origins of life and the universe how would it be anything other than speculation of what happened.

Science comes with hypothesis that are based in evidence.
It just so happens that evidence only points to natural phenomenon and no evidence points to magic.

Yes, science never considers magical answers. For the simple reason that magical answers can't be tested, can't be verified and can't have evidence.

This means that claims of magic can not be distinguished from sheer imagination.

The answers should be "If a creator/ God did not do it, then we think it might have happened this way".

That is just silly.
Might as well say "if undetectable pink graviton pixies aren't regulating gravity, then we think it might be because of the curvature of space-time".

It's completely ridiculous.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What you probably mean is that your interpretation of what the Bible means has been debunked. But that is OK. Your interpretation is wrong.

So you accept that genensis is allegorical, that planet earth is 4.5 billion years old and formed natural from the accretion disc of when the sun formed naturally through gravity, that simple life originated at least 3.8 billion years ago and then evolved over all those years into the many species we know today, that the biblical flood never happened, that there was no adam and eve, no magical garden with talking snakes or magical fruit, etc?

Is that what you are saying?

FYI: *I* don't have an "interpretation" of the magical claims of the bible. I just respond to the claims of people on this forum. Some are YECs, some are OECs, some are more sophisticated christians like @Dan From Smithville who see no need to deny scientific facts in favor of bible magic,....

So when I say that bible myths are demonstrably false, I'm responding to people who's "interpretation" might include:
- adam and eve were real people and the first humans
- genesis is literal
- the flood myth is literal
- exodus is literal
- the sun literally "stopped in the sky" for 3 days
- etc


Please don't play dumb with me.

I'm very much aware that the vast majority of christians sees these stories as just that: stories. These people don't feel the need to deny scientific facts in favor of a magical literal reading of their ancient religion. In the above post, I was not talking about their interpretation. Instead, I was talking about those who DO feel the need to be science-deniers in favor of ancient tales of magic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

it doesn't matter. Life comes from God. He can use anything He wants. Thanks and have a good one, take care as time moves along.

Indeed, "it doesn't matter".
When you get to invoke magic, it matters not how little sense it makes, because once you allow for magic, ANYTHING can be done since it's "magic".

Abracadabra, poof!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

PLUS there is evidence in human experience for God and spirits.

Evidence which YOU YOURSELF think is worthless, because you are not a scientologist, you are not a hindu, you are not a muslim.

You reject all these experiences at face value.

You only accept those that agree with your a priori beliefs.
Guess what that's called?

It begins with "confi..." and ends with "bias".

 

[Brian2]

The "why" question, is a loaded question.
It assumes there even is a "why" to ask about.

That's humanity, always wanting to reach higher and to know why and how. You cannot go higher than the why answer being a how answer and that would be just speculation/hypothesis.

It is limited to those things that can be supported with objective evidence.

Indeed, science can't tell us about things that have no evidence, no verifiability, no testability.
A good question would be what makes you think anything can?

How do you differentiate the non-existent from the undetectable?

I have evidence for the undetectable but no evidence for the non existent. The evidence is not verifiable in any scientific way but is there nonetheless.

 

[ChristineM]

The standard model of cosmology is a mathematical model partially confirmed by observation.

Yes

But the earliest observable evidence, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, occurred some 380,000 years after the Big Bang

Yes

if there even was a Big Bang.

It's possible there wasn't but the observed evidence leads to the conclusion that there was a bb

The earliest origins of the universe (and whether the universe had an origin) are certainly not known,

As known as is possible to know. Mathematics yes, extrapolated from observation.

nor is the standard model uncontested.

Cooks are abundant. Even penrose a premier anti bb ist has changed his mind given the evidence. His words "its refreshing to be proven wrong"

Early images from the James Webb space telescope are already throwing the timeline into doubt.

Not really but it is certainly providing new information.

No, the Big Bang theory is not 'broken.' Here's how we know.

 

[ratiocinator]

You cannot go higher than the why answer being a how answer and that would be just speculation/hypothesis.

This sentence is a bit difficult to unravel but there is actually a reasonable argument from Daniel Dennett that 'why' questions, in the sense of "what for?" as opposed to "how come?", i.e. purpose, only arise because the idea of purpose itself is the result of evolution. This is explained in his book From Bacteria to Bach and Back (Chapter 3: On the Origin of Reasons). Unfortunately I can't find a succinct summary online. There is the long video (over an hour) below if you're at all interested or I'll try and explain it myself, but I'm not about to go to all the trouble if you don't have a genuine interest.

I have evidence for the undetectable but no evidence for the non existent. The evidence is not verifiable in any scientific way but is there nonetheless.

If it's not verifiable, how is it evidence? If you are verifying it in some non-scientific way, then how?

 

[Brian2]

I think it's kind of funny to see you accuse people who value objective evidence of "double standards" while complaining they dismiss "subjective experience", while you yourself will happily dismiss out of hand ANY "subjective experience" that doesn't fit your a priori subjective beliefs.

Or do you think Scientology is real? What? Don't tell me that you simply dismiss the subjective experience of people like Tom Cruise, John Travolta or any of the other millions of "clear" people...

And that's just one example off course... there's also the "subjective experience" of hindu's, voodoo, tarrot readers, muslims, vikings, ancient romans, ancient greeks, ancient egyptions, mayans, the inca, buddhists, shintoists, alien abductees, bigfoot spotters, etc etc etc.

Who holds a double standard, really?
I don't. I value objective evidence, always. I will happily go where objective evidence takes me.
I will happily drop beliefs and / or take on new beliefs if objective evidence demands it.

Can you say the same? I doubt it.

We can't believe all the conclusions people come to about their experiences and what they are told they are caused by. That doe not mean that they do not have those experiences.

The fact that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of "interpretations" is imo the first hint of it being rather worthless.

It matters not where you go, the "interpretation" of E = mc² will always be the same. Gravity works the same for a Hindu and a Muslim.
Scientific facts, unlike religious beliefs / interpretations, aren't dependent on your cultural background or geographic location.

Yes science is good like that, it just works for all of us thanks to God.

Like Tom Cruise being an Operating Thetan is evidence of Scientology, right?
RIGHT?

Of course it is evidence. Evidence is not proof. If you want to go further into scientology we can, based on that evidence.

There's no such thing.

There are commonalities.

 

[Brian2]

I assume that by "the created," you mean nature. It definitively exists, however, it is logically possible that it is all that exists. Or, as you suggest, it may have been created by some process, such as emanating from a multiverse in which it began to expand billions of years ago. You choose to believe that its source was a sentient, supernatural agent, or an awakened or wakeful multiverse so-to-speak.

That just pushes the question of the creator further back.

If you mean a god, I disagree. There is nothing that we are aware that exists that requires intelligent oversight to explain, and much that doesn't, including the assembling of the universe from an initial hot, dense state and its day-to-day operation. Science has made gods less necessary as explanatory devices, and is one of the explanations for the waning of Christianity in the West, where more people are educated about it.

It is just a furphy to think that there is no God just because no God can be found in this universe. The creator is not part of His creation.
So many in the West are deceived by a furphy because they believe the lie.
You have also been deceived if you think that science knows that the universe could assemble itself. It is also interesting that you want the creation to exist initially and to go from there.

I think that that is one of the logical possibilities. The universe has either always existed or came into existence, and if it came into existence, it either did so either uncaused or caused by some prior existence, which might or might not be sentient, and which itself might have always existed or come into existence uncaused. I think that this list is exhaustive, meaning that if reason can be trusted, one of these must be the case. But we have no means of ruling any in or out at this time. The best we can do is order them according to Occam' parsimony principle. Adding a prior source adds complexity (an unseen reality) without extra explanatory power and requiring that prior source be conscious compounds the problem.

A conscious source just explains the obvious design and the revelation from God or so called gods.
You have your exhaustive list of what you say are possibilities and seem to want to analyse them using science. But science cannot do that.
Personally I don't see that time goes back to infinity. Infinite time into the past means that we cannot be here yet.

Yes, that's included in my list, under uncreated, conscious, prior source for our universe.

The simplest narrative that accounts for all relevant observation is preferred. Adding more increases complexity without adding any explanatory or predictive power. What prevents you from adding more to your narrative, like our universe's conscious creator - what you call "God" - being the product of a multiverse that generates untold numbers of gods running their own universes? And let's throw in a triumvirate of gods to create the multiverse that created your god who created our universe? As you can see, we can end endless complexity to this narrative, but none of it accounts for observed reality better than narratives that omit all of that.

Somebody with a more complicated religious belief and narrative than yours can make all of the same arguments you make in support of his belief. He just believes it, and you can't prove he's wrong. Furthermore, the more science reveals, the more evidence there is for a triumvirate of gods to create the multiverse that created the god that created our universe. If you can believe in just this final god, you should be able to believe in all the rest.

I believe in the God who works in history and knew and told us of the Jews going back to the land they were given and being surrounded by enemies etc etc.

Empiricism is the only path to knowledge.

That is a silly thing to say when you also say that science does not prove anything.

Parts of the Bible have been falsified. That's not controversial outside of fundamentalist religious circles. Apologists are working to try to reconcile scripture with science, but they need to reinterpret the language of scripture and call it allegory, for example, claiming that it never meant what it says wherever what it says has been falsified. The universe wasn't formed in six days, so now, a day isn't a day.

Incidentally, a myth is not an allegory or metaphor. The latter are specific literary forms which myth doesn't meet. They include substituting symbols for known people, objects, and events. Myths don't. They attempt to explain the unknown with free speculation.

That a day of creation is not a 24 hour day is not a new concept I hear.

This is your religion speaking. Nobody is attacking you, and there is no gang and no swarming, which is dehumanizing language, like calling liberals vermin (it's a recent American thing and a not-so-recent German thing). You have been taught to see dissent as malevolent.

I have experienced the swarming as if it is a team effort to overwhelm.

Religion has no answers, just guesses, like myths.

If the Bible had no answers then it would not have known about the future of Israel and the Jews.

And some people imagine that there are realms and agents that exist that don't and are vested in those reveries. Naturally, science can't help them, which they describe as a limitation of science rather than a limitation of undisciplined thinking.

Ignoring evidence does not make it go away.

 

[ratiocinator]

We can't believe all the conclusions people come to about their experiences and what they are told they are caused by. That doe not mean that they do not have those experiences.

Of course, but the fact that they are interpreted in so many different and contradictory ways and neither your nor anybody else seems to have any way to objective way to decide on a correct interpretation ("I'm right and all the rest are mistaken" aside) means that they are pretty much useless as evidence of anything.

 

[ratiocinator]

That just pushes the question of the creator further back.

And postulating a creator just pushes the question of why stuff exists further back. It's useless at explaining existence, it just adds to the problem. A giant leap in the wrong direction.

 

[ratiocinator]

That is a silly thing to say when you also say that science does not prove anything.

If you're looking for absolute proof about anything about the 'real world' you're on a fool's errand. It's simply impossible. Everything depends on some assumptions. Absolute proof exists only in mathematics and pure logic.

The best standard available is objective evidence that amounts to 'proof' in the legal sense of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

[Brian2]

"Look at the trees!"

I don't know how you see evidence for a designer in that clip. I see the work of scientists and artists who have used the scientific method to observe and then visualise the inner workings of a cell. Each step in the very complex process obeys the laws of nature, not a single miracle necessary. It's scientists who get **** done, not a single apologist spent their career figuring this out, no prayer was answered in revealing the chemistry.

It's great that the further we look into the creation, the more obvious it is that it is the work of a living, intelligent God.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's great that the further we look into the creation, the more obvious it is that it is the work of a living, intelligent God.

This is just your subjective assumption. "It's obvious innit?" is a dreadful argument.

 

[Brian2]

I don't understand how the two are related, and science is the most productive modality ever devised.

"God created the universe" or "God gives life" does not explain the mechanisms involved, or even what life is. It's just an assertion of agency.
Science is a method of investigating and testing how the world works. It follows evidence, not revelation or scripture.

If there's no objective evidence that God did these things, is it reasonable to believe He did? Couldn't I make the same claim about elves or Brahma?

Science is a tool we use to discover how and cannot find things that are not part of the universe. It does not show that God is non existent.
Brahma is the Hindu God and elves are part of the creation if they exist, not the creator. The creator is not part of or governed by the creation. Agency is the only thing that gives a reason for why we are here and why anything is here. Arguably that is a more important answer than how things work.
All I want is evidence for God, and it does not matter if it is objective or not. I have that evidence in nature and in God's revelation to us.

 

[Brian2]

Here we're in agreement. Our difference, I think, is epistemic.
Science is productive, observable and repeatable. It produces verifiable results and universal consensus.

Religion, at least western religion, is not even an investigative modality. It produces subjective and inconsistent results. No consensus of why or purpose is ever clearly established.
Science follows objective evidence. Religion is faith-based, and without objective verifiability.

Yes religion is faith based and with subjective verifiability. (we test it ourselves)