Life From Dirt?

[Brian2]

No, they do not. They should all end up in the same place, or someone is making an error somewhere.

People end up in different places because they start in different places and with different presupositions.

 

[ratiocinator]

That it all evolved from one life form is speculation.

No, it is not.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences

We demonstrate quantitatively that, as predicted by evolutionary theory, sequences of homologous proteins from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. The converse, a non-evolutionary model can be expressed as probabilities, and the test works for chloroplast...

journals.plos.org

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People end up in different places because they start in different places and with different presupositions.

IOW, in logica, your conclusion is going to be, at best, only as correct as your assumptions / premises / starting points are.

It's the concept of GIGO = garbage in, garbage out.

This is why in logic, it's kind of important that your premises are justified.
So when you start with baseless, unjustifiable assumptions (like a priori faith based religious beliefs), your conclusion will be just as baseless and unjustified.

 

[shunyadragon]

And yet we believe in God. Are there things that point to the existence of God for you?

I believe in a 'Source' some call Gods, but their is no objective evidence that 'points' to the existence of God, that does not simply 'point' to a natural nature of our existence. The nature of our physical existence reflects the attributes of God and the evolving Creation naturally.

The spiritual nature and teachings of the Baha'i Faith inspire me to believe in God and the evolving spiritual nature of humanity, It takes into consideration the limits of ancient religions represent Revelation from God in the context of the human beliefs of the culture and the time of the Religion. The REvelation of the Baha'i Faith is not literally absolute and acknowledges the future of humanity will evolve.I believe the Bible itself is an example of the evolving spiritual nature of humanity from the Torah to the New Testament.

The fact that the text of the individual ancient religions reflect the culture and world views of the fallible humans, it is not a literal Revelation from God. They reflect a literal hands on anthropomorphic, ancient view of Creation God that has no relationship to the more universal perspective of the whole history of humanity.

My philosophy of Universalism reflects the fallible egocentric nature of humans, and I am skeptical of all things human including my own beliefs.

Based on the universal nature of our existence I believe in the universal unknowable God that reflects the evolving spiritual nature of humanity through Progressive Revelation.

Are you saying that you have a blind faith in the existence of God?

The problem of blind faith is clinging to ancient tribal religions in total contradiction with the matter of fact evidence of the evolving nature of our physical existence and the diversity and evolving spiritual nature of humanity. They are also in complete contradiction with the knowledge of science, archaeology and history of humanity on a universal perspective. Selective consideration of 'some of the archaeology does not justrify the historical accuracy of the Biblical accounts.

I believe the ancient religious world views do not reflect our scientific, archaeological and historical evidence we have today, and only can be logically and reasonably fit in a more universal evolving history of humanity, This is simply factual regardless of whether God exists or not. Trying to make them fit by dishonestly and selectively interpreting the evidence simply does not work. None of the ancient scriptures of the world have literal provenance and first person witness of the their history, and are mixed with the supernatural mythology and legends of the time.

The stoic insistence of clinging to ancient worldviews and their exclusive beliefs out of context of the evidence of the more universal nature of humanity just gives atheists and agnostics justification for their skepticism of the lack of reality of the ancient hands on anthropomorphic beliefs in God.

I don't complain about that if it is true. We can go beyond science in our analysis of things and don't need verifiable evidence to decide many things, such as whether a God exist or not.

Science by itself is not remotely applicable to whether God exists or not. We may believe in tings that are not objectively verifiable, but it is a severe problem when we insist on believing things that are in conflict with the objective verifiable evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Evidence in a general sense is something that can point to the truth of a proposition. If the evidence cannot be tested to see if it is true or not, that is what I mean by unverifiable evidence.
I might look at information being in Genes and see that as evidence for God. This is subjective to me and unable to be tested to see if it actually points objectively to God.

This is the selective over reaching the objective verifiable evidence to justify a reality that does not fit the objective evidence as a whole.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then you don't know what evidence is.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/evidence#:~:text=Evidence%20is%20anything%20that%20you,true%20or%20has%20really%20happened.

Careful citing a general definition of evidence. The problem is the definitions are general and reflect a personal perspective of what may be true. This is the reason I use 'objectively verifiable evidence which removes human bias. Look up other definitions involving Law and Medicine which are in harmony with the scientific definition.

Objectivity (science) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs.[1] It is often linked to observation as part of the scientific method. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility. To be considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in a collective understanding of the world. Such demonstrable knowledge has ordinarily conferred demonstrable powers of prediction or technology.

The problem of philosophical objectivity is contrasted with personal subjectivity, sometimes exacerbated by the overgeneralization of a hypothesis to the whole. For example, Newton's law of universal gravitation appears to be the norm for the attraction between celestial bodies, but it was later refined and extended—and philosophically superseded—by the more general theory of relativity.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure what you mean by tenets.

Your beliefs

Different people have different expectations so I can't answer for everyone.

True personal subjective beliefs and tenets cannot be confirmed for everyone. This standard requires objectivity outside personal beleifs.

For me, if I follow what I perceive God is saying and good comes from it them I am further convinced.

What you personally believe remains circular without objective confirmation.

If it seems God is answering prayers I am further convinced.

Explain why the fulfilment of personal answering prayers is subjective, inconsistent and anecdotal. Some that are very ill pray to heal, some heal but many simply do not.

If I see answers to questions where I thought none existed, I am further convinced.

Circular subjective reasoning.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have posted this before. If you cannot see how from this then you cannot see it.

No, you have not presented objective verifiable evidence, that all can see.

Your view reflects a personal anecdotal perspective.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why would I not believe that a God who created the universe could not do miracles, stuff we do not understand or know how He did it. Magic if you want to be superstitious about it?
And how do you know what most Christians believe about the miracle stories in the Bible?
When it comes to Biblical interpretation, that can change over the years when humans find out facts that show us what the interpetation should be. eg if it is discovered that there was no world wide flood but was a large local flood, that is what the interpetation should be, a large local flood,,,,,,,,,,,,, and interestingly that is how the story can be translated.
When it come to what science has really found to be fact that is not set in concrete either even if skeptics might like to think it is. So imo I don't need to accept what science says about evolution as 100% fact, because imo it is not.
It is the naturalistic answer based on the presumption that God did not step in and do any of it. And there is no way that you or science can contradict that.
And no, guessing what probably happened based on the presumption that God did not do any of it, does not make for fact.

I don't see how the story can be translated as a local flood and you've never provided sufficient argument demonstrating such.
It clearly is a story about a global flood, in all aspects.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't know.

Well, you were quite sure yesterday that everyone else's interpretation is wrong and yours is right.

I like the honest answer though.

We all just believe what we believe.

I believe what I believe based on reason and evidence. If I find that I believe something that isn't supported by the available evidence, I stop believing it.

If someone believes a certain interpretation of the Bible just because that is the interpetation that can be debunked, that is just a play interpetation, and shows a desire to debunk the Bible than to see if the Bible is true.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

I do it in the opposite direction. If what appear to be facts means that the Bible is wrong I look for a different interpretation. If there is none them the Bible is just wrong.

So there is no way to determine which interpretation is the correct one, but you're sure you've got the correct interpretation. And if it seems wrong, then you just re-interpret it. ... ??

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was talking about this video:

Dr Tydell narrates bacteria animation - Google Search

I just intuited design. You might call it incredulity that it happened any other way.

It seems you already realize you've made the logical fallacy called the argument from incredulity.
And yet you posit it anyway?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then you don't know what evidence is.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/evidence#:~:text=Evidence%20is%20anything%20that%20you,true%20or%20has%20really%20happened.

This was in response to, "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."

Evidence that is not verifiable is not evidence. It's just a claim.

You've repeatedly claimed that you have "evidence for the undetectable" but when pressed on it, you've provided zero evidence for the undetectable. Your claim itself is illogical in the first place, as you're claiming to be able to detect that which is undetectable.

 

[wellwisher]

This is the selective over reaching the objective verifiable evidence to justify a reality that does not fit the objective evidence as a whole.

The problem is current evolutionary theory starts its story at replicators. The replicators somehow poof into existence, without the theory offering any mechanism that can prove this poof. There is a problem with the foundation. If we ignore, the hows and whys of the poof, and assume we can just start at the poof, the theory correlates fine. But how did the poof, that is needed, happen, so the ducks can align in a row? Did the theory reverse engineer; 19th century macro world, and get stuck at the 20th century, micro poof?

I like to go further back into time and approach the poof from the other direction by starting at physical creation; BB onward. Maybe we can see the logic trends of the universe, leading up to the poof. At one time, about 370,000 years after the BB, the universe was mostly hydrogen atoms; H and hydrogen molecules; H2. If we look at life, hydrogen and hydrogen bonding are very common to the living state. That shows a connection between the early universe's main material 370,000 after the BB and the critical bonding forces used by life.

Life makes strategic use of the most common material in the universe. Replicators work because of hydrogen bonding between base pairs. Life would not work without this secondary bonding force; hydrogen bonding, that makes use of the most abundant material in the universe. Hydrogen is also the food for stars and the foundation for higher atoms; useful multifunction building material.

Fusion of hydrogen, into higher atoms like helium, carbon, oxygen etc., releases lots of energy. This implies the original hydrogen protons of the universe, that life uses for its hydrogen bonding and templates binding, contain more free energy, than all the protons in the rest of the atoms of the periodic table. These original, higher free energy protons, are being selectively used by life, to form the template relationships and to maintain various structures. Does life make use of this extra free energy? Or is the free energy of the H use life to lower its energy?

Life tends to use mostly atoms lower of the periodic table; H, O, C, N, etc., (peptide linkage). These lower atoms tends to be produced by first generation stars. The first generation stars made enough small atoms for both amino and nucleic acids, starting with simple molecules we can form from these four atoms; H2, H20, CH4, NH3, CN, CO, CO2, etc. By virtue of molecular abundance in the universe, the top two molecules are H2 and H2O, which is the energy bandwidth of life. The point I am making is the universe was optimized for life to appear, with an early foundation firmly placed. This is not by coincidence and chance but abundance.

What puts this over the top is water; H2O, the second most common molecule of the universe. It has to be special. Water, pound for pound, forms the most hydrogen bonds in nature, with each tiny water molecule able to form up to four hydrogen bonds. This creates a very unique matrix based on the dominate free energy material; H, of the universe. We could not have planned better for success.

The central oxygen atom of water can hold more electrons than it has protons; O-2. Oxygen overcomes this charge imbalance and repulsion, through magnetic addition. The EM force works as a team with E; electostatic force able to increase; charge imbalance, as long as the M; magnetic force, decreases potential. The Oxygen will try to form an octet of electrons, which add extra electrons, but also has enhanced magnetic stability, allowing it to overcome the added electrostatic repulsion. The hydrogen of water by connecting to a central oxygen and neighboring oxygen; via a covalent and hydrogen bond, can participate in the split in the EM force created by oxygen. The hydrogen and oxygen can form and break bonds and switching partners. The result is a matrix that can transmit information and the extra free energy of the primal hydrogen.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Both how things work and why they and we are here are important in their own way and can be obtained in different ways.

How did you determine the purpose of why we're (supposedly) here? What is it?
And why do you feel the need to have purpose foisted upon you by some outside force?

 

[SkepticThinker]

True, we can end up believing rubbish but it is our only option in finding anything other than how the physical universe works.

Then faith has no use in helping is determine fact from fiction.
Faith is just believing whatever you want to believe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No good for you if you want certainty in all you believe I suppose.

It's not good for anybody who cares about being rational and believing in as many true things and as few false things as possible.

The Bible God has revealed Himself to us throug Jesus.

That's the claim.

I know this by faith in God and His Word and what I seem to have learned in my years as a Christian.

You don't know it then. You believe it because you want to.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem is current evolutionary theory starts its story at replicators.

Which is part or the definition of evolution. No problem.

The replicators somehow poof into existence, without the theory offering any mechanism that can prove this poof. There is a problem with the foundation. If we ignore, the hows and whys of the poof, and assume we can just start at the poof, the theory correlates fine. But how did the poof, that is needed, happen, so the ducks can align in a row? Did the theory reverse engineer; 19th century macro world, and get stuck at the 20th century, micro poof?

Terrible intentional ignorance of science with the redundant meaningless use of 'poof.' Its terribly ridiculous and reflects an ancient religious agenda and a terrible illogical arguing from ignorance. It is obvious that in all sciences that there are unanswered questions, poofing is foolishness, See: Abiogenesis discoveries and research,

pood.'poof.'
I like to go further back into time and approach the poof from the other direction by starting at physical creation; BB onward. Maybe we can see the logic trends of the universe, leading up to the poof. At one time, about 370,000 years after the BB, the universe was mostly hydrogen atoms; H and hydrogen molecules; H2. If we look at life, hydrogen and hydrogen bonding are very common to the living state. That shows a connection between the early universe's main material 370,000 after the BB and the critical bonding forces used by life.

Life makes strategic use of the most common material in the universe. Replicators work because of hydrogen bonding between base pairs. Life would not work without this secondary bonding force; hydrogen bonding, that makes use of the most abundant material in the universe. Hydrogen is also the food for stars and the foundation for higher atoms; useful multifunction building material.

Fusion of hydrogen, into higher atoms like helium, carbon, oxygen etc., releases lots of energy. This implies the original hydrogen protons of the universe, that life uses for its hydrogen bonding and templates binding, contain more free energy, than all the protons in the rest of the atoms of the periodic table. These original, higher free energy protons, are being selectively used by life, to form the template relationships and to maintain various structures. Does life make use of this extra free energy? Or is the free energy of the H use life to lower its energy?

Life tends to use mostly atoms lower of the periodic table; H, O, C, N, etc., (peptide linkage). These lower atoms tends to be produced by first generation stars. The first generation stars made enough small atoms for both amino and nucleic acids, starting with simple molecules we can form from these four atoms; H2, H20, CH4, NH3, CN, CO, CO2, etc. By virtue of molecular abundance in the universe, the top two molecules are H2 and H2O, which is the energy bandwidth of life. The point I am making is the universe was optimized for life to appear, with an early foundation firmly placed. This is not by coincidence and chance but abundance.

What puts this over the top is water; H2O, the second most common molecule of the universe. It has to be special. Water, pound for pound, forms the most hydrogen bonds in nature, with each tiny water molecule able to form up to four hydrogen bonds. This creates a very unique matrix based on the dominate free energy material; H, of the universe. We could not have planned better for success.

The central oxygen atom of water can hold more electrons than it has protons; O-2. Oxygen overcomes this charge imbalance and repulsion, through magnetic addition. The EM force works as a team with E; electostatic force able to increase; charge imbalance, as long as the M; magnetic force, decreases potential. The Oxygen will try to form an octet of electrons, which add extra electrons, but also has enhanced magnetic stability, allowing it to overcome the added electrostatic repulsion. The hydrogen of water by connecting to a central oxygen and neighboring oxygen; via a covalent and hydrogen bond, can participate in the split in the EM force created by oxygen. The hydrogen and oxygen can form and break bonds and switching partners. The result is a matrix that can transmit information and the extra free energy of the primal hydrogen.

OK, interesting, but needs clarification of what you intend by 'poof.' Sarcasm?

 

[SkepticThinker]

IOW, in logica, your conclusion is going to be, at best, only as correct as your assumptions / premises / starting points are.

It's the concept of GIGO = garbage in, garbage out.

This is why in logic, it's kind of important that your premises are justified.
So when you start with baseless, unjustifiable assumptions (like a priori faith based religious beliefs), your conclusion will be just as baseless and unjustified.

This ^^^

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is current evolutionary theory starts its story at replicators.

That's not a problem. That's just its scope.
It is only a problem in your imagination and / or strawman version of the theory.

The replicators somehow poof into existence, without the theory offering any mechanism that can prove this poof.

Evolution theory says nothing at all about how they came into existence, as it is not within its scope.
The "poofing" part is yet another strawman. Also a quite ironic one, since the "poofing" is what creationists claim.

There is a problem with the foundation.

There isn't.


The rest of your rambling post is just that: rambling. Because it all builds further on that strawman you started out with.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Speculation about the origins of the universe and of life, even if based on evidence that science can use, are still speculations.

Speculations based in evidence (supported empirically) are not the same as unfalsifiable religious speculations, just as speculations about what the weather will be like are not equally meaningful if they are based in weather forecasting science rather than being based in tossing chicken bones.

if you want to say that a naturalistic answer is the only possible true one that is your decision.

There you go again. I haven't read those words from anybody but you.

guessing what probably happened based on the presumption that God did not do any of it, does not make for fact.

And again. Will you continue ignoring this matter of you changing what you read into something else? It seems so. And I will continue pointing it out whenever I see it. Is that good for you? Is that how you'd like the future to proceed - you making the same error repeatedly, having it called out, ignoring that, and making it again? .

When it comes to Biblical interpretation, that can change over the years when humans find out facts that show us what the interpetation should be. eg if it is discovered that there was no world wide flood but was a large local flood, that is what the interpetation should be, a large local flood,,,,,,,,,,,,, and interestingly that is how the story can be translated.

What you're saying here is that the science ("humans find[ing] out facts") is the arbiter of the truth, not scripture, which must be reinterpreted to align with the science. Why go to a Bible for information when the believers themselves go to the science to find out how those scriptures should be understood?

Beyond reasonable doubt this was designed.

Yet people more skilled at reasoning and interpreting evidence than you disagree.

Science just covers the physical and cannot speak about the spiritual aspect of life.

Sure it does. Science ("humans find[ing] out facts"), or more properly, empiricism, accounts for spiritual experience the same way it accounts for other experience, such as experiencing something as valuable or beautiful. They're psychological states conjured up by the brain.

If the evidence cannot be tested to see if it is true or not, that is what I mean by unverifiable evidence.

I've posted this before, but perhaps it's time to do so again. Evidence is not tested, nor is it verifiable. What are tested and verified (or not) are conclusions drawn from that evidence. What is called scientific evidence is the evidence scientists use to arrive at conclusions, but it's no different than any other kind of evidence used for any other purpose. Gastronomical evidence is what things taste like. Economic evidence is what economists use to arrive at conclusions. It's all just evidence.

And there is a distinction between evidence and evidence of. It's evidence as soon as it becomes evident to the senses. The mind can then evaluate its implications using memory and fallacy-free reasoning to decide what it is evidence of.

The Bible is evidence for the Bible God

No, it's not. It's evidence, because it can be experienced using the senses, and it's evidence of something, but not of the god it describes. It's evidence that somebody wrote the words in it, and that they have been printed and assembled in book form. That's it. It's not evidence that any of its claims are true, nor even evidence that writers believed what they wrote - just that they wrote those words.

God cannot be detected in any physical test because God is not part of the physical universe.

That's true for leprechauns and vampires as well, but not for anything known to actually exist.

I did not say science is not a good thing. Parts of it are speculation however.

Everything you believe about gods is pure speculation.

Myth does not always mean untrue however, it can mean a true story told in allegories or metaphors.

No, myth is neither allegory nor metaphor. Unlike myth, the latter are not speculation. And also unlike myth, they do not try to explain anything.

God stops and exists in timelessness.

Existing implies the passage of time, just like thinking and acting. The qualities of the existent are that they can be found at some (or all) times in some (or all) places interacting with other things that exist. These three things are all true of every real thing, but none are true of imagined things with no external referent. Contrast wolves with werewolves to see why this is so. Wolves can affect their surrounding (which is evidence of their existence) wherever they are whenever they are there. Werewolves never affect anything anywhere ever, becuase they cant if they don't exist.

there can be evidence for the undetectable.

No, there can't. If say that you have evidence of something, you are saying that you detected it. Think of the wolf and werewolf again. One is detectable, that is, is evident to the senses