The creator did it.

[Truly Enlightened]

A natural preexisting force, an undetectable enigma.

Oh. you mean the "woo-woo" force.

 

[Polymath257]

If its so common, life, then why dont we see other trees of life then our own on earth.

Because the other trees died out through competition.

And why is intellect not even given a chance, nor a consideration? It is ignored.
Not tested for.

Not ignored. But nobody has suggested a test that can be done and gives a clear signal.

Can you suggest one?

 

[Rapture Era]

This thread has become absolutely hilarious! You have the atheists with an "absolute" impossibility of life starting on it's own by natural means arguing that it did, with atheist web sites than can only come up with, maybe, could have, we believe might have, and in conclusion by honest scientists that this evolution hypothesis is falling apart at the seems, still wanting to make ludicrous statements that meaningless, purposeless matter can some how gain intelligence to morph into something scientifically it cant! So, here is what you do, you keep cheering for your side no matter how ridiculous. In the end, if you are wrong, you will accept your decision and you cannot blame it on anyone else because it was YOU who made that decision! God doesn't send anyone to hell so don't whine about that, and he doesn't send anyone to heaven, we decide where we want to spend our eternity and we decide here while we are here on earth. When we die (and none of us knows when that will be) that's it, your eternity is sealed. Good luck!

 

[Subduction Zone]

This thread has become absolutely hilarious! You have the atheists with an "absolute" impossibility of life starting on it's own by natural means arguing that it did, with atheist web sites than can only come up with, maybe, could have, we believe might have, and in conclusion by honest scientists that this evolution hypothesis is falling apart at the seems, still wanting to make ludicrous statements that meaningless, purposeless matter can some how gain intelligence to morph into something scientifically it cant! So, here is what you do, you keep cheering for your side no matter how ridiculous. In the end, if you are wrong, you will accept your decision and you cannot blame it on anyone else because it was YOU who made that decision! God doesn't send anyone to hell so don't whine about that, and he doesn't send anyone to heaven, we decide where we want to spend our eternity and we decide here while we are here on earth. When we die (and none of us knows when that will be) that's it, your eternity is sealed. Good luck!

If you want to claim that life starting on its own the burden of proof is upon you. Many scientists, and definitely not all atheists, think that it is possible.

Can you support your claim? Odds arguments are usually amazingly easy to refute since they are almost always based upon false premises.

What do you have?

 

[Misunderstood]

If you read some of the sources provided you will see that there appear to be multiple pathways to life so it will be all but impossible to say "this is how life was formed". What we do have is evidence for abiogenesis and no evidence for an intelligence being involved.

Exactly! What I was trying to say before there may well be multiple ways to create life. And like you just said the harder question might just well be, "all but impossible to say "this is how life was formed"", or at least here on earth.

Lets say someday man is able to synthesize life, with man having some intelligence; science has at that point only proven an Intelligent Design to life. A pathway to life from a completely random occurrence would still be waiting for proof.

So how can you say. "What we do have is evidence for abiogenesis and no evidence for an intelligence being involved." When with the creation of life by science, what is proven is Intelligent Design by man?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly! What I was trying to say before there may well be multiple ways to create life. And like you just said the harder question might just well be, "all but impossible to say "this is how life was formed"", or at least here on earth.

Lets say someday man is able to synthesize life, with man having some intelligence; science has at that point only proven an Intelligent Design to life. A pathway to life from a completely random occurrence would still be waiting for proof.

So how can you say. "What we do have is evidence for abiogenesis and no evidence for an intelligence being involved." When with the creation of life by science, what is proven is Intelligent Design by man?

You do not seem to understand that there is evidence for life arising naturally. There is no reliable evidence for ID or creationism. I can say that because I understand the concept of evidence.

This is a scientific discussion. So we should be using scientific evidence, a well defined concept:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

That definition forces scientists to put their money where there mouth is. If they want to claim evidence they need a testable hypothesis first. That means they must think of a reasonable test that could possibly refute their claim. Creationists appear to be afraid to take this necessary step. Instead they make ad hoc explanations, which are worthless in the world of science, and then they get offended when their ideas are refuted. Look at how Behe reacted to his claims of "irreducible complexity" being refuted. He tried to redefine what he meant when it turned out other scientists took his claim and found a way to test it themselves. He was not happy that his ideas constantly failed.

When people make various hypotheses they often do not know the results of the tests that they propose ahead of time. If their idea passes their test it means that they may be on the right track. If it fails it is time to go back to the drawing board using the information one got from the failure. Creationists ideas tend to be worthless since ideally they are written so they can't be tested. One cannot learn from them either way.

 

[Misunderstood]

You do not seem to understand that there is evidence for life arising naturally. There is no reliable evidence for ID or creationism. I can say that because I understand the concept of evidence.

This is a scientific discussion. So we should be using scientific evidence, a well defined concept:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

That definition forces scientists to put their money where there mouth is. If they want to claim evidence they need a testable hypothesis first. That means they must think of a reasonable test that could possibly refute their claim. Creationists appear to be afraid to take this necessary step. Instead they make ad hoc explanations, which are worthless in the world of science, and then they get offended when their ideas are refuted. Look at how Behe reacted to his claims of "irreducible complexity" being refuted. He tried to redefine what he meant when it turned out other scientists took his claim and found a way to test it themselves. He was not happy that his ideas constantly failed.

When people make various hypotheses they often do not know the results of the tests that they propose ahead of time. If their idea passes their test it means that they may be on the right track. If it fails it is time to go back to the drawing board using the information one got from the failure. Creationists ideas tend to be worthless since ideally they are written so they can't be tested. One cannot learn from them either way.

OK, you say there is evidence for how life started, does that mean that, that evidence can be used for only one hypothesis? Can't creationists use the same evidence?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Agreed.
I do not know. In my first biology courses as a young student, the prevailing view was that they were not alive, but since then, I have learned much more and my concept of what a living thing is, has changed.

It would be if that is what I have done, but I did not. Let me reiterate within the context that my previous post was misunderstood. I stated that the creationist concept of spontaneous generation was refuted by the work of scientists like Redi and Pasteur and that it is different from the scientific hypotheses of abiogenesis which are about life originating from pre-existing chemistry.

No. I have not. I recognize them. My understanding of abiogenesis is based on what is known about these precursors.

That is the basis of the hypotheses and I agree it is reasonable and logical to consider it so, given what we know.

That is an interesting way to put it. I would have said billions of individuals acting in concert, but tomato...

I do not consider them that primitive either.

Yes.

These are some interesting questions and I have no definitive answers. Must the constituent parts that make up living cells, themselves, be alive? They do not appear to independently possess all the characteristics of life, but those cells need them to maintain and perpetuate. A definitive answer is beyond the scope needed to address what we have been talking about so far, but I would conclude, under my current understanding that the organelles and molecules that make up cells are not alive in the same sense that the cell is, but working in concert, the emergent property we see is...life.

I love that episode. Cosmic poker with Kirk bluffing a win.

Aliens creating us does not constitute a supernatural cause, but I am not advocating that they created us either. I have a faith-based view, but bringing it to bear is not required or even of any value in a discussion about what we know and can demonstrate in the physical world. I cannot demonstrate my belief, only the basis, but then again, they cannot be falsified either. In my view, they have no bearing on the validity of science.

I have not made an appeal to God as the cause of what we see in this discussion. That may be my personal belief, but I do not have the arrogance to just go with that or to conclude such foolishness as others do not see it because they are in collusion against God. There is a lot of nonsense bandied about by others that I do not believe either. None of it would be relevant in addressing the questions of the OP. I have stuck with the facts.

I just demonstrated that I never said that. I do not know it to be a truth that I can demonstrate to others. I believe it to be, but that is not relevant to the discussion.

If it was self-evident, then there would be no discussion or need for one. Like I said, there are a lot of believers that make a lot of silly statements. I do my best to refrain from joining them. In science discussions, I have no interest in bringing my personal beliefs, willfully into the discussion. Unless you know otherwise, they are not relevant.

True, but not relevant to answering the questions of the OP. The OP asks if someone can ignore science and believe as they choose and I stipulate that they can and that doing so is even protected by law in some countries. I did not make any claims about the wisdom of doing so or that it gave the believer special rights to force their personal beliefs on others. I so stipulate now, that I do not see any wisdom in doing so, but that does not change the fact that people can do so.

I am a Christian, to be sure, but I am not a strict creationist, immersed in dogma at the expense of reason and observation. I do not believe that I should look at all the evidence and then lie to myself and sacrifice my intelligence in obedience to the unsubstantiated interpretation of a minority. I believe in the spirit of Biblical teaching, but I do not believe the Bible is an inerrant, literal work of science or history. I do believe that much can be learned from the Bible and that even viewing it allegorically, it remains the basis of a theology. However, I go to lengths to keep my personal beliefs out of discussions about science. I believed I was successful in doing that here, but apparently not for all.

I afraid I am not certain what your position really is. Either you believe in the reality that exists, or you simply create the reality you want to exist. Do you believe or acknowledge that all life, including its non-living components, are controlled only by how they interacts with the four fundamental forces of nature? Do you believe that over time, inert and non-living matter(chemicals and molecules), would assemble themselves to become more efficient, and produce a single precursor to life? And eventually over a billion years, to produce a completely primitive living organism? This would be thermodynamically driven by an open system, not simply by probability alone. After the first primitive life evolved, evolution became a fact. Also, the less specialize an organism is, the more primitive it is. We are all a composite of billions of singularly specialized cells. We are NOT something greater than the sum of these parts.

Also, if you make comments, you must expect your comments to be addressed. You can't manipulate, or deflect the scope of the response, by deciding if it is relevant or germane to the OP. You made the comments concerning Religion and the Constitution. "People are free to do just that and believe as they choose. This is a recognized freedom and protected in the constitutions of many countries". Therefore, my comments were relevant. You are the one that also slipped in God's will and action as the source of creation, "In fact, the description of God creating man is a description of life forming from non-living matter. In that case, it is believed to have been under the will and action of God, but aside from that difference, the essence of the issue roughly aligns with current scientific hypotheses.". You are saying that the only exception to the creation of life from non-living matter is God's will and actions. This is special pleading, and an argument from ignorance. If you don't want people to address your comments, simply don't make them. Finally, if you believe in all the fundamental scientific explanations, and their underlying laws and Theories, then why are you a Christian believing in an errant Book of fictions, superstitions, fables, and myths? Is it only because you have the freedom to do so?

A virus is not alive until it is attached to a host. It will then exhibit all the characteristics of being alive. Your reference to spontaneous generation has nothing to do with non-living, inert precursors to life. Spontaneous generation was a term used as a result of human ignorance, and was applied to anything that appeared that wasn't there before. If you left some cheese out the night before, and rats appeared in the morning, spontaneous generation was the answer given for the rats appearance. Maybe you should have given some examples of these precursors that supported the chemical evolution claim. Perhaps you could have stated that these precursors collectively led to the various stages of producing life(reproduction, excretory, stimulus response, movement, metabolism, etc.) over time. Since you clearly misunderstood my "corbomite" and alien energy example to help rationalize fictitious creationist's arguments, maybe the episode "The Measure of a Man" (Lt. Data) in The Next Generation, might help you determined what components are necessary to be considered as alive.

I appreciate that you measure your comments to appeal to both sides of the argument. Unfortunately, the religious argument has the burden of proof, but refuse to exercise it. They simply keep mindlessly attacking any non-absolute aspect of science that they can find(or told). So unless you are willing to provide any evidence for even ONE example of a miracle, a resurrection, a God(s), a paranormal, supernatural or metaphysical event, a method to determining if all other religions are false, or provide a fallacy-free argument, I'm afraid that you might just wind up avoiding taking any clear position at all. You have already admitted, that you are unable to posit any scientific evidence to support the Bible or any religious beliefs. Therefore, it is inherently disingenuous and hypocritical to create a climate of disbelief, in any non-belief based system of inquiries, like the scientific method of inquiry.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

This thread has become absolutely hilarious! You have the atheists with an "absolute" impossibility of life starting on it's own by natural means arguing that it did, with atheist web sites than can only come up with, maybe, could have, we believe might have, and in conclusion by honest scientists that this evolution hypothesis is falling apart at the seems, still wanting to make ludicrous statements that meaningless, purposeless matter can some how gain intelligence to morph into something scientifically it cant! So, here is what you do, you keep cheering for your side no matter how ridiculous. In the end, if you are wrong, you will accept your decision and you cannot blame it on anyone else because it was YOU who made that decision! God doesn't send anyone to hell so don't whine about that, and he doesn't send anyone to heaven, we decide where we want to spend our eternity and we decide here while we are here on earth. When we die (and none of us knows when that will be) that's it, your eternity is sealed. Good luck!

You are correct, when you die that's it. Unless you can demonstrate that it isn't, I'm afraid you'll just have to suck-it-up. I don't understand why you are in such obstinate denial. You can clearly see from the fossil and current evidence, examples of individual organisms at every stage of development, that is characteristic of the definition of life. Why do you find it so hard to accept and understand why we have a genetic, and almost symbiotic connection with our environment? Why do you keep mindlessly parroting creationist's narrow-minded soundbites? Do you really think that creation and evolution were the product of magic? Can you demonstrate any examples of magic occurring anytime in the history of mankind? But we can certainly point to many examples of science occurring? Any rational person can accept the transition from simple to complex. Unless you think you can play Schumann's Toccata in C Major, without learning simple chords first. So why is it so hard to accept that self-sustaining life was the product of trial and error over time, by an assembly or coming together of non-living materials? Even the fact that we are 99% composed of these non-living materials, don't even cause you to bat an eyelash.

What is clearly obvious, is that you are not interested in science providing you with any evidence. You are only interested in NOT providing any evidence to justify your own religious beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, you say there is evidence for how life started, does that mean that, that evidence can be used for only one hypothesis? Can't creationists use the same evidence?

I have never seen a creationist come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, so no. Creationists have learned one thing, when tested their ideas fail. If one is too afraid to put one's beliefs in the form of a testable hypotheses then by definition they cannot have any evidence.

The fault of the lack of evidence for creationist claims lies upon the creationists themselves.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This thread has become absolutely hilarious! You have the atheists with an "absolute" impossibility of life starting on it's own by natural means arguing that it did, with atheist web sites than can only come up with, maybe, could have, we believe might have, and in conclusion by honest scientists that this evolution hypothesis is falling apart at the seems, still wanting to make ludicrous statements that meaningless, purposeless matter can some how gain intelligence to morph into something scientifically it cant! So, here is what you do, you keep cheering for your side no matter how ridiculous. In the end, if you are wrong, you will accept your decision and you cannot blame it on anyone else because it was YOU who made that decision! God doesn't send anyone to hell so don't whine about that, and he doesn't send anyone to heaven, we decide where we want to spend our eternity and we decide here while we are here on earth. When we die (and none of us knows when that will be) that's it, your eternity is sealed. Good luck!

Well there it is. The old "you're gonna be sorry if you don't believe what I believe" nonsense. Is that actually convincing to anyone? All it sounds like to me is that the poster has run out of arguments. What more can be expected from someone declaring that life starting by natural processes is absolutely impossible.

 

[He has Risen!]

A natural preexisting force, an undetectable enigma.

Not to argue semantics but if this force preexisted nature then It would be a Supernatural force and not a natural one.(i.e.GOD is transcendent to all He has created)

 

[Polymath257]

Not to argue semantics but if this force preexisted nature then It would be a Supernatural force and not a natural one.(i.e.GOD is transcendent to all He has created)

No, it would be an extra-natural force. But that might be a quibble.

What *could* it mean to 'pre-exist nature' given that time is part of nature?

 

[He has Risen!]

No, it would be an extra-natural force. But that might be a quibble.

What *could* it mean to 'pre-exist nature' given that time is part of nature?

The God Who created the universe created matter, space and time as we read in Gen.1:1. He is transcendent to His creation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The God Who created the universe created matter, space and time as we read in Gen.1:1. He is transcendent to His creation.

How can someone demonstrate and verify this assertion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The God Who created the universe created matter, space and time as we read in Gen.1:1. He is transcendent to His creation.

What would keep the universe from doing the same? Why could not the universe exist in some form we do not now recognize "before the Big Bang" (scare quotes used to acknowledge that this may be a nonsensical phrase)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can someone demonstrate and verify this assertion?

I would say that one cannot. The proper answer is of course: "We don't know yet". The difference between scientists and creationists is that scientists are trying to learn what happened. Creationists are too ready to believe the Bible, even though parts of it are obviously wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

The God Who created the universe created matter, space and time as we read in Gen.1:1. He is transcendent to His creation.

So, it isn't *prior* existence, it is separate existence. But since causality requires time, that means that separate existence cannot be a cause of the universe....

 

[He has Risen!]

So, it isn't *prior* existence, it is separate existence. But since causality requires time, that means that separate existence cannot be a cause of the universe....

Hard to follow your logic. So allow me share how God has revealed Himself to be in regards to His existence prior to His creation. He is eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, the universe on the other hand(His creation) has been shown to have a beginning. He is before all things and has brought everything that we see into existence, not being made from what already existed but from what is not seen. How He did this, we cannot explain because our understanding (in science) has not caught up with His wisdom. I am explaining what He has said and not what I am making up on my own. He has also stated that he holds all things together.

 

[Polymath257]

Hard to follow your logic. So allow me share how God has revealed Himself to be in regards to His existence prior to His creation. He is eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, the universe on the other hand(His creation) has been shown to have a beginning. He is before all things and has brought everything that we see into existence, not being made from what already existed but from what is not seen. How He did this, we cannot explain because our understanding (in science) has not caught up with His wisdom. I am explaining what He has said and not what I am making up on my own. He has also stated that he holds all things together.

Once again, this ignores that time is part of the universe. To talk about prior, before, and causality, requires time to exist, which means the universe exists.

There cannot be a 'before time'.

As for 'God saying things', that is clearly NOT the case. Religious texts are written by humans. They have agendas and purposes that are *human* agendas and purposes. God has never written a word that anyone has ever demonstrated. Only fallible humans conveying limited understanding.