TrueBeliever37
Well-Known Member
But science can't explain how you get life from dead matter.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution
- Thread starter Little Nipper
- Start date
You really should review the evidence. Did they not cover it in middle and high schools?
Observation: You seem to believe a narrative with even less evidence than science has supporting it's old Earth, early life claims. How does that make sense?
No worries.
Atheism, per se, does not make this claim.
So? It can't explain a lot of things. That doesn't mean they're inexplicable or a product of magic.
Goddidit! doesn't explain it either, and science has a lot more understanding of how it likely happened than theists even attempt to find.
Moreover, lack of understanding about the origins of life does not change the fact that we do have very good, well-evidenced and verified knowledge about how it changed over time, once it did get here.
Sure it was a belief. Beliefs are ontologically neutral, are they not? They may be true, partly true, or false.
What we're questioning here is truth-value, not whether something is a belief.
Do you have any evidence for this vitalism?
Definition of VITALISM
a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from physicochemical forces; a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining… See the full definition
Google "chemical evolution"
Badly named, I know.
...or are you talking about evolution?
Even with no objective evidence, how would magic be a reasonable conclusion?
Not entirely true. We can, for example, explain where the heavier elements came from (interiors of stars and supernova). We can explain the formation of nebula with such elements and thereby the development of new stars with planets. Our planet Earth is but one example.
But when you ask where things 'come from', you are assuming they 'come from' something at all: that causality is relevant for the 'original' matter or energy. If, instead, time is finite into the past (and even more so if it is not), such considerations may not be relevant at all (or there simply might be no 'first').
That is simply a matter of entropy.
'Dead matter' is more randomized, and has no mechanism for directing energy in the way 'living matter' does. In fact, that is what happens at death: the powerhouses of the cells stop functioning because of a lack of oxygen. That means that reactions occur that poison other reactions, leading to an irreversible deterioration of metabolism.
If certain events happened, they would be *expected* to leave evidence. So the lack of evidence *is* a good reason to think those events did not happen.
Actually, no it is not. What sort of evidence *could* show that a deity exists? By what means would such an existence be testable?
Given that we have had thousands of years to explore this question, the lack of an answer, even at the most basic level, suggests the whole question is moot. Until there is a reason to believe, there is no reason to believe. The default position is lack of existence. That is as true for Sasquatch as it is for Higg's bosons, as it is for dark matter as it is for deities. it is *evidence* that provides reasons to postulate the existence of something.
At this point, the collection of things 'God' is a required explanation for is minimal and probably empty. While that is not a *proof* of non-existence, it also makes it perverse to claim existence.
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim.
This is true for *any* existence claim, whether it be for neutrinos, the Loch Ness monster, or deities. It's just that the believers in deities try to such that burden and claim a need to prove non-existence. Given that such is impossible (not just for deities, but for anything), that is simply an unreasonable diversion.
Well, this requires looking at what life actually is: a very complex collection of chemical reactions that are far from equilibrium and maintained by mechanisms directing energy to maintaining that lack of equilibrium.
So the real question is how the chemicals we *know* existed could get far enough away from equilibrium and maintain that in a way that allows duplication.
But these claims are based on evidence we can find *today*, not ancient writings subject to translation errors and misinterpretation (not to mention superstition and ignorance on the part of the authors). Instead we look at the universe itself and the remains of events that happened in the past (a much more reliable source of information, even for more recent events).
Not quite true. We know that life is simply a complex collection of chemical reactions far from equilibrium. The only real mysteries are how the original chemicals got far from equilibrium in a way that allowed for duplication to occur.
There is no real distinction between the chemicals in 'living matter' and those in 'dead matter'. The same laws of chemistry and physics apply. A DNA molecule is not, itself, alive, but it is crucial for life because of the many ways it interacts with other chemicals.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Here's how I look at it, TrueBeliever 37: the Bible speaks of circumstances we are not used to, such as Adam being created from the dust. But that is what the Bible says, and however it works, I believe it. (P.S. I do not believe it is fiction, although I suppose some enjoy fairytales.) '
This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for out of man she was taken.”
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
So science has realized that bones can be evidence of a person. And that reproduction causes two persons to make another. But a man cannot make a child without a woman. Therefore it makes sense to me that God made the woman from Adam's rib. Does the Bible describe extraordinary events? Yes, of course it does.
I always keep in mind (even for @IndigoChild5559) that even the Jews rebelled against their deliverer, Moses, in the wilderness. And then God had to take action. He demonstrated love many times, even by chastising his people. If people don't believe it, that's really between them and God, because like Saul, who became Paul, extraordinary events can lead an honest hearted person to the one true God.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I realize that stars, moons, and planets do not speak and they are not considered alive by scientists. But this does not mean God did not create them. Also, about natural life itself. That some cells may have put themselves together does not mean that birds are not fabulous creatures. I think they are, and I don't think they came about by "natural evolution." I also don't think that science has the goods on these things. They may have theories and fossils they analyze and place within the realm of their logic.
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
none of these other gods have the evidence to support their deity. So no, my wager stands firm as it always has.
I dont know why you separate the Jewish God from Christian God. Even Jews will admit they are the same God! the only difference between the two is whether or not Christ was God. This has no bearing on the belief in the Father
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Your God is equally lacking when it comes to such evidence so I do not see how you think that you are ahead.
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
given your usual way of thinking about these things, im not suprised by that statement. You are an individual who doesnt give a rats...so why even bother? As i have said before, i do not know why you even discuss these things...its a pointless endeavour to even engage with you on these things. But you know what, as ive done many times before, ill go there again...
1. Epistomology forms part of human nature. We are inquisitive and want to know where we came from, why we are here, and what happens next. Its innate within us that we do not want to die.
2. The most consistent answer to the above question with by far (and i mean BY FAR) the most volumous evidence is Christianity. Its writings are the oldest, most consistent, and most well supported through internal and external evidence, of any philosophical world view. when applied to all aspects of our existence, it better answers the Epistomological dilemma humans face than any other world view.
3. We all know that you dont believe the above, but honestly, i dont really care. The reason i don't care is that you refuse to even research the Christian philosophy and its evidences properly...so engaging with you at length on these issues is timewasting.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What makes you think that your epistemology is superior in any way to that of other religions? As usual all you have are empty claims.
And yes, we do not want to die. How does that help you?
Oldest does not mean "best" and you probably have no idea ow old the Bible is. It is probably much younger than you believe it to be.
That is true. And do you know why I do not believe you? Because all you have are empty claims again. You did not present any evidence. You did not even make a coherent argument.