There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Sheldon]

We Never Know said: ↑
How life came to be and has since evolved is two completely different subjects.

Not really. You would be more accurate to say we have theories about both. But again, who cares about point A to point B if we don't even know where life came from?

This implies you don't care about facts, unless they confirm the beliefs you are already emotionally invested in. That aside, you seem to have ignored what was actually said with some vapid hand waving.

FYI you should care because it makes more sense for beliefs to be formed from facts, than trying to deny facts when they contradict or don't support beliefs.

 

[PearlSeeker]

It's your claim, so you should be creating an argument for it, and what you think it means. What purpose are you claiming exists in nature, what are you claiming you think this means, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support whatever claims you are making?

The very presence of mind (conscious intelligent life) in universe. It can't be explained as (or reduced to) just a cosmic fart.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
It's your claim, so you should be creating an argument for it, and what you think it means. What purpose are you claiming exists in nature, what are you claiming you think this means, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support whatever claims you are making?

The very presence of mind (conscious intelligent life) in universe. It can't be explained as (or reduced to) just a cosmic fart.

So that's a no then, you have no argument, explanation, or evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

I see what you’re saying about what does the universe need with a God? My view is there wouldn’t be a universe without God and it’s Jesus Christ who holds everything together.

OK, that is a claim. Now, can you show how that leads to a better understanding of the universe than the standard claim?

What observations does your claim predict? What phenomena does it suggest will happen? How many decimal places does it add to our understanding of some measurement?

We have two models:

One has a God that made the universe and that is not himself created.

The other has no God and the universe not created.

Why is the first one a better explanation of *anything* than the second?

God needs nothing but decided to create man for fellowship, love and blessing, so we could share in His holiness. This is what I see in the Gospel

OK, so that is what you (and others) see. Why is that the correct interpretation? Why does that make the Bible correct?

 

[Polymath257]

The very presence of mind (conscious intelligent life) in universe. It can't be explained as (or reduced to) just a cosmic fart.

But it can be explained by the increasing complexity of information processing that is seen in the evolution of the brain.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And we do have evidence for abiogenesis. You just won't follow the rules so you cannot demand that I show it to you.

Wow, that is so convincing! "I would show you, but I'm not going to do that because you hurt my feelings."

 

[Wildswanderer]

Incorrect. Maybe not recently but you have been provided with evidence of it.

Where?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow, that is so convincing! "I would show you, but I'm not going to do that because you hurt my feelings."

No, that is not it. You will not enter into a proper discussion. Do you know what ignorant people do with evidence? They merely deny it. Which is once again breaking the Ninth Commandment. Think of it this way, I am keeping you from getting in trouble with your made up version of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where?

I am not sure exactly where, but the Miller-Urey experiment has been mentioned. Like it or not that, by definition, is evidence for abiogenesis.

 

[Polymath257]

Wow, that is so convincing! "I would show you, but I'm not going to do that because you hurt my feelings."

So, the first thing is that we do not have the details of how abiogenesis happened.

The question is whether it is possible to get from the types of chemicals we can find readily in the universe to the types of chemicals and reactions we see in life.

Let's start 200 years ago. At that time, there was a distinction made between 'organic' chemistry, which was the chemistry of life, and 'inorganic' chemistry, which was pretty much everything else. At the time, it was thought to be impossible for anything 'inorganic' to produce anything 'organic'. This was an early form of the viewpoint that abiogenesis is impossible.

But, what happened was that urea, an organic chemical, was made from inorganic chemicals in the lab. This was the first inkling that the chemistry of life is not different in principle from the chemistry of everything else. This was the first evidence that abiogenesis might be possible.

Now, this was just the first organic chemical to be artificially made. many more came later and now we know how to produce many simple organic chemicals from inorganic precursors. During this same time, we learned much more about the chemistry of life.

So, we learned that all of life is based on just a few different types of simple chemicals that are put together in a variety of ways. Proteins are made of amino acids, for example. There are thousands of different types of proteins, but only 20 amino acids that made them up. Similarly, DNA and RNA are made from a total of 5 different nucleic bases. There are also a variety of sugars, and some fats (lipids).

So, there became two big questions:

1. Can those simple chemicals arise by natural processes on the early Earth or in the universe at large?

2. Can those simple chemicals spontaneously combine to form the more complicated types of chemicals that we see in living things?

The Urey-Miller experiment addressed the first question with amino acids. Once again, the view at the time was the amino acids were too complicated to form spontaneously from the types of chemicals we knew existed in the universe (ammonia, water, methane, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc).

But what was discovered was that even very simple conditions would produce amino acids in abundance. Subsequent experiments showed that a wide variety of initial conditions lead to the formation of the amino acids we see in proteins. This was a surprise and was supporting evidence that abiogenesis might be possible.

In other experiments, it was found that the other simple molecules that are the components of life, like the nucleic bases, could also be formed in a wide variety of situations that would be expected on the early Earth. So, once again, this was evidence that abiogenesis might be possible.

On a different line, the question of whether the simple amino acids and nucleic bases could spontaneously link together to form the more complicated molecules we see in life needed to be addressed. This gets more technical since it has to do with more specific questions. This will be a later post.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That's your interpretation. But it isn't the only one. Another one is that he shows how little we know and how fruitless certain types of questions are.



Which, given the context of the book as a whole, is a cop-out. It is more of a bone tossed out to the religious authorities than anything else.

It's the conclusion everything else was leading to, as it plainly states.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I am not sure exactly where, but the Miller-Urey experiment has been mentioned. Like it or not that, by definition, is evidence for abiogenesis.

Nope I have asked multiple times and no one gave me any answers or mentioned any experiment.

 

[Wildswanderer]

This implies you don't care about facts, unless they confirm the beliefs you are already emotionally invested in. That aside, you seem to have ignored what was actually said with some vapid hand waving.

FYI you should care because it makes more sense for beliefs to be formed from facts, than trying to deny facts when they contradict or don't support beliefs.

Again, we aren't discussing evolution. It has nothing to do with the subject, as you all have said over and over in similar discussions, so why are you all deflecting?

 

[Firelight]

I once made a thread with the same attitude.
How to prove God.
Tell me, what happens when God "proves himself in a matter of seconds". How does this look like exactly?

It’s not a look, it’s a thought or a feel. He manifests in different ways. For me, it’s often that He answers my questions through clear thoughts. I know full well it’s not my own thoughts answering because I don’t possess the kind of intelligence that I receive. Sometimes, I am told to do something in order to get the answer, and when I do it, I find the answer to my question.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The Urey-Miller experiment addressed the first question with amino acids.

In 1953?
In 2006, paleontologist Peter Ward said: “Harvard University just put a hundred million dollars into a center for the origin of life,” and predicted that because origin of life research is “one of the hottest scientific areas in the world we will have artificial life … in a decade.”

Still waiting....

 

[an anarchist]

It’s not a look, it’s a thought or a feel. He manifests in different ways. For me, it’s often that He answers my questions through clear thoughts. I know full well it’s not my own thoughts answering because I don’t possess the kind of intelligence that I receive. Sometimes, I am told to do something in order to get the answer, and when I do it, I find the answer to my question.

Is it not in the realm of possibility that what you are experiencing is the power of the creative mind, rather than god? That became my opinion.
Thanks for sharing

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope I have asked multiple times and no one gave me any answers or mentioned any experiment.

Well it won't take you long to learn what evidence is and since we do not want you to risk your soul with breaking a Commandment that you never apologized to God for let's cover evidence quickly.

Different areas require different sorts of evidence. For science one has to use scientific evidence. And since scientists are human it was defined so that one could not simply deny it. It puts a burden of proof upon those that oppose it. The definition is rather short:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

You can read more there if you like, or I can find other sites that give you the same definition.

To have scientific evidence one only needs a testable hypothesis and the second thing one needs is an observation. If one has both of those one has scientific evidence. Do you understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In 1953?
In 2006, paleontologist Peter Ward said: “Harvard University just put a hundred million dollars into a center for the origin of life,” and predicted that because origin of life research is “one of the hottest scientific areas in the world we will have artificial life … in a decade.”

Still waiting....

So what? Do you know what problems they have answered? Do you know what problems they have not answered?

And yes man has made artificial life:

Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'

But it is still a "So what" since making artificial life is not abiogenesis.

EDIT: And it was well within ten years.

 

[Polymath257]

In 1953?

Yes. And?

The goal was to see if amino acids could arise. They did.

In 2006, paleontologist Peter Ward said: “Harvard University just put a hundred million dollars into a center for the origin of life,” and predicted that because origin of life research is “one of the hottest scientific areas in the world we will have artificial life … in a decade.”

Still waiting....

Yes. But has progress been made? Do we understand the issues now better than we did then? Are we any closer in an objective way?

yes, yes, yes.

 

[Polymath257]

So what? Do you know what problems they have answered? Do you know what problems they have not answered?

And yes man has made artificial life:

Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'

But it is still a "So what" since making artificial life is not abiogenesis.

EDIT: And it was well within ten years.

This is controversial. He definitely put many artificial aspects into it, but used a living cell for some of the metabolism. So it is 'partly artificial'.

In any case, it is definite progress towards *completely* artificial life.

I would also point out that we have been able to extend the genetic code by adding new transfer RNA and thereby new amino acids to the encoding. That also uses previously live cell metabolism, but with artificial proteins.

Again, progress but not a home run.