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

[ppp]

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....

Still waiting for what? It's been demonstrated that the building blocks of life can arise through normal chemical processes. What are you waiting for? Do you even know?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Still waiting for what? It's been demonstrated that the building blocks of life can arise through normal chemical processes. What are you waiting for? Do you even know?

No, it hasn't. Wishful thinking. A few Amino acids don't equal life.

 

[We Never Know]

Several misunderstandings here.

1. Edge of the *observable* universe. This is just the part of the universe from which we can get information. Since the speed of light is finite and the universe is only finitely old (at least since the beginning of the expansion), there is a limited distance we can see out.

2. That edge is growing at the speed of light (since it is how far light has traveled that determines that edge).

3. What we see now is how things were when light started out from whatever we are looking at. So, what we see now is how it was billions of years in the past, not right now.

4. Whatever we are looking at continued to move away because of the expansion in the time since the light left, so it is farther away now than it was then. So the thing we can see now, had its light start out, say, 10 billion years ago, but is NOW about 30 billion light years away from us.

5. The distance to that farther thing we have evidence about is now about 47 billion light years, not 92 billion. he 92-94 billion figure is the distance across.

So, to summarize, what we see now is information from the past (because light takes time to travel), but the universe has continued to expand, so what we see is currently much farther away than it was when the light started out.

I already mention the observable universe.

And true we see things how get were, not are.
As far as we knw the universe could have starred collapsing back in in itself last year and we wint know for many billions of years.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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

Producing some of the compounds used in life like RNA and polypeptides, is not leading to life.. the problem is to correctly assemble the parts to produce life... and if it could be done in a Lab that means nothing about it happening naturally. The probability is so far out that there's essentially zero chance.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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

Because it's not actually life.

 

[Bird123]

Know that non-locality requires exploration. The most creative non-locality you will ever undertake is the act of creating growth.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Can not growth be local as well? It stares you in the face locally!!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[We Never Know]

What edge? The universe may not have an edge. For details go to a more learned source. And your figure is for the absolute minimum size of the universe. It is thought to be many times that size. but that is as far as we can estimate right now.

As I said, "so to speak".
I look at it like, dropping a stone in a pond and all the ripples go out, there is a leading edge.
So with the universe expanding there could be a leading edge(so to speak) or it never expanded and has always been there.

 

[nPeace]

I have about a 97% confidence level that dark matter exists. It is still possible that a modification to our understanding of gravity will make it unnecessary. All attempts to formulate such a modification have failed to fit the evidence so far.

I have about a 97% confidence level that dark matter exists.
Even if it does exist, we do not know what it is made of.
That is very strong evidence for it to be out there.

I have 1000% confidence that God is.
I don't know what God is made of exactly, but the Bible describes him as a spirit - a form of life far higher than us.
Laws governing the universe; Mathematical equations present in the entire universe; The organization and orderliness of matter in the universe; Information in the cells of all living things; etc. This is all strong evidence for God - a creator.


Scientists have discovered a great deal about earth’s position in our solar system as well as the perfect orbit, size, and mass of our large moon. The arrangement and interrelationship of these heavenly bodies makes possible the beautiful and regular change of seasons. Also, much has been learned about the fine-tuning of natural forces in the universe. Thus, in an article entitled “The Designed ‘Just So’ Universe,” a professor of mechanical engineering observed: “It is quite easy to understand why so many scientists have changed their minds in the past 30 years, agreeing that it takes a great deal of faith to believe the universe can be explained as nothing more than a fortuitous cosmic accident. Evidence for an intelligent designer becomes more compelling the more we understand about our carefully crafted habitat.”

See above. There is strong evidence of its existence, but it is not conclusive.

See above. There is strong evidence of a creator.

Alternative explanations have been tried and have not worked out

Thank you. All explanations have failed. Just a minute...

Spoiler

Psalm 10:4 In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God.”

Can you explain to me again why I need explanations from scientists to investigate a supernatural being.

Furthermore, when your explanations are wrong, you come up with more explanation. Is it any wonder why many scientists leave those explanations behind.

We have a better explanation. You don't, and the "always existed universe" is just another failed explanation.

The More Reasonable explanation
When we view life and the universe as the work of a wise Creator who possesses an “abundance of dynamic energy,” we can explain not only the complexity of life’s information systems but also the finely tuned forces that govern matter itself, from vast galaxies to tiny atoms. Isaiah 40:26.

Belief in a Creator also harmonizes with the now generally accepted view that the physical universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1.

All agree that 'micro on steroids' is the primary mechanism. There may be others.

All of whom? All who agree with you? That's not all. That's some.
Can Modern Evolutionary Theory Explain Macroevolution

Spoiler

Ever since the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s, some biologists have expressed doubt that the Synthetic Theory, based principally on mutation, genetic variation, and natural selection, adequately accounts for macroevolution, or evolution above the species level. Some questions pertain to the history of biological diversity, but the greatest argument has concerned the evolution of major changes in organisms’ form and function. Such changes have been the subject of debate on the nature and phenotypic effect of mutations (especially the role of “macromutations” or saltations), the role of developmental mechanisms and processes, and the importance of internal constraints on adaptive evolution. Bridging the two major macroevolutionary themes, the hypothesis of punctuated equilibria invoked constraints on phenotypic evolution and the role of speciation in both diversification and the evolution of form. This chapter describes the Evolutionary Synthesis and the challenges to it and addresses the extent to which the modern formulation of the Synthetic Theory (ST) adequately addresses the observations that have prompted skeptical challenge. I conclude that although several proposed extensions and seemingly unorthodox ideas have some merit, the observations they purport to explain can mostly be interpreted within the framework of the Synthetic Theory.

Have scientists stopped debating this subject? No they have not. Macroevolution debates

 

[nPeace]

Please give links to the explanation.

No thanks. I don't need to see your hand waving again.

Give links showing where the alternatives were explored and tested.

Sorry. I have important things to do. I don't depend on your explanation.
I will decide whether or not I will repost content I have already posted, and I will do that in my own time.

Besides, you are neither a Christian, servant of God, nor qualified to understand spiritual things - the things of God.
I'd rather they be foolishness to you, that being the case. 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; Romans 1:22

It doesn't even actually do that. Instead, it is a diatribe saying how everyone else is silly and wrong. it doesn't even state what evidence would be. Have you read it? I just did.

Yup. I read it. It's says what the evidence is.
You proved my point.

But the 'opinions' are those of Biblical scholars and archeologists that have studied the area. They have concluded *often against their own biases* that the Exodus never happened.

What are you saying, that the ones who say different, and provide evidence in support of what they say, are not Biblical scholars and archeologists that have studied the area? What are they?

And the 'opinions' in regard to the flood are from geologists that have studied what flood remains look like and what the actual evidence is. They have concluded *often against their own biases* that no universal flood happened.

And the geologists that disagree are what? Dishonest salesmen?

I have seen how scientists look down on their peers, who disagree with their opinions. I think they just have a big head.

These are not just the delusions of a few people who don't know anything. These are careful scholars that have spent time learning and understanding what the evidence is and have made conclusions based on that evidence.

Ah. There it is.

And the previous times, all that happened is that the 'prophecies' were said to be innumerable without actually giving any that qualify as actual prophecy.

It wasn't even prophecies... at least that's not what I had in mind. So no. I have a good memory.

No, it is NOT simply an argument ad populum. Those qualified by having learned the relevant material and who have thereby become experts *are* qualified to make judgements. And when the majority of those who are so qualified agree about something that *does* make it much more likely to be true.

Not true.
One man, against the consensus - True science proves opinions wrong
It is an argumentum ad populum.

And now *you* are making an argument ad populum. Are the majority experts in the subjects involved?

If you did read what I said, and haven't added, or taken away anything, there is no way you could honestly come to that conclusion.

yes, the fossils and genetics are the *objective evidence* from which we make inferences that lead to conclusions.

So the objective exidence exists, but it does not belong to anyone. So you just make inferences, and draw conclusions.

Inference - a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
Interpret - explain the meaning of...

Another person or other persons, are seeing the same "objective evidence"... according to your words. I say there is either direct evidence, or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence needs no inference, nor interpretation. Circumstantial evidence does.
What makes your conclusions from your inferences and interpretations more objective than the other persons' conclusions from their inferences and interpretations?

If you disagree with the inference, show what alternative fits the evidence better. And yes, it has to fit what we have objectively learned about the fossils and genetics (as well as comparative anatomy, geology, etc).

Methodological science does not deal with the alternative. You know this already, don't you?

Or is it the case, you want to hear it again... and again? How many thread now, have there been, which presented the alternative that fits the evidence better.
It's not that you just want to know I am sitting here typing my life away, right?
Actually, typing this post has taken me away from something I am supposed to do. I just didn't want to delay this.

On this topic, we have about a 98-99% confidence level about the timing. Our confidence level about the specific mechanisms is low, though.

So you are not sure. That's all I need to know.
Neither are the scientist who disagree with you.
Though you didn't explain why scientists disagree, you demonstrated why. They cannot be sure these ideas (hypotheses) are correct.

Hoyle did his work many decades ago, before we found the evidence we have now. Hoyle also believed in a steady state universe that has since been disproved. it was one of the possibilities at one time, but has been eliminated by more data.

Hoyle is one scientist.
We are talking thousands here. Thousands of scientists who still do not agree that the LUCA hypothesis is a done deal.
Was the universal common ancestry proved?
The question of whether or not all life on Earth shares a single common ancestor has been a central problem of evolutionary biology since Darwin1. Although the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA) has gathered a compelling list of circumstantial evidence, as given in ref. 2, there has been no attempt to test statistically the UCA hypothesis among the three domains of life (eubacteria, archaebacteria and eukaryotes) by using molecular sequences. Theobald2 recently challenged this problem with a formal statistical test, and concluded that the UCA hypothesis holds. Although his attempt is the first step towards establishing the UCA theory with a solid statistical basis, we think that the test of Theobald2 is not sufficient enough to reject the alternative hypothesis of the separate origins of life, despite the Akaike information criterion (AIC) of model selection3 giving a clear distinction between the competing hypotheses.

It's an idea.
Yet you have no problem accepting, while talking with others about unicorns.
LUCA is the scientists' unicorn.

 

[Polymath257]

Producing some of the compounds used in life like RNA and polypeptides, is not leading to life.. the problem is to correctly assemble the parts to produce life..

But the question before was whether those compounds could even arise. We now know that they can. That is progress.

And yes, the question *now* is how to arrange them. But to get to the stage that this is the issue is a huge advance over where we were 50 years ago.

. and if it could be done in a Lab that means nothing about it happening naturally. The probability is so far out that there's essentially zero chance.

That depends on *how* it is done in the lab. If it is done with minimal intervention except for bringing the original chemicals together, it *would* be evidence it could happen in nature. But even getting to the point where it could be done with intervention would show what sorts of things need to happen for life to come into existence. That would also be progress.

We already know that the basic components can be made naturally. We know that they can assemble into more complicated molecules (polymers). We know that cell-like structures can spontaneously form. We know that reactions important for life can be catalyzed. We know that RNA can form self-replicators.

How is that not a LOT of progress and evidence we are on the right track?

 

[nPeace]

Spiderman comics name real places and things as well. So does Dan Brown in his fictional novels.

...and all fictional characters. Not so, the Bible.
The Bible names real people, in real places, associated with real event... and archaeologist confirm it.
That's not fiction. That's fact.

 

[Polymath257]

I have about a 97% confidence level that dark matter exists.
Even if it does exist, we do not know what it is made of.
That is very strong evidence for it to be out there.

I have 1000% confidence that God is.
I don't know what God is made of exactly, but the Bible describes him as a spirit - a form of life far higher than us.

Give evidence that is anywhere close to the evidence we have for dark matter.

Saying you have 100% confidence is tantamount to saying you aren't interested in testing your ideas. A good scientists isn't 100% confident about *any* general theory. There is *always* the possibility that something isn't perfectly correct and might need to be modified.

Laws governing the universe; Mathematical equations present in the entire universe; The organization and orderliness of matter in the universe; Information in the cells of all living things; etc. This is all strong evidence for God - a creator.

I disagree. It is evidence that matter has properties. it shows nothing about the existence of an intelligent designer or creator.

Scientists have discovered a great deal about earth’s position in our solar system as well as the perfect orbit, size, and mass of our large moon. The arrangement and interrelationship of these heavenly bodies makes possible the beautiful and regular change of seasons. Also, much has been learned about the fine-tuning of natural forces in the universe. Thus, in an article entitled “The Designed ‘Just So’ Universe,” a professor of mechanical engineering observed: “It is quite easy to understand why so many scientists have changed their minds in the past 30 years, agreeing that it takes a great deal of faith to believe the universe can be explained as nothing more than a fortuitous cosmic accident. Evidence for an intelligent designer becomes more compelling the more we understand about our carefully crafted habitat.”


See above. There is strong evidence of a creator.

I disagree. I think that case is *way* overstated. The moon has almost nothing to do with the seasons, for example. That is solely due to the tilt of the Earth's axis. And that is not greatly affected by the moon or other planets.

Many of the claims of tine-tuning disappear when looked at closer.

Thank you. All explanations have failed. Just a minute...

Spoiler

View attachment 62982
Psalm 10:4 In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God.”

Which is why we have confidence in the dark matter explanation.

Can you explain to me again why I need explanations from scientists to investigate a supernatural being.

You don't. You need evidence that is repeatable and public.

Furthermore, when your explanations are wrong, you come up with more explanation. Is it any wonder why many scientists leave those explanations behind.

We have a better explanation. You don't, and the "always existed universe" is just another failed explanation.

Except that you don't have a better explanation at all. What *precise* observations have you managed to explain? Can you explain the details of the cosmic background radiation? Can you explain the details of why blood types among different species are similar in the way they are?

The More Reasonable explanation
When we view life and the universe as the work of a wise Creator who possesses an “abundance of dynamic energy,” we can explain not only the complexity of life’s information systems but also the finely tuned forces that govern matter itself, from vast galaxies to tiny atoms. Isaiah 40:26.

Belief in a Creator also harmonizes with the now generally accepted view that the physical universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1.

Sounds like someone who has given up really trying to explain anything.

All of whom? All who agree with you? That's not all. That's some.
Can Modern Evolutionary Theory Explain Macroevolution

Spoiler

Ever since the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s, some biologists have expressed doubt that the Synthetic Theory, based principally on mutation, genetic variation, and natural selection, adequately accounts for macroevolution, or evolution above the species level. Some questions pertain to the history of biological diversity, but the greatest argument has concerned the evolution of major changes in organisms’ form and function. Such changes have been the subject of debate on the nature and phenotypic effect of mutations (especially the role of “macromutations” or saltations), the role of developmental mechanisms and processes, and the importance of internal constraints on adaptive evolution. Bridging the two major macroevolutionary themes, the hypothesis of punctuated equilibria invoked constraints on phenotypic evolution and the role of speciation in both diversification and the evolution of form. This chapter describes the Evolutionary Synthesis and the challenges to it and addresses the extent to which the modern formulation of the Synthetic Theory (ST) adequately addresses the observations that have prompted skeptical challenge. I conclude that although several proposed extensions and seemingly unorthodox ideas have some merit, the observations they purport to explain can mostly be interpreted within the framework of the Synthetic Theory.

Have scientists stopped debating this subject? No they have not. Macroevolution debates

Yes, the question is of mechanisms, not whether evolution occurred or not. And, in fact, the debate is about the relative importance of the different known mechanisms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, "so to speak".
I look at it like, dropping a stone in a pond and all the ripples go out, there is a leading edge.
So with the universe expanding there could be a leading edge(so to speak) or it never expanded and has always been there.

We have no idea how large the universe is, but it appears to be much larger than we can see. That is why we do not even know if there was an edge or not. The "Big Bang" makes one think that the universe was all in one place, but if it is an infinitely largee universe the singularity would have been infinitely large. There is an implication that everything was smooshed into a point, but the "singularity occurs before that . The singularity is the point at which our current laws no longer work.

 

[We Never Know]

We have no idea how large the universe is, but it appears to be much larger than we can see. That is why we do not even know if there was an edge or not. The "Big Bang" makes one think that the universe was all in one place, but if it is an infinitely largee universe the singularity would have been infinitely large. There is an implication that everything was smooshed into a point, but the "singularity occurs before that . The singularity is the point at which our current laws no longer work.

Hence "dropping a stone in a pond and the ripples"
The stone hitting the water represents the singularity starting to expand, the ripples represent the universe expanding.

 

[YoursTrue]

Give evidence that is anywhere close to the evidence we have for dark matter.

Saying you have 100% confidence is tantamount to saying you aren't interested in testing your ideas. A good scientists isn't 100% confident about *any* general theory. There is *always* the possibility that something isn't perfectly correct and might need to be modified.



I disagree. It is evidence that matter has properties. it shows nothing about the existence of an intelligent designer or creator.



I disagree. I think that case is *way* overstated. The moon has almost nothing to do with the seasons, for example. That is solely due to the tilt of the Earth's axis. And that is not greatly affected by the moon or other planets.

Many of the claims of tine-tuning disappear when looked at closer.



Which is why we have confidence in the dark matter explanation.



You don't. You need evidence that is repeatable and public.



Except that you don't have a better explanation at all. What *precise* observations have you managed to explain? Can you explain the details of the cosmic background radiation? Can you explain the details of why blood types among different species are similar in the way they are?

To consider the universe is almost like considering God, because -- while scientists may claim to have the answer -- they really don't. And while it may seem logical in their minds about the universe, it really isn't logical for at least two reasons. One is that they figure some initial explosion or shall we say, expansion, started the whole things, like suns, moons, planets, supernovas (the "Big Bang"), the second reason is that the human mind (unlike animal minds) cannot fathom someone or something always there, without beginning and without end.

 

[YoursTrue]

But the question before was whether those compounds could even arise. We now know that they can. That is progress.

And yes, the question *now* is how to arrange them. But to get to the stage that this is the issue is a huge advance over where we were 50 years ago.



That depends on *how* it is done in the lab. If it is done with minimal intervention except for bringing the original chemicals together, it *would* be evidence it could happen in nature. But even getting to the point where it could be done with intervention would show what sorts of things need to happen for life to come into existence. That would also be progress.

We already know that the basic components can be made naturally. We know that they can assemble into more complicated molecules (polymers). We know that cell-like structures can spontaneously form. We know that reactions important for life can be catalyzed. We know that RNA can form self-replicators.

How is that not a LOT of progress and evidence we are on the right track?

Last I read was an article from NASA which claimed they found the first molecule or something like that ever in the universe. My reaction is -- what??? No matter what chemical terms they used -- what??? they found the first molecule in the universe, or something like that. What?????

 

[YoursTrue]

No thanks. I don't need to see your hand waving again.


Sorry. I have important things to do. I don't depend on your explanation.
I will decide whether or not I will repost content I have already posted, and I will do that in my own time.

Besides, you are neither a Christian, servant of God, nor qualified to understand spiritual things - the things of God.
I'd rather they be foolishness to you, that being the case. 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; Romans 1:22


Yup. I read it. It's says what the evidence is.
You proved my point.


What are you saying, that the ones who say different, and provide evidence in support of what they say, are not Biblical scholars and archeologists that have studied the area? What are they?


And the geologists that disagree are what? Dishonest salesmen?

I have seen how scientists look down on their peers, who disagree with their opinions. I think they just have a big head.


Ah. There it is.


It wasn't even prophecies... at least that's not what I had in mind. So no. I have a good memory.


Not true.
One man, against the consensus - True science proves opinions wrong
It is an argumentum ad populum.


If you did read what I said, and haven't added, or taken away anything, there is no way you could honestly come to that conclusion.


So the objective exidence exists, but it does not belong to anyone. So you just make inferences, and draw conclusions.

Inference - a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
Interpret - explain the meaning of...

Another person or other persons, are seeing the same "objective evidence"... according to your words. I say there is either direct evidence, or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence needs no inference, nor interpretation. Circumstantial evidence does.
What makes your conclusions from your inferences and interpretations more objective than the other persons' conclusions from their inferences and interpretations?


Methodological science does not deal with the alternative. You know this already, don't you?

Or is it the case, you want to hear it again... and again? How many thread now, have there been, which presented the alternative that fits the evidence better.
It's not that you just want to know I am sitting here typing my life away, right?
Actually, typing this post has taken me away from something I am supposed to do. I just didn't want to delay this.


So you are not sure. That's all I need to know.
Neither are the scientist who disagree with you.
Though you didn't explain why scientists disagree, you demonstrated why. They cannot be sure these ideas (hypotheses) are correct.


Hoyle is one scientist.
We are talking thousands here. Thousands of scientists who still do not agree that the LUCA hypothesis is a done deal.
Was the universal common ancestry proved?
The question of whether or not all life on Earth shares a single common ancestor has been a central problem of evolutionary biology since Darwin1. Although the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA) has gathered a compelling list of circumstantial evidence, as given in ref. 2, there has been no attempt to test statistically the UCA hypothesis among the three domains of life (eubacteria, archaebacteria and eukaryotes) by using molecular sequences. Theobald2 recently challenged this problem with a formal statistical test, and concluded that the UCA hypothesis holds. Although his attempt is the first step towards establishing the UCA theory with a solid statistical basis, we think that the test of Theobald2 is not sufficient enough to reject the alternative hypothesis of the separate origins of life, despite the Akaike information criterion (AIC) of model selection3 giving a clear distinction between the competing hypotheses.

It's an idea.
Yet you have no problem accepting, while talking with others about unicorns.
LUCA is the scientists' unicorn.

You made a comment that made me think of my own experience. I used to make fun of people who believed in Jesus and the Bible. Until I believed. God changed me, I know that. I love the song "Amazing Grace." Because I know it's talking about me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Last I read was an article from NASA which claimed they found the first molecule or something like that ever in the universe. My reaction is -- what??? No matter what chemical terms they used -- what??? they found the first molecule in the universe, or something like that. What?????

You might have misread it or the writer might have screwed up. What was observed for the first time ever was the First Type of Molecule in the Universe. It was helium hydride and I have not read the full article yet but I am very sure that they observed it by its absorption spectrum:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/the-universe-s-first-type-of-molecule-is-found-at-last

That was how helium was first observed and that was in the Sun.

 

[ppp]

No, it hasn't. Wishful thinking. A few Amino acids don't equal life.

How many is a few?
What does equal life?
Do you have a clue as to what amino acids do?
What is the next step after amino acids are formed?
What specific chemical interactions have to occur?
What is the significance of boron?

I don't expect you to be able to answer, let alone discuss any of these questions. You are simply repeating a creationist script, with no understanding of the words that you are typing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it hasn't. Wishful thinking. A few Amino acids don't equal life.

When their production from one very small simple experiment makes enough of them to be seen with the naked eye that is more than "a few".

Did you know that it was thought that for at least a while that they did not have the atmosphere right in the Miller-Urey experiment, so they ran it again with a different one. Found amino acids, did it again with another one, found amino acids. It seems that in any halfway reasonable atmosphere that that experiment will produce amino acids. And that is not the only place that we find them naturally. It was only the first place.