Wild idea?

[ratiocinator]

Science does not know what life is, just the physical examples of life.

The problem is about definition, not about what actually exists. Is a virus life? Is this strand of RNA alive because it can replicate itself?

NNNNNNUGCUCGAUUGGUAACAGUUUGAAUGGGUUGAAGUAU–GAGACCGNNNNNN

What science knows (from evidence) is that there was a time at which no life existed on Earth and that very simple life then appeared and evolved into more complex and varied life. You can do a "god of the gaps" about abiogenesis if you want but "god of the gaps" doesn't have a good track record.

 

[Brian2]

If there were valid evidence you would not need faith.

And what you see as evidence is nothing more that confirmation bias, that generally has valid, measurable alternative reasons

It's just the type of evidence that is not acceptable to science. That does not mean it is not valid.

Really? Does confirmation bias have valid, measurable alternative reasons?
In this case the validity of alternative reasons is in the eye of the beholder. It is not scientific and so requires the same sort of faith to believe it.

 

[Brian2]

Science might agree, if one provides evidence and describes the process in which this pre-existing life giver gave life.

When God said "Let there be light," who was He talking to anyway? And how was light actually created? Did God flip a switch, snap His fingers, or what?

The Book of Genesis doesn't exactly seem like any kind of scientific explanation. It also says that God created the Earth, sky, and vegetation before creating the Sun, Moon, and the stars, which doesn't make much sense when you think about it.

Yes Genesis is not a science journal and does not have evidence acceptable to science.
You are right in your analysis of the creation of the earth, sky and vegetation before creating the sun, moon and stars. What it actually says in verse 1 is that God created the heavens and the earth (this includes the sun, moon and stars.)
The same word is not used on day 4, instead of "created" the word means to 'bring about in the the broadest sense'.
In this situation it means imo that the cloud cover around the earth cleared up enough for the sun, moon and stars to be seen. Before that there was light on the earth but you could not see the sun, moon and stars. On day 1 the light managed to make it's way through to the earth, or actually to the ocean that was on the earth at the time. Genesis 1:2 tells us about the ocean on the earth. See Job 38:9 for to see the cloud cover that was there. Interestingly science is agreeing with the ocean and cloud cover at the beginning.

 

[Brian2]

The problem is about definition, not about what actually exists. Is a virus life? Is this strand of RNA alive because it can replicate itself?

NNNNNNUGCUCGAUUGGUAACAGUUUGAAUGGGUUGAAGUAU–GAGACCGNNNNNN

What science knows (from evidence) is that there was a time at which no life existed on Earth and that very simple life then appeared and evolved into more complex and varied life. You can do a "god of the gaps" about abiogenesis if you want but "god of the gaps" doesn't have a good track record.

It is certainly hard to draw a line between chemistry and life at the atomic level, so it is a matter of definition and if chemicals are defined as primitive life then science has it covered.

 

[ChristineM]

It's just the type of evidence that is not acceptable to science. That does not mean it is not valid.

Really? Does confirmation bias have valid, measurable alternative reasons?
In this case the validity of alternative reasons is in the eye of the beholder. It is not scientific and so requires the same sort of faith to believe it.

So provide independent validation. I'll wait

 

[Brian2]

So provide independent validation. I'll wait

Is that when others see the evidence and say that it is valid evidence?
Is there any evidence that abiogenesis is true?

 

[ChristineM]

Is that when others see the evidence and say that it is valid evidence?
Is there any evidence that abiogenesis is true?

So you can't provide your claimed evidence, ok

 

[Brian2]

So you can't provide your claimed evidence, ok

Please don't say what I can and cannot do.
I didn't provide any and sort of asked what validation means.
I'll ask again about evidence for the truth of abiogenesis and then might have to proclaim that there is none if you cannot supply it.

 

[ratiocinator]

I'll ask again about evidence for the truth of abiogenesis and then might have to proclaim that there is none if you cannot supply it.

Obviously there is evidence that it happened (that the first life appeared about 3.7 billion years ago), what we don't know is the mechanism.

 

[ChristineM]

Please don't say what I can and cannot do.
I didn't provide any and sort of asked what validation means.
I'll ask again about evidence for the truth of abiogenesis and then might have to proclaim that there is none if you cannot supply it.

Just making an observation based threads on fact

I asked first, when you provide evidence i will give my comment you requested as a straw man

 

[Brian2]

Obviously there is evidence that it happened (that the first life appeared about 3.7 billion years ago), what we don't know is the mechanism.

There is evidence that something happened but not that IT happened.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is evidence that something happened but not that IT happened.

Life appeared on Earth about 3.7 billion years ago somehow, even if you do a god-of-the-gaps and insist it was a miracle. At the moment we don't know how it happened, just that it did and approximately when.

 

[Brian2]

Life appeared on Earth about 3.7 billion years ago somehow, even if you do a god-of-the-gaps and insist it was a miracle. At the moment we don't know how it happened, just that it did and approximately when.

True.
I guess it could be said that abiogenesis wants to go back before 3.7 billion years and say that the chemistry that happened before that time is either life or extrapolate into 3.7 billion years and say that life it therefore no more than chemistry and an outworking of chemistry.
This no doubt is not something that science in itself can say but many who look at it do say about it, and of course it is a result of previously held ideas about God as a life giver.
Even when abiogenesis is not shown to be true, abiogenesis is seen as some sort of evidence that there is no God, or no Biblical God anyway.

 

[ratiocinator]

I guess it could be said that abiogenesis wants to go back before 3.7 billion years and say that the chemistry that happened before that time is either life or extrapolate into 3.7 billion years and say that life it therefore no more than chemistry and an outworking of chemistry.
This no doubt is not something that science in itself can say but many who look at it do say about it, and of course it is a result of previously held ideas about God as a life giver.

Are you trying to resurrect vitalism?

...abiogenesis is seen as some sort of evidence that there is no God, or no Biblical God anyway.

There is no need for, or real possibility of, evidence that there is no god. The burden of proof is on those who propose one.

As for the "Biblical God", it depends what you mean. There is copious evidence that there is no god that made the universe 6000 years ago, or who made humans in any other way than via evolution. On the other hand, there is no evidence that there is no god who magicked the first life into existence 3.7 billion years ago and then let evolution do the rest (although it seems a rather bizarre way to go about things).

 

[Brian2]

Are you trying to resurrect vitalism?

Not as a scientific hypothesis. A spirit is not for science to study and no doubt cannot be studied scientifically.
When it comes to NDEs we can see the attitude of science to some NDEs that show the existence of a conscious spirit. And of course those experiences are even empirical in that X number of people have experienced verifiable anecdotal evidence.

There is no need for, or real possibility of, evidence that there is no god. The burden of proof is on those who propose one.

Science of course does not have to prove the non existence of God since that is assumed for the purposes of science and it's work in the material world.

As for the "Biblical God", it depends what you mean. There is copious evidence that there is no god that made the universe 6000 years ago, or who made humans in any other way than via evolution. On the other hand, there is no evidence that there is no god who magicked the first life into existence 3.7 billion years ago and then let evolution do the rest (although it seems a rather bizarre way to go about things).

No I wasn't talking about the idea that the universe was made 6000 years ago. For a start that eliminates the first 5 days from the creation week and/or assumes they are 24 hours long.
The creation story does however have interesting elements that line up with what science claims to have discovered about the past.
"Magicked" is an interesting word and something that just means we don't know the process.
If God said, let the earth bring forth plants (Gen 1:11) that would mean the organising of molecules to go into those plants and the right environment for them to form and for the microscopic cells to form and develop along with imo a design that made the Genes into mini control centres that stored and used information for the development of life forms.
In a way it does not eliminate the earth from possessing all the material desired for the process, including an inherent life giving ability, but imo that would not be without the input from an intelligent designer and controller of the environment if that is how it happened.

 

[ratiocinator]

When it comes to NDEs we can see the attitude of science to some NDEs that show the existence of a conscious spirit. And of course those experiences are even empirical in that X number of people have experienced verifiable anecdotal evidence.

"Anecdotal evidence" is pretty much an oxymoron. Near death experiences tell us nothing of a spirit.

Science of course does not have to prove the non existence of God since that is assumed for the purposes of science and it's work in the material world.

It really has nothing to do with science. If somebody claims that something called 'god' exists, it's entirely up to them to both define it and justify their belief that it exists.

The creation story does however have interesting elements that line up with what science claims to have discovered about the past.

Except for the fact that it's entirely in the wrong order. I've heard multiple attempts to bash the square peg of the creation myth into the round hole of science, and they just make me laugh, sorry.

 

[Brian2]

It really has nothing to do with science. If somebody claims that something called 'god' exists, it's entirely up to them to both define it and justify their belief that it exists.

Theists do justify their belief in God in their own lives but that justification does not translate well to others who may demand different type of evidence. And of course for the Bible God the Bible has been trashed for many people and so that is no justification for them.

Except for the fact that it's entirely in the wrong order. I've heard multiple attempts to bash the square peg of the creation myth into the round hole of science, and they just make me laugh, sorry.

I had a similar difficulty when I was trying to fit what the Bible said into what science said.
I did find that how people read the Genesis account/s is important.
I started seeing Genesis 1:1 as saying that God created the heavens and the earth and then relating things from the pov of the earth. There was a large ocean and thick clouds obscured the light from the sun etc. and then as the clouds started to clear, the light filtered through.
I found that science seemed to agree with that.
I then found that the order of the appearance of living things almost agreed with the order science gives.
I also discovered other things that seemed to fit.
The fit can be seen as not 100% but pretty close imo and what looks like it does not fit can be justified also interestingly.
Anyway it was really something for me and my justification of belief in the Bible and acceptance of science at the same time.
It also made me think about what is real science and what is conjecture. The journey is not over yet of course but it is good enough for my faith to have done it. Then of course along the way I did discover others, some scientists, who seem to have been down the same path.

 

[ratiocinator]

Theists do justify their belief in God in their own lives but that justification does not translate well to others who may demand different type of evidence.

Either you can provide some objective reason to support your claim or you can't.

I then found that the order of the appearance of living things almost agreed with the order science gives.

It simply doesn't agree. We get land vegetation before sea life and birds before land animals.

 

[Brian2]

Either you can provide some objective reason to support your claim or you can't.

It simply doesn't agree. We get land vegetation before sea life and birds before land animals.

Personally I think that something like what is said about creation is objective justification and all the fulfilled prophecies.
But as I said the Bible has been trashed for many people, beginning with the idea that the Bible cannot be justification for the Bible. What rubbish.
Anyway, as for the plants.
When God said "let the earth produce plants" I see that as God starting the evolution process for plants so that the first plants were produced, and it was good in God's eyes, and then over millions of years everything evolved to be how God wanted it to be.
The first fossils (apart from possible microbiology fossils) are plant fossils and they are in the sea and evolved and spread to fill all nooks and crannies.
God's command was about the finished product, not where it would start. Anyway if plants started in the sea that does not mean that the earth was not bringing them forth.
As for the birds, it appears that they evolved from the reptiles and if that is so then I came to realise that with evolution all the genetic material could have been present in the sea creatures just waiting to develop into birds at the right time and in the right conditions. iows God finished His work on the birds way back when He created the sea creatures.

 

[ratiocinator]

Personally I think that something like what is said about creation is objective justification and all the fulfilled prophecies.
But as I said the Bible has been trashed for many people, beginning with the idea that the Bible cannot be justification for the Bible. What rubbish.

Of course the bible can't be justification for the bible, that's just silly. I've read the bible, and that was the start of the end of my belief in Christianity. It's an inconsistent, self-contradictory mess.

Anyway, as for the plants.
When God said "let the earth produce plants" I see that as God starting the evolution process for plants so that the first plants were produced, and it was good in God's eyes, and then over millions of years everything evolved to be how God wanted it to be.
The first fossils (apart from possible microbiology fossils) are plant fossils and they are in the sea and evolved and spread to fill all nooks and crannies.
God's command was about the finished product, not where it would start. Anyway if plants started in the sea that does not mean that the earth was not bringing them forth.
As for the birds, it appears that they evolved from the reptiles and if that is so then I came to realise that with evolution all the genetic material could have been present in the sea creatures just waiting to develop into birds at the right time and in the right conditions. iows God finished His work on the birds way back when He created the sea creatures.