Let's go over this again, shall we, about chances--

[Brian2]

No. Would you?

Not necessarily. But it probably could be depending on the person who believed it and why.

 

[Polymath257]

Not necessarily. But it probably could be depending on the person who believed it and why.

Well, I believe it because I know that life is a chemical process, that the basic building blocks existed on Earth prior to life, that he fossil evidence shows that life existed very soon after the Earth cooled down enough to allow for liquid water, that there are several plausible pathways for how life could have originated, that the main mechanisms for genetics are based on RNA (and not just DNA) which we know can form self-catalyzing forms, etc.

The is enough to strongly suggest that the first life on Earth originated here via natural processes.

 

[gnostic]

and sometimes it is science stepping into the territory of scripture because of the naturalistic methodology and not knowing where the proper boundary is

Actually, it is the other way around.

Natural Sciences are only studies of nature - the natural phenomena and their natural processes.

Physical Sciences are the studies of physical phenomena and physical processes...

Note that Physical Sciences don’t include Life Sciences, so Physical Sciences are focused on non-living phenomena.

These two do follow the requirements of Methodological Naturalism, in which models (eg explanatory models & predictive models within hypothesis or theory) must passed the Falsifiability and Scientific Method.

Social Sciences don’t require to follow these requirements so strictly. Social Sciences include all disciplines or branches that studying -

• human behaviour (eg psychology, behavioral sciences, mental health, etc),
• human cultures (eg sociology, anthropology, etc),
• human activities (eg archaeology, political science, law, ethics, etc).

Because Social Sciences don’t require to follow the requirements of Falsifiability & Scientific Method, these branches of Social Sciences are often deemed as “soft science”.

When people talk of “science”, they often referring to physics, chemistry, biology, Earth sciences & astronomy.

Returning to your points, Scriptures (the Bible’s Genesis) are not works of sciences, because there are no attempts to explain in details

WHAT nature is (hence the natural phenomena), and

HOW nature works (hence, the “natural processes”).​

Nor do Scriptures attempt to test what being explained, which are essential for Falsifiability and the second main part of Scientific Method (note that 1st part of Scientific Method is the formulation of the hypothesis). Such tests required observations of the physical evidence, through evidence gathering or through experiments.

Anyway there are no attempts to explain the nature in Genesis Creation, and no attempts to test the Creation, because supernatural beings (eg God, angels, spirits, etc) and supernatural phenomena or supernatural events (eg miracles) are not testable.

It is creationists who tried to use science to justify their beliefs in creationism...so it is really religion that tried to “stepping into the territory of” science.

There are no science in “God did it” argument. Examples:

• God creating light with just by saying some words, “Let there be light”.
• God creating human from soil (dust of the earth) in Genesis, or from clay and water in the Qur’an.

Sciences can explain what light is without resorting to the magic of words.

Dust, silt or clay cannot magically turn into living cells of a fully grown human male.

Animals (including humans), plants, fungi, and single-celled microorganisms like bacteria and archaea are all made of cells, that include amino acids, proteins, nucleic acids (RNA or DNA), some types of carbohydrates, lipids, etc). There are no evidence of any type of silicates that exist in soils of clay or silt existing in any cell of any living organisms.

So Adam being created from silt or clay is pure myth. Plus, has there ever being the case where human can be born fully-grown, like in Genesis and Qur’an? More myth.

 

[Brian2]

Well, I believe it because I know that life is a chemical process, that the basic building blocks existed on Earth prior to life, that he fossil evidence shows that life existed very soon after the Earth cooled down enough to allow for liquid water, that there are several plausible pathways for how life could have originated, that the main mechanisms for genetics are based on RNA (and not just DNA) which we know can form self-catalyzing forms, etc.

The is enough to strongly suggest that the first life on Earth originated here via natural processes.

That suggests to me that you use only science to determine answers that seem to be beyond what science can give.
Chemistry might suggest the origins of life forms but that does not mean that life itself is chemically based, and really when we ask how genes became an information storage and use system, that does suggest more than chemistry involved in it.
So the suggestion goes beyond pure material origins imo and so what you do probably could be called scientism.

 

[Brian2]

Actually, it is the other way around.

Natural Sciences are only studies of nature - the natural phenomena and their natural processes.

Physical Sciences are the studies of physical phenomena and physical processes...

Note that Physical Sciences don’t include Life Sciences, so Physical Sciences are focused on non-living phenomena.

These two do follow the requirements of Methodological Naturalism, in which models (eg explanatory models & predictive models within hypothesis or theory) must passed the Falsifiability and Scientific Method.

Social Sciences don’t require to follow these requirements so strictly. Social Sciences include all disciplines or branches that studying -

• human behaviour (eg psychology, behavioral sciences, mental health, etc),
• human cultures (eg sociology, anthropology, etc),
• human activities (eg archaeology, political science, law, ethics, etc).

Because Social Sciences don’t require to follow the requirements of Falsifiability & Scientific Method, these branches of Social Sciences are often deemed as “soft science”.

When people talk of “science”, they often referring to physics, chemistry, biology, Earth sciences & astronomy.

Returning to your points, Scriptures (the Bible’s Genesis) are not works of sciences, because there are no attempts to explain in details

WHAT nature is (hence the natural phenomena), and

HOW nature works (hence, the “natural processes”).​

Nor do Scriptures attempt to test what being explained, which are essential for Falsifiability and the second main part of Scientific Method (note that 1st part of Scientific Method is the formulation of the hypothesis). Such tests required observations of the physical evidence, through evidence gathering or through experiments.

Anyway there are no attempts to explain the nature in Genesis Creation, and no attempts to test the Creation, because supernatural beings (eg God, angels, spirits, etc) and supernatural phenomena or supernatural events (eg miracles) are not testable.

It is creationists who tried to use science to justify their beliefs in creationism...so it is really religion that tried to “stepping into the territory of” science.

There are no science in “God did it” argument. Examples:

• God creating light with just by saying some words, “Let there be light”.
• God creating human from soil (dust of the earth) in Genesis, or from clay and water in the Qur’an.

Sciences can explain what light is without resorting to the magic of words.

Dust, silt or clay cannot magically turn into living cells of a fully grown human male.

Animals (including humans), plants, fungi, and single-celled microorganisms like bacteria and archaea are all made of cells, that include amino acids, proteins, nucleic acids (RNA or DNA), some types of carbohydrates, lipids, etc). There are no evidence of any type of silicates that exist in soils of clay or silt existing in any cell of any living organisms.

So Adam being created from silt or clay is pure myth. Plus, has there ever being the case where human can be born fully-grown, like in Genesis and Qur’an? More myth.

I also don't think the Quran is correct about the clay.
It is possible however that God could form a fully grown human from dirt unless you dismiss the idea of a God. But of course if we read the passage more closely it suggests, to me at least, that it could be speaking about God forming the body of man through evolution. It does not deny that possibility. (For me this is because Genesis 2 seems to be describing in more detail about the creation of man and if we see the day of Genesis 2 as being the whole 7 days of Genesis 1 then I would say that God started to form the body of man way back before He created any plants. This would be possibly day 3 of Genesis 1. Then at the end of it all a man evolved, a hominid that may have required some tweeking by God, and God created man by the spirit of life which God breathed into it.-------just saying.)
But where science steps into theology is in trying to speculate about what happened in the past in a natural way in areas that God has said that He did it.
So science would eliminate the spirit of life which God breathed into Adam and just define life according to those things that science can examine (chemistry) and so say how life began in those terms, (chemical reactions and processes) when the reality could be something completely different which God did.

 

[gnostic]

I also don't think the Quran is correct about the clay.
It is possible however that God could form a fully grown human from dirt unless you dismiss the idea of a God. But of course if we read the passage more closely it suggests, to me at least, that it could be speaking about God forming the body of man through evolution. It does not deny that possibility. (For me this is because Genesis 2 seems to be describing in more detail about the creation of man and if we see the day of Genesis 2 as being the whole 7 days of Genesis 1 then I would say that God started to form the body of man way back before He created any plants. This would be possibly day 3 of Genesis 1. Then at the end of it all a man evolved, a hominid that may have required some tweeking by God, and God created man by the spirit of life which God breathed into it.-------just saying.)
But where science steps into theology is in trying to speculate about what happened in the past in a natural way in areas that God has said that He did it.
So science would eliminate the spirit of life which God breathed into Adam and just define life according to those things that science can examine (chemistry) and so say how life began in those terms, (chemical reactions and processes) when the reality could be something completely different which God did.

It doesn't matter if the soil are clay, silt or sandy, they are all silicate minerals, and the "dust of the earth" in 2:7 is referring to some types of soil. Silicates - whether it be mica, feldspar or quartz - are all inorganic and non-living matters.

Soil cannot transform into organic compounds (proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids) that exist in every cells.

Soil are made of minerals, with no organic matters, unless some organisms have died or decomposed, dead leaves, stems or roots of plants, hair or skin of animals, urine or feces of animals, etc. Organic matters that exist in soil are actually foreign substances.

And you still don't understand when organisms "decompose", the cells would also break down. Meaning you cannot reconstitute decomposed cells into living cells.

Most of the organic mass in soil, actually come from bacteria. Yes, plants, fungi and animals are larger in term of mass and size, but there are more bacteria in soil then larger organisms that have decomposed.

Cells can only replicate cells, like with reproduction, through some sorts of cell divisions. Cells cannot form from inorganic silicate minerals, which would be what the "dust of the earth" would be.

 

[Brian2]

It doesn't matter if the soil are clay, silt or sandy, they are all silicate minerals, and the "dust of the earth" in 2:7 is referring to some types of soil. Silicates - whether it be mica, feldspar or quartz - are all inorganic and non-living matters.

Soil cannot transform into organic compounds (proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids) that exist in every cells.

Soil are made of minerals, with no organic matters, unless some organisms have died or decomposed, dead leaves, stems or roots of plants, hair or skin of animals, urine or feces of animals, etc. Organic matters that exist in soil are actually foreign substances.

And you still don't understand when organisms "decompose", the cells would also break down. Meaning you cannot reconstitute decomposed cells into living cells.

Most of the organic mass in soil, actually come from bacteria. Yes, plants, fungi and animals are larger in term of mass and size, but there are more bacteria in soil then larger organisms that have decomposed.

Cells can only replicate cells, like with reproduction, through some sorts of cell divisions. Cells cannot form from inorganic silicate minerals, which would be what the "dust of the earth" would be.

What are you trying to say?
It is hard to tell at times when speaking about Genesis as people have such a diverse interpretation of what is meant there.

 

[Polymath257]

That suggests to me that you use only science to determine answers that seem to be beyond what science can give.

I don't think that it is beyond science to answer these particular questions.

Chemistry might suggest the origins of life forms but that does not mean that life itself is chemically based, and really when we ask how genes became an information storage and use system, that does suggest more than chemistry involved in it.

I disagree. Information is not something mystical. It is an inherent part of all matter. Chemical gradients are information. Essentially every causal reaction produces information. Any structure, like a crystal, is information. Having one atom in a molecule as opposed to a different one is information. And, in addition, we know that the information molecule RNA can spontaneously assemble and can form catalysts and self-reproducers. it is a naturally produced molecule that can perform most of the critical roles of life.

And yes, from what we know about biochemistry, life is a chemical process. A very complicated one, but still always physio-chemical in nature. There is no 'elan vitale', no 'spark of life' that distinguishes living things from the rest of the universe. Such was searched for, postulated, but never discovered. And all of its supposed roles are actually performed by known chemicals.

So the suggestion goes beyond pure material origins imo and so what you do probably could be called scientism.

I don't think it does go beyond the pure material origins in this case. Yes, one of the defining characteristics of life is *maintaining* information and passing it to another generation, but from what we already know, that is not an extreme thing. I just don't see that anything outside of the material is required to explain the origin of life. It is, after all, a physical process.

 

[Brian2]

I disagree. Information is not something mystical. It is an inherent part of all matter. Chemical gradients are information. Essentially every causal reaction produces information. Any structure, like a crystal, is information. Having one atom in a molecule as opposed to a different one is information. And, in addition, we know that the information molecule RNA can spontaneously assemble and can form catalysts and self-reproducers. it is a naturally produced molecule that can perform most of the critical roles of life.

And yes, from what we know about biochemistry, life is a chemical process. A very complicated one, but still always physio-chemical in nature. There is no 'elan vitale', no 'spark of life' that distinguishes living things from the rest of the universe. Such was searched for, postulated, but never discovered. And all of its supposed roles are actually performed by known chemicals.

It is good that information can be stored in chemicals but the thing is, how did genes become that storage device? And information is nothing unless it can be deciphered and used.
It's all chemistry no doubt but was there a way or reason for the shape and building material to be stored in chemistry in such a way that it could be used by other chemicals?
Well there was a good reason for it, but how did it happen?

Has consciousness been shown to be performed by known chemicals? Is the brain a computer that the consciousness can read or is the brain itself conscious.
It can be seen both ways and if someone ignores the metaphysical possibilities and just sees the empirical evidence and physical possibilities than scientism is probably a word that can be applied.
It is not a derrogatory word surely.

I don't think it does go beyond the pure material origins in this case. Yes, one of the defining characteristics of life is *maintaining* information and passing it to another generation, but from what we already know, that is not an extreme thing. I just don't see that anything outside of the material is required to explain the origin of life. It is, after all, a physical process.

Well the life forms are physical and the processes in those forms are physical.
I still don't see that this means that life is physical in nature, especially conscious animals. If life is defined that way because a spirit cannot be found then that is the naturalistic methodology and it is intruding into what God tells us of life,,,,,,,,,,,,, it is unwittingly overstepping the bounds of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is good that information can be stored in chemicals but the thing is, how did genes become that storage device? And information is nothing unless it can be deciphered and used.
It's all chemistry no doubt but was there a way or reason for the shape and building material to be stored in chemistry in such a way that it could be used by other chemicals?
Well there was a good reason for it, but how did it happen?

You are trying to use an argument from ignorance. We do not have all of the answers. That is not evidence for God. There is currently only evidence for abiogenesis. We have no scientific evidence for anything else. When one reasons rationally one follows the evidence.

Has consciousness been shown to be performed by known chemicals? Is the brain a computer that the consciousness can read or is the brain itself conscious.
It can be seen both ways and if someone ignores the metaphysical possibilities and just sees the empirical evidence and physical possibilities than scientism is probably a word that can be applied.
It is not a derrogatory word surely.

Once again you are trying to use what we don't know as evidence. That doesn't work. You should be asking for his evidence. Not making arguments that tell us how little you know.

Well the life forms are physical and the processes in those forms are physical.
I still don't see that this means that life is physical in nature, especially conscious animals. If life is defined that way because a spirit cannot be found then that is the naturalistic methodology and it is intruding into what God tells us of life,,,,,,,,,,,,, it is unwittingly overstepping the bounds of science.

No, you can't properly make that claim. You only have a belief about God. That is not evidence. And just because your religious beliefs go against science it still is not overstepping the bounds of science to answer scientific questions. Perhaps you overstepped.

 

[Polymath257]

It is good that information can be stored in chemicals but the thing is, how did genes become that storage device? And information is nothing unless it can be deciphered and used.

But the 'use' of the information is also all chemical. RNA became the storage device (originally) because it is a flexible molecule that can do a number of different things, from catalysis to information storage.

It's all chemistry no doubt but was there a way or reason for the shape and building material to be stored in chemistry in such a way that it could be used by other chemicals?
Well there was a good reason for it, but how did it happen?

What do you see as being outside of the physical aspects here? That it is more complicated than other situations?

Being 'used by other chemicals' is nothing more than undergoing a chemical reaction. If you look at DNA today, it is a chemical. It interacts chemically with other chemicals to produce RNA, which then interacts with other RNA to produce proteins. Those proteins interact with other chemicals to do other things.

Has consciousness been shown to be performed by known chemicals? Is the brain a computer that the consciousness can read or is the brain itself conscious.

There seems to be a lot of difficulty even defining what 'consciousness' is. But, again, there is no reason to think it is anything outside of what the brain does and that is chemical. The neural signals are chemical.

It can be seen both ways and if someone ignores the metaphysical possibilities and just sees the empirical evidence and physical possibilities than scientism is probably a word that can be applied.
It is not a derrogatory word surely.

On the contrary, it seems to be quite reasonable to expect that the methods of science will be what answers these questions. We are much farther along than most people realize, by the way.

Why jump to 'metaphysical possibilities' when they provide no actual answers and the current methods seem to be up to the task?

I don't think it is scientism to expect science to continue to do what it does so well: explore the world and get answers to how things work.

Well the life forms are physical and the processes in those forms are physical.
I still don't see that this means that life is physical in nature, especially conscious animals. If life is defined that way because a spirit cannot be found then that is the naturalistic methodology and it is intruding into what God tells us of life,,,,,,,,,,,,, it is unwittingly overstepping the bounds of science.

I disagree. It is NOT an overstep to say that diseases are caused by viruses and bacteria, and not by spirits. It is not an overstep to say that it is not an overstep to say that no spiritual aspect has been found and that there is no good reason to expect one will be.

it isn't how life is *defined*. It is what we have *discovered* about it over the last few centuries. There is no evidence of anything other than physical processes happening in living things, including humans.

There is no good reason to expect that a deity even exists. So it isn't an intrusion. It is clearing out unnecessary ideas that have become outmoded.

I would say that religion has overstepped its role when it made claims about the physical world. And life is part of the physical world.

 

[Brian2]

You are trying to use an argument from ignorance. We do not have all of the answers. That is not evidence for God. There is currently only evidence for abiogenesis. We have no scientific evidence for anything else. When one reasons rationally one follows the evidence.

If you ignore the metaphysical possibilities then you follow the physical scientific evidence and say it is the only possible answer because we have no other evidence. But this could be because science is able only to study the physical.

Once again you are trying to use what we don't know as evidence. That doesn't work. You should be asking for his evidence. Not making arguments that tell us how little you know.

All I am saying really is what you know, that you follow what science says even if there are other possibilities when other evidence is seen as evidence. So scientism is a good term for what you do.

No, you can't properly make that claim. You only have a belief about God. That is not evidence. And just because your religious beliefs go against science it still is not overstepping the bounds of science to answer scientific questions. Perhaps you overstepped.

Answering scientific questions means giving naturalistic answers but because you reject the metaphysical they are the correct answers. In reality we don't know if they are the correct answers.
I have a belief about God and that is evidence to me and you have a belief about the metaphysical (or lack of belief about it) and that is evidence for you that the science is the only correct answer and that empirical evidence is the only worthwhile evidence.
But forgetting that for a moment, you would have to agree that it is possible that because of the naturalistic methodology that science can overstep the bounds without even realising it. Yes?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you ignore the metaphysical possibilities then you follow the physical scientific evidence and say it is the only possible answer because we have no other evidence. But this could be because science is able only to study the physical.



All I am saying really is what you know, that you follow what science says even if there are other possibilities when other evidence is seen as evidence. So scientism is a good term for what you do.



Answering scientific questions means giving naturalistic answers but because you reject the metaphysical they are the correct answers. In reality we don't know if they are the correct answers.
I have a belief about God and that is evidence to me and you have a belief about the metaphysical (or lack of belief about it) and that is evidence for you that the science is the only correct answer and that empirical evidence is the only worthwhile evidence.
But forgetting that for a moment, you would have to agree that it is possible that because of the naturalistic methodology that science can overstep the bounds without even realising it. Yes?

No strawman arguments please.

What "metaphysical possibilities"? Is there even such a thing?

 

[Brian2]

But the 'use' of the information is also all chemical. RNA became the storage device (originally) because it is a flexible molecule that can do a number of different things, from catalysis to information storage..

Do you think that the information storage potential in the RNA could have been used accidentally initially? It sounds like one of those things which would have to be working right from the start or there would be no passing on of anything and no evolution. This is what God said that He did. He said that He created plants and animals initially. Just how far that creation relied on what chemistry could do naturally is not known. Science says it is all natural, but that is the presumption. I go for the God of the gaps in this area of what God said that He did and science goes for the science of the gaps in this area of the unknown but with the presumption that it was natural.

What do you see as being outside of the physical aspects here? That it is more complicated than other situations?

Being 'used by other chemicals' is nothing more than undergoing a chemical reaction. If you look at DNA today, it is a chemical. It interacts chemically with other chemicals to produce RNA, which then interacts with other RNA to produce proteins. Those proteins interact with other chemicals to do other things..

It's all chemical and potentially could have come about by chance I guess. Other situations are also complicated of course and as I said we don't really know the intricacies of the origins even if we may know that chemical reactions along the way are possible for a naturalistic answer.

There seems to be a lot of difficulty even defining what 'consciousness' is. But, again, there is no reason to think it is anything outside of what the brain does and that is chemical. The neural signals are chemical..

Consciousness can be defined as a property of matter of matter but that imo and because of my faith I say that is stepping over the bounds of science.
If you want to say it is what the brain does that I guess is a belief you have by not only following only the science of material but denying the metaphysical possibilities.

On the contrary, it seems to be quite reasonable to expect that the methods of science will be what answers these questions. We are much farther along than most people realize, by the way.

Why jump to 'metaphysical possibilities' when they provide no actual answers and the current methods seem to be up to the task?

I don't think it is scientism to expect science to continue to do what it does so well: explore the world and get answers to how things work..

Getting answers to how things work is what science does well. So science can get answers to how a brain works but science cannot say that the actual material brain is what is conscious even though science can define consciousness materially and make it look as if the brain is our consciousness by the elimination of or non mention of the metaphysical possibilities. And of course many people who are not aware of what science is doing will end up believing that science has found the correct answer when in fact it might be a long way from the correct answer.

I disagree. It is NOT an overstep to say that diseases are caused by viruses and bacteria, and not by spirits. It is not an overstep to say that it is not an overstep to say that no spiritual aspect has been found and that there is no good reason to expect one will be.

it isn't how life is *defined*. It is what we have *discovered* about it over the last few centuries. There is no evidence of anything other than physical processes happening in living things, including humans.

There is no good reason to expect that a deity even exists. So it isn't an intrusion. It is clearing out unnecessary ideas that have become outmoded.

I would say that religion has overstepped its role when it made claims about the physical world. And life is part of the physical world.

Sounds like scientism to me. No derision there of course. Just pointing it out.

 

[Brian2]

No strawman arguments please.

What "metaphysical possibilities"? Is there even such a thing?

Not for people who do not believe in the metaphysical but only in the material worldview.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not for people who do not believe in the metaphysical but only in the material worldview.

Not for people who do not believe in the metaphysical but only in the material worldview.

You make what appears to be an incredibly bogus claim and refuse to support it? You just refuted yourself.

 

[wellwisher]

The scientific method does not allow science to run the proper type of experiments needed to define fully consciousness. This has to be done from the inside using consciousness to observe consciousness. This is not easily subject to peer review.

For example, I can observe and analyze my dreams inside my head. However, the details of my dreams, although valid consciousness data cannot be proven by the scientific method. Nobody can crawl into my head and verify what I claim, even if true. The scientific method drew a line in the sand that precludes itself from looking there. It falls short of what is needed.

Consciousness is more like software than hardware, with science better at hardware, but lacks observational provisions needed to learn the software side of consciousness. It takes an automaton approach and ignores the software side.

From the hardware side, science is not even approaching this properly. Consciousness is connected to the second law of thermodynamics. Neurons pump and exchange sodium and potassium cations segregating them on opposite sides of the membrane. This is energy intensive and results in the cations forced to go the opposite way of the second law.

If I placed salt in water, it would slowly dissolve to increase entropy. It will never suddenly precipitate out again since this would lower entropy. But neuron expend energy to reverse this, constantly segregating and concentrating ions, against the second law.

This decreased cationic entropy, sets up a potential with the second law. It becomes inevitable that neurons will need fire and cationic currents will need to flow to satisfy the second law; need to increase complexity. Your memory will to string its data together in new ways to increase complexity.

What is interesting is all our sensory systems are designed to fire based on various stimulus; need to increase entropy. The second law drive us to fire our sensory system; explore the world to trigger your senses. Sensory deprivation will result in internal neuron firing since second law still needs to be satisfied.

Consciousness can be seen as an entropy fountain that pumps upward against entropy like water is pumped against gravity. It falls and then returns to lower the potential, cascading downward to be pumped again. It always looks the same, but is forever changing; 2nd law wild card for complexity and uncertainty.

 

[gnostic]

If you ignore the metaphysical possibilities then you follow the physical scientific evidence and say it is the only possible answer because we have no other evidence. But this could be because science is able only to study the physical.

The problems with metaphysical possibilities, it never explain WHAT the natural phenomena and HOW the phenomena work.

Sciences, real sciences focused on tests, evidence and experiments, through observations and the observations provide information what the phenomena is and how it work. And it those information that are essential data for understanding the natural phenomena.

The tests and data also show which models are scientific and which models are not scientific, which is the whole points of Falsifiability and Scientific Method:

(A) evidence and data can refute hypothesis,

(B) or evidence can verify hypothesis.​

The reasons why I bring up Falsifiability & Scientific Method so much, are because it is the most objective way to weed out weak or faulty hypotheses, and only accept hypotheses that are rigorously backed by evidence and experiments.

The worse possible concepts are the one that unfalsifiable (hence untestable), because they cannot be tested in any way, have zero evidence.

Intelligent Design fits the bill as unfalsifiable conjectures, because there are no evidence to support the Intelligent DESIGNER.

The Designer, like God, cannot be observed or detected, cannot be quantified, cannot be measured, and cannot be tested.

The “Designer did it”, like the “God did it”, isn’t an explanation, nor it is evidence.

 

[gnostic]

The scientific method does not allow science to run the proper type of experiments needed to define fully consciousness.

Then how do you define consciousness, wellwisher?

If you seriously think science cannot define or explain, then what alternative can you offer in place of biological definition or medical definition?

Does your Bible define or explain consciousness better than that given in medical explanations?

By all mean, showed the relevant passages from your bible that clearly “explain” WHAT consciousness is and “explain” HOW consciousness works.

 

[gnostic]

What are you trying to say?
It is hard to tell at times when speaking about Genesis as people have such a diverse interpretation of what is meant there.

Doesn’t “dust from the earth” or “dust of the ground”, mean some sorts of “soil”?

Did god not create Adam in the field before there were vegetation?

Read it:

5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no vegetation of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground, 6 but a stream would rise from the earth and water the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

To me, dust of the ground can be interpret as “soil”.

The passage above include ground, field and earth. What else could Genesis 2 be talking about, if the “dust” wasn’t soil?

If you disagree, then I think you are the one making erroneous interpretations.