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

[Subduction Zone]

P.S. Your idea of strawman

You can explain what you want. lol, there you go with the bible again. Completely misunderstanding. At this point if you can't figure how abiogenesis is essential, integral to the theory of -- one cell burgeoning out to become the various clades, please, have a good day.

Oh no. That is backwards again. You cannot say why abiogenesis is key to evolution. I just explained why it is not.;

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh no. That is backwards again. You cannot say why abiogenesis is key to evolution. I just explained why it is not.;

Your explanations are good for you and for those that chime in with you.

 

[metis]

Genesis and other biblical books do not expound on the theories of evolution and/or molecular structures such as scientists endeavor to explore.

They are not science books, and the ToE is based on scientific evidence, not what's in scriptures.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Genesis and other biblical books do not expound on the theories of evolution and/or molecular structures such as scientists endeavor to explore. Anyway, you and I were not around when our ancestors were on the earth. We were not around when our parents were born. And following genetic traits, offspring and ancestry can not only be time-consuming but possibly misleading, depending on circumstances.

Depending on what circumstances, exactly? Be specific.

 

[gnostic]

Genesis and other biblical books do not expound on the theories of evolution and/or molecular structures such as scientists endeavor to explore.

I wasn’t just talking about Evolution or the hypothesis Abiogenesis.

Genesis don’t “expound” ANY SCIENCE WHATSOEVER, not even basic anatomy.

Genesis explain no natural sciences -

• not physics,
• not chemistry,
• not Earth science,
• not astronomy,
• and certainly not biology.

The Earth being created BEFORE any stars, and even BEFORE the sun, are total BS. There are many red giant stars and white dwarf, all indications of ancient stars older than our Sun.

The only description of the Sun in Genesis, is that one of the lights or luminaries. No explanation as to what the Sun is. Whoever wrote the Genesis, had no idea that our Sun is also a star.

There are no explanations as to how the Sun generates and radiates light (electromagnetic radiation, including infrared, ultraviolet) and heat. No explanations how the planets orbit around the sun, nor show the calculations of the months or the annual seasons.

Saying God did it, explain nothing the nature of the Earth or the nature of the Sun.

Nor do Genesis explain how there how there is “light”, on the first day (1:3-4), which separate light from darkness, day from night.

How can there be 3 successive mornings, before the sun was created in the 4th day?

The only description to the light, is that god said “Let there be light” and light just magically pop into existence.

That’s no explanation.

None of the 6-day offer any explanations to any of creative events. Vegetation simply popped into existence without growing from spore or seed, or animals, birds and fishes just popping into existence from nothing, none of were birthed, including Adam and Eve, they simply exist fully grown, no infancy, no growing up.

None of the organisms appearing in Genesis Creation exist naturally.

There are nothing natural about Adam being fully grown and alive, through metamorphosis from “dust of the ground”, which could only mean the dust being “soil”. Instantly transforming soil into a living adult human being is stuff of magic or the supernatural.

Other than in fiction (eg novels, comics, film, tv shows, etc), in religious myths (eg scriptures, beliefs in some supernatural afterlife), and belief in occult (eg paranormal, like telepathy, psychokinesis, levitation, divination, horoscopes, witchcraft, sorcery, etc), only here do magic and supernatural exist.

There are no knowledge offered in Genesis Creation, nothing being explained, nothing to verify. All that are required from anyone, are beliefs and blind faith.

 

[Truthseeker]

Genesis remains an evolved compilation of a primitive Creation mythical narrative found in virtually all ancient cultures, and does not relate to possible events of our physical existence, history of our physical existence or life.

That's true that they don't correspond to physical occurancces hardly at all, but at times there is symbolism in the text I would say. Not that I would focus on the book of Genesis very much at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's true that they don't correspond to physical occurancces hardly at all, but at times there is symbolism in the text I would say. Not that I would focus on the book of Genesis very much at all.

The use of Genesis and much of the Pentateuch in terms of symbolism is OK. Yes, these ancient texts were considered both literal and symbolic. Unfortunately, the NT refers to Genesis and the Pentateuch as literal history in terms of Adam and Eve's original sin, the Fall, and the flood. The nature of the theology and beliefs in most of Christianity is grounded in these myths being roughly literal.

 

[Astrophile]

Clearly you can go by your rules. Abiogenesis is integral to the theory of evolution.

Why is abiogenesis integral to the theory of evolution? Why should the question whether life began naturally or supernaturally make a difference to the evidence that we share Late Miocene ancestors with australopithecines, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, or the evidence that birds evolved from Late Jurassic feathered dinosaurs, or that fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants?

If you cannot/will not offer an explanation because those are not your rules but consider the making of the first, second, or third molecule on earth to be a product of that which just "happened" by chance, and yes, by now I realize I'm not playing by your rules, thanks for helping in this regard. The idea that life just evolved (yes, just evolved) from a molecule or element springing up from somewhere without any creative ability from a superior intelligent force (superior to yours anyway) is something you don't want to agree to, is that right? Sorry, but your rules are not my rules.

The first, second and third molecules on Earth were probably molecules of water (H2O) that formed by the well-known rules of chemistry in interstellar clouds and were later incorporated into silicate grains that accreted to form the Earth. In any case, life did not evolve from a single molecule or element (atom?) springing up from somewhere; if life originated by natural processes, it was the result of interactions between (I estimate) about 10^35 molecules of different elements and compounds.

 

[Astrophile]

The first life could have arisen naturally. There is evidence for that. Life could have been planted here by aliens somehow. That is extremely unlikely and there is no evidence for that, but we do know that life can exist in this universe.

The logical difficulty with the hypothesis that life was planted here by aliens is that the aliens had to evolve from more primitive ancestors. Either these ancestors were produced by a natural process of abiogenesis, or they were planted by a previous generation of aliens (infinite regression), or they were created by a god, so we are still left with our original three hypotheses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The logical difficulty with the hypothesis that life was planted here by aliens is that the aliens had to evolve from more primitive ancestors. Either these ancestors were produced by a natural process of abiogenesis, or they were planted by a previous generation of aliens (infinite regression), or they were created by a god, so we are still left with our original three hypotheses.

Yes, sooner or later it is either God or natural abiogenesis. And guess which one is supported by evidence?

 

[gnostic]

The use of Genesis and much of the Pentateuch in terms of symbolism is OK. Yes, these ancient texts were considered both literal and symbolic. Unfortunately, the NT refers to Genesis and the Pentateuch as literal history in terms of Adam and Eve's original sin, the Fall, and the flood. The nature of the theology and beliefs in most of Christianity is grounded in these myths being roughly literal.

The problems with some Christians, especially among YEC creationists, to think that Genesis and Exodus were written by Moses in the 15th century BCE, which would mean during the early half of the 18th dynasty (New Kingdom period), and in the Late Bronze Age.

However, we have no Hebrew writings whatsoever during that century, and there were no writing alphabet of any type - eg Proto-Canaanite alphabet or paleo-Hebrew alphabet.

Writings in this century and the next, in Bronze Age Canaan were all in Canaanite cuneiform, similar to those found in Ugarit, a city in northwest Syria and those cuneiform in Middle Babylonian. There are no Genesis or Exodus written in Canaanite cuneiform.

The earliest evidence of any “biblical” text were found inscribed in silver amulet, known as the Silver Scrolls, with the cave of Ketef Hinnom. These, along with other artifacts in the cave were dated to between late 7th century and early 6th century BCE. The inscriptions quoted portion of Numbers 6.

We only have fragments of Genesis and Exodus in the 6th century BCE, either dated during the Babylonian Exile or the returns.

There are no evidence in Egypt to support mass liberation of slave in Egypt, and no evidence of mass migration to Canaan in the late 15th century and in early 14th century BCE, the supposed times of Moses and Joshua.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problems with some Christians, especially among YEC creationists, to think that Genesis and Exodus were written by Moses in the 15th century BCE, which would mean during the early half of the 18th dynasty (New Kingdom period), and in the Late Bronze Age.

However, we have no Hebrew writings whatsoever during that century, and there were no writing alphabet of any type - eg Proto-Canaanite alphabet or paleo-Hebrew alphabet.

Writings in this century and the next, in Bronze Age Canaan were all in Canaanite cuneiform, similar to those found in Ugarit, a city in northwest Syria and those cuneiform in Middle Babylonian. There are no Genesis or Exodus written in Canaanite cuneiform.

The earliest evidence of any “biblical” text were found inscribed in silver amulet, known as the Silver Scrolls, with the cave of Ketef Hinnom. These, along with other artifacts in the cave were dated to between late 7th century and early 6th century BCE. The inscriptions quoted portion of Numbers 6.

We only have fragments of Genesis and Exodus in the 6th century BCE, either dated during the Babylonian Exile or the returns.

There are no evidence in Egypt to support mass liberation of slave in Egypt, and no evidence of mass migration to Canaan in the late 15th century and in early 14th century BCE, the supposed times of Moses and Joshua.

Not to mention the problem that if one follows the literalist timeline then Moses escaped from Egypt to go back to . . . Egypt.

At that time the Egyptian empire extended north to Syria:

The New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt.

 

[gnostic]

Not to mention the problem that if one follows the literalist timeline then Moses escaped from Egypt to go back to . . . Egypt.

At that time the Egyptian empire extended north to Syria:

The New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt.

Especially during the reign of Thutmose III (1479 - 1425 BCE).

Amenhotep II (1427 - c 1401 BCE) kept his father’s empire intact during his reign. I highly doubt that Israelites could invade Canaan without Egypt intervening.

 

[Brian2]

But why would there be any reason to think that a God or spirits exist, especially those of any particular theology unless there is verifiable ev idence for them? and if there is such evidence, then science can detect them.

So are you saying that you do not believe in God because science has not detected God?

Well, I had understood that the word 'scientism' means the belief that science can answer all the important questions. I do not believe that.

For example, science cannot answer questions of ethics. It can *inform* such questions, but it cannot answer them. To answer ethics questions, you need a value system: to figure out what things are important and what are not, relative to each other. Science simply cannot answer those questions. Science can answer questions of what the results of different actions would be. But science cannot say which action should be done (the 'is'-'ought' distinction).

And I don't think that anyone denies that ethical questions are important.

Science also cannot answer questions of aesthetics. Which paintings are good art is not a scientific question. Which literature is good is not a scientific question. Matters of taste are also not scientific questions.

But, again, all of these are important questions, both socially and personally.

What science can answer is questions of 'is' and 'how'. It can establish what exists and how it works. Science can answer how things come about and the fundamental laws for such.

Those questions are the proper role of science. And questions of the existence or non-existence of spirits is right in line with those strengths. And the answer is that there is currently no evidence that they exist.

So, no, I do not hold to scientism in the sence that I believe that all important questions can be answered by science. But I *do* believe that all questions about what exists can be.

Ethics is a human constructs only without God. There is no real good or evil without a God to inform us of such.
Aesthetics is always going to be a human construct and sometimes based on the ethics we accept.
Science can only establish what is and how it works if that thing is testable by science. (But you do accept the existence of aesthetics and ethics it seems even though science cannot absolutely detect them)
Science cannot say how things came about.
The only thing you have established is that YOU do not accept the existence of God because science does not say God exists.
This puts you in the descriptive orb of scientism imo because you have ascribed to science what is beyond the realm of science to determine. This would also be true not only about attributing to science the ability to say if God exists or not about also saying that science can determine how things came to be.
Scientism would be a word coined to describe what is called the new atheists and so would be meant to cover atheism and reasons to say that God does not exist.
I think part of the problem is that we have different definitions of scientism. IMO it is ascribing to science things that science cannot do, God's existence being one of those things.

 

[Brian2]

But why believe the Bible as opposed to the Quran? Or the Bagavad-Gita?

For that matter, why believe one particular interpretation of the Bible as opposed to another?

You claim first that spirits exist and then jump to a particular God as described in a particular text exists. That is quite a leap.

Let's first deal with the properties of the spiritual and how we can go about finding out those properties in a reliable way. THEN we can see whether the Bible is a reliable source on such matters.

My faith is in the God of the Bible and so I jump to that. Your faith is in science (human capacity to scientifically investigate the existence of things) and so you jump to that.
How do you know that your faith is true?

 

[Brian2]

But it does mean there is no *reason* to believe God exists and that anything 'He' does cannot be detected. Which makes 'His' actions irrelevant.

No it means that you use science as your yardstick and that your determination that God does not exist means that He has no actions and so any perceived actions are unreal and so irrelevant.
But that is built on your unjustified presupposition that God does not exist. You have turned the naturalistic methodology of science into a naturalistic philosophy.

I disagree. If God interacts with the 'natural world' (or, for that matter, if any 'spiritual being' does), then that interaction would be detectable and that would be an indirect detection of the spiritual.

And if the interaction has no detectable effects, then it is irrelevant to any explanation of anything we can see.

Miracles happen and science cannot find an answer but never says that God did it, it always says, we don't know. The naturalistic methodology seems to mean that science cannot say or seriously hypothesise that God did it because that would require establishing that God exists.
It's a viscious circle and many scientists seem to see it as proof that God does not exist when in reality that is just a belief that is read into science.
It can be seen in science with such things as OBEs in NDEs and a constant demand for more investigation when the reason for that is because the hypothesis is that consciousness exists outside the body, something that does not fit the current scientific paradigm.

 

[Brian2]

The above represents a terrible lack of understanding of how nature and Natural Laws work as observed and falsified by scientific methods with a heavy dose of the falsy of 'arguing from ignorance.'

Chemical reactions DO happen now and millions or billions of years ago within a possible range of combinations. Science can and does falsify this repeatedly. All the cause-and-effect events observed in the cosmic, geologic record, and the history of life fall within a predictable range of outcomes. The environment determines the outcome of the abiogenesis and evolution of life within a limited range of outcomes. Nothing is random or by chance, in nature, whether Created by God or just came about naturally as determined by NAtural
Law and natural processes..

Of course chemical reactions that happen now would no doubt have been possible billions of years ago. That does not mean that these chemical reactions did happen billions of years ago naturally to bring about life.
What arguing from ignorance fallacy did I just commit?
Is it not arguing from ignorance to say "Look these chemical reactions happen now therefore they must have done that billions of years ago naturally to cause life to evolve"?
If you are a complete naturalist in you faith then you might say that but it is as much a faith as to say that God did it as opposed to saying that it happened naturally.

 

[Brian2]

Genesis remains an evolved compilation of a primitive Creation mythical narrative found in virtually all ancient cultures, and does not relate to possible events of our physical existence, history of our physical existence or life.

That is according to your faith but is not necessarily so. The things that your libel to read in the scientific journals ain't necessarily so.

 

[Ella S.]

Of course chemical reactions that happen now would no doubt have been possible billions of years ago. That does not mean that these chemical reactions did happen billions of years ago naturally to bring about life.
What arguing from ignorance fallacy did I just commit?
Is it not arguing from ignorance to say "Look these chemical reactions happen now therefore they must have done that billions of years ago naturally to cause life to evolve"?
If you are a complete naturalist in you faith then you might say that but it is as much a faith as to say that God did it as opposed to saying that it happened naturally.

I don't think that's quite accurate. Even if I were to take your Straw Man at face value, we at least know that these chemical reactions exist and can occur. That makes them a more likely candidate for the origins of life than God.

Almost any natural explanation that defers to that which we already have evidence for would be more supported than a God hypothesis.

 

[Brian2]

Please give details about how a spirit 'animates' a body. Also, give some evidence that 'dead' atoms cannot act the way they do in living things unless they are 'animated'.

Chemical reactions happen whether a spirit is there or not. Life and consciousness do not happen without a spirit. It is the spirit that gives life and consciousness, it does not give the ability for chemicals to react.
And please don't say that all evidence points to consciousness being only an ability of matter. That is consciousness is material based and not spirit based is something that science cannot determine. Of course all evidence points to material basis because that is all science can see.

Except, again, that is not an explanation of how. It is a claim of who.

OK, so we know that atoms can and do form self-replicators. We know that they follow the laws of physics and chemistry. Why is a metaphysics required at that point? it seems to be claiming something outside is required that is not clearly required.

I cannot see science coming up with an answer as to how information first came into molecules and how those molecules first became holders of and users of information.
Saying that something outside is clearly not required is therefore a belief and not science.

OK, so God can manipulate the physical world of atoms and yet that manipulation is not observable? Otherwise, God would be observable through those effects. And supposedly, those effects are ones that could not be had without said intervention, so the influence should be easily measurable.

It is easily measurable that as far as we know, without a God, the genetic system of evolution could not have been set up and life as we know it could not exist. BUT that is not something that science is going to say, the naturaltic methodology forbids that, so you say,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"ahh God of the gaps, give us time, we'll find a possible way"
But that is no more that faith in naturalism and is not science, it is the science of the gaps.

OK, so different interventions at different times for each of these specific end results? And yet, the actual changes cannot be attributed to an outside influence because then God would be detectable by science?

Yes I know that science cannot attribute anything to God even when no other reasonable answer is there. Speculate until what is hypothesised sounds reasonable enough and justify a faith in naturalism.

Why not just say that God intervened once at the beginning of the universe and allowed for the physics and chemistry to produce the observed results? No other intervention would be required, thereby allowing you to keep undetectability.

And if you do it that way, I can agree that it is completely possible and consistent with what we have detected. It is also unnecessary.

I could say that, but that is just giving an inch to a system that does not stop in it's naturalistic methodology and rides rough shod over other things also, such as the basis of life and the story of Genesis. And that is my faith, in the God of the Bible and what He has said. You have your faith in naturalism and what it tells us and good for you but why should you expect me to bow to the god of your faith, which I suppose is the ability of man and science to determine what exists and also what happened in the past.
Why don't you just say that science does not and cannot know if God exists and what actually did happen in the past to bring about the universe and life etc and give the glory to God?