Abiogenisis

[Valjean]

If a god created
-the universe
Which then formed
-the chemicals for life

Then said god is responsible for the creation of life, IOW life wouldn't have formed without said god first creating the universe.

A responsibility many, many steps removed; a responsibility that need not imply any intention, planning, design or post-Big Bang activity on this God's part.

This deistic view leaves the chemical origin of life and the theory of subsequent evolution the only reasonable and evidenced explanations.

Do you understand that this God scenario is entirely without objective evidence?

 

[Valjean]

You said you were just guessing, so I am asking if this is a different guessing to the guessing scientists use.

Scientists test "guesses." They use a rigorous methodology to rule out any other possibilities.
Science is not guesswork.

I think if you are of the view that only scientist use the scientific method, and that science is the only path to truth, then your thinking is flawed.

Various people have haphazardly applied certain mechanisms of the scientific method for several thousand years, but as an organized methodology, science is a new thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "only path to truth." Truth about what? value? purpose? -- or ontological truth about the nature of reality and how the world works?

Questions about how the world works are outside the domain of religion. Religion doesn't have the tools to investigate them. In fact, it has no interest I can see in investigating them at all.

So why does religion keep trespassing into science's area of expertise, with alternative claims of how things work, supported by no objective or empirical evidence?

 

[Valjean]

Proposed alternative mechanisms to what you believe?
Listen. I am no scientist. I do not propose hypotheses for scientist to use their methodologies to test.
Science has its "domain". It's not the only one. It also has limits.

I agree. Science explores questions of objective reality, like how the world works. On questions of value, purpose, meaning, &c, it's out of its depth. It avoids these areas.

Religion, likewise, should avoid science's domain of objective reality and testable facts. It doesn't have the tools to navigate these.

If you want to know what else there is to consider, then I suggest you come out of your box, and take a look.

What box? Science stays in its box, for the most part. It's religion that does not.

When you try to squeeze everything into your box, you make a huge mistake. One millions of scientists will tell you, is simply to wear blinders... like the race horse that is blindsided.

Again, I quite agree.
Science does not attempt to squeeze religion into its box. Religion, on the other hand, is always trying to fit objective, scientific facts into its own.

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

Ok... and this is science's proper domain, isn't it? It's the domain you imply religion should stay out of.
So what's your point? Are you disagreeing with this?

 

[Valjean]

Is natural selection directed?
A. Yes
B. No

No. It works fine with no direction at all, just through the mundane, physical mechanisms it describes.
There is neither evidence for, nor need of, any intentional or planned direction.

Q:
A. Life a natural, emergent property of chemical interaction.
B. Life requires some undetected, insubstantial, amorphous, essential "fluid" or "spirit" to exist.

 

[Brian2]

How about the unfulfilled prophecies. Are they to be swept under the rug?
How about the prophecies from non-biblical sources

No we can't sweep unfulfilled prophecies under the carpet. I have found that those who are sceptical about the Bible see unfulfilled prophecies where a believer sees fulfilled prophecy. Or a sceptic might disregard evidence for a possible fulfillment of a prophecy and a believer see that evidence as proof that we cannot say that a prophecy has failed.
Other times it is just a different interpretation. Most skeptics might say for example that Matt 16:28 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”............................. is a failed prophecy and believers would say that Jesus referred to the transfiguration which directly follows the prophecy in the synoptic gospels (and is not in John's gospel)
And it is interesting that a prophecy like this which had failed would probably not be put in the gospels if the gospels were written late, so really for a sceptic it should be a matter of choosing whether they think the gospels were written late or if this prophecy was not fulfilled since believing the 2 probably would not work.

Prophecies from non Biblical sources can sometimes be true probably. I don't think anything compares to the Bible for true prophecies however.

The classic analogy to religion is the Pastafarian religion and its Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was invented from whole cloth to be essentially indistinguishable from traditional religion. It claims equal authority, and asks equal social status and legal concessions.

You seem to know that the Pastafarian religion is invented. It is not that simple with the Bible and what it teaches.

 

[Valjean]

I was looking at this article, and here are some takeaways.
Oh, in case you think this was written by a layman... it was written by an astrophysicist.

Takeaways:

• Models and theories in science, are representations and approximations of reality as scientist see it. Not truth.
  
• Scientific theories change with time. New information and data, updates current beliefs. How can a belief be true if it is subject to change at a moment's notice? It is not truth.
• Interpretations of observations are flawed and subject to bias and experimental uncertainty. Some observations can be flat out wrong. Far from the truth.
• Science is not truth.

So what is truth? Does it even exist? How are we to discern it?
Scientific models and theories are the best evidenced facts or interpretations available at a given time. They're the epistemic gold standard.
Ideally they're observable, reproducible, productive, tested and peer reviewed.

Science investigates. It makes new observations and discovers new facts, details and relationships.
When new facts are discovered, they're added to our corpus of knowledge. These changes add to our knowledge. They increase the accuracy of our knowledge. Why do you see this as problematic?

In science, people are encouraged independently to repeat reported observations and criticize interpretations That's how science works. It's how it eliminates bias and uncertainty.
Another part of the process is testing. Scientists are encouraged to find flaws in and try to disprove the reports and experiments of other scientists.
This, again, increases reliability, yet you find it suspicious.

Is there anything you would trust; anything you'd find credible?

I'm interested in truth. What are you after.... explanations that may be wrong; are uncertain; can change, and continue changing even after you die, so that what you died believing to be true, actually wasn't?

You should abandon your interest in truth. By your metric it's unknowable.
And what does death have to do with this?

I'm happy with truths that can be proven every single day, and will not change.

How are you defining proven? It clearly has no relationship with the common understanding of the term.

How do you discern and test this truth, if you reject evidence as a metric? Is it whatever is emotionally satisfying or familiar? Don't people everywhere do this, and come to wildly different conclusions?
That doesn't sound like a very reliable metric.

I am happy with the truth now, because it brings tremendous benefits now.

What does truth have to do with happiness or benefits? Are we talking about psychotherapy, or ontological fact?

Continued...

 

[Brian2]

We

Weren't the ingredients nucleosynthesized within stars, by ordinary physics?

God created the beginnings of the universe and all the ingredients for the building blocks of matter and then also the heavens and the earth. Presuming that the science explanation is correct, how does it show that God was not needed. It shows the route God took to do it.

 

[Brian2]

Probably nothing at first at least, except give us an understanding of how life could arise. Down the line and far into the future, we could potentially manipulate or create simple lifeforms, many of which could help cure diseases or something. Maybe we could make some bacteria that consumed CO2 or plastic or whatever. I don't know what exactly such knowledge would result in, guess it depends how it turns out.

I was not asking what would happen when science synthesizes life, I was saying that it would be demonstrated that life could come into existence through natural means when man manages to synthesize life.

 

[Brian2]

That would be making life without God, so yes, it would prove that. You appear to be desperate when you make such a statement.

If science succeeds in making artificial life, science succeeds in making artificial life. It will show that abiogenesis is true but logically it won't show that spirit is not needed for life and that life is chemically based.

 

[Brian2]

There does not appear to be any other evidence.

That is what I said. Science cannot see physical evidence. To be expected when science cannot detect spirit.

 

[Brian2]

But as it stands, no such discoveries have been made nor do they seem to be looming on the horizon.

If science cannot discover a possible way that genes managed to become an information storage and using system, that could be a reason to say that the whole genetic system had to be designed to work and information needed to be installed initially.
I guess science does not say something like that because science is not designed to see that sort of stuff, only humans are, and especially humans who have faith in the existence of a creator God. Science would go on forever trying to figure it out, because that is all science can do, and those who believe in science or verified evidence and dismiss faith would go along with it................ religiously.

That's always possible, but IMO isn't very likely.

Why would it be unlikely that the conclusion might be wrong because science cannot see or study spirits, which could be a prime ingredient for life?

 

[Brian2]

Brian2 said: ↑

And that would happen when science succeeds in making artificial life.
Scientists are already creating artificial life forms, to explore the various proposed structural models, physiological functions and replication mechanisms of proto-life.
Artificial cell - Wikipedia
Protocell - Wikipedia

Not so, and the articles say that.

 

[Brian2]

A responsibility many, many steps removed; a responsibility that need not imply any intention, planning, design or post-Big Bang activity on this God's part.

This deistic view leaves the chemical origin of life and the theory of subsequent evolution the only reasonable and evidenced explanations.

Do you understand that this God scenario is entirely without objective evidence?

I understand that this God scenario has not been show to be wrong and I understand that this does not mean that it is correct.
I also understand that only people who reject God without verifiable evidence would even think that verifiable evidence is needed to believe in a God for whom there is no verifiable evidence.
The demand for verifiable evidence would be a good reason to reject the call of God and to call it a bad dream or something.

 

[Valjean]

Continued from 306:

nPeace said: ↑
Here are some examples of benefits that come from those truths, which science can never, and does not ever attempt to address. Perhaps I shouldn't say 'does not even attempt'. If, or when they do they fail.

Why would you expect science to address what is not in its domain?
Ask us to address questions of fact: how the world works, how life began, how Earth was formed, how we evolved from simpler life forms.

:smallbluealmond: Living by Bible standards makes one a better person.
Romans 12:17-21

Evidence -
The world is getting angrier, according to a new poll​

Spoiler

More than a third of the world’s adults are worried or stressed, according to a new poll that’s found 2018 to be a record year for negative emotions.

And we're losing our temper more than ever - 22% of adults admitting they feel angry, a record since Gallup started collecting data in 2005.

1 Corinthians 6:18

Evidence -
Effects of human sexual promiscuity - Wikipedia​

Spoiler

A high number of sexual partners in a person's life usually means they are at a higher risk of sexually transmitted infections and life-threatening cancers. These costs largely pertain to the dramatic consequences to physical and mental health. The physical health risks mainly consist of the sexually transmitted disease risks, such as HIV and AIDS, that increase as individuals have develop sexual partners over their lifetime. The mental health risks typically associated with promiscuous individuals are mood, and personality disorders, often resulting in substance use disorders and, or permanent illness. These effects typically translate into several other long-term issues in people's lives and in their relationships, especially in the case of adolescents or those with previous pathological illnesses, disorders, or factors such as family dysfunction and social stress.

Promiscuity in adolescents
Adolescent birth rate per 1000 women, 2007–2012
The prevalence of promiscuity, in the case of adolescents, is known to be a root cause for many physical, mental, and socio-economic risks. Research has found that adolescents, in particular, are at a higher risk of negative consequences as a result of promiscuity.

In sub-Saharan Africa, adolescents engaged in promiscuous activities face many health and economic risks related to teenage pregnancy, maternal mortality, labor complications, and loss of educational opportunities.

I could list about a dozen, or more, and extend it to further evidence, which involves observations, which can be, and are verified, by others.

It's not simply personal experience, in other words.
Christians don't actually need science to point out things which everyone can observe, and even experiment with for themselves.
These lead to truth.

No! This is a sociological and psychological metric, not epistemology. They may lead to an orderly -- if repressed -- society, but this has nothing to do with ontological truth or objective reality.

Truth, fact, and reality are Science's 'box'. Please take your own advice and stay out.
Propriety, values, ethics and behavior is your, religious 'box'. Please stay there.

As for questions of sociology, psychology, politics, and law, science may inform on these, with useful facts, but they are not in science's domain of objective truth.

A principle is a fundamental truth, which cannot change.
I live by Bible principles, and the results are 100% verifiable. If anyone has doubts, the objections or questions are 100% testable.

Verifiable/testable how?; by what metric? Utility?
Couldn't most other religions make the same claims, yet describe different "verifiable" truths or principles, based on different scriptures? Can they all be right?
I'm afraid we're talking past each other. Our concepts and definitions of "truth" and "fact" are not compatible.

Science cannot tell me how to live, and which way of life results in meaningful and lasting benefits.
The Bible does.

You're conflating apples and oranges, again; these are questions of religion, not of objective reality. Science may inform on them, if you ask nicely, but utility is not science.
Remember the domains you were talking about? These are not the domain of science, and they aren't ontological truths.

 

[wellwisher]

Scientists test "guesses." They use a rigorous methodology to rule out any other possibilities.
Science is not guesswork.

Statistical modeling, which used by many areas of science, is about guessing. These methods are based on placing the phenomena in question, into a black box. It does not require any real understanding of the mechanism. The spirits of this math oracle is designed to tell you how to think. That is not rigorous to me other than as platform for Fascists science, since politics uses the same math, with politics not limited to reason.

This type of Science has told us that is coffee is bad for you, one day, and then change its mind depending how the oracles guesses on the next day. Casino science is about playing the odds. Go to a casino and tell me how rigorous gambling is. Also tell how many people are addicted to a delusion of grandeur. Politicians and pollsters use this same math, since it adds fudge to make any manipulation appear more likely.

One of the biggest problem for Abiogenesis is this area of science is still driven by casino science and not by logic. The Atheists should be complaining that too much of science, is still guessing via Lady Luck, and not using the rigors of deliberate logic. Some areas of science are still behind the Age of Reason, using the same techniques as the whims of the gods that appeals to emotions.

For example, science has zero hard data to confirm there is life on other planets. Yet it assumes this. Where is the rigor called hard proof? This guess is based on the oracle of science making this suggestion. Atheists need to become more logical, instead of just a salesman selling what they do not understand. COVID used this technique, appealing to fear as much as science, until politics took over. That is how casino math works.

Logic tells me that water is the foundation of life, since it is the original material, that did not change, all the way back before abiogenesis and then all the way into the present, and seeable future. Water is very stable and it hydrogen bonding matrix is the most logical floor, onto which the organics of life would evolve. Water creates a stable physical chemical platform of hydrogen bonding, which when affected by organic materials; add energy to the floor; surface tension. The lowering of surface tension evolves the organics and pushes them together into organic phases; organelles.

Guesswork science still does not see this. Science can be disappointing when their biggest cheerleaders have no clue about how much of science is still based on guessing. How many more decades do we need to wait for abiogenesis to be complete. When does Lady Luck hit the jackpot?

 

[Valjean]

God created the beginnings of the universe and all the ingredients for the building blocks of matter and then also the heavens and the earth. Presuming that the science explanation is correct, how does it show that God was not needed. It shows the route God took to do it.

Why do theistic claims always seem to retreat to the fringes of scientific research, where little or nothing has yet been established?

Science has made no claims regarding God and the BB, that I'm aware of.
God not being needed is usually applied to established science, where known, natural mechanisms satisfactorily account for some phenomenon.
Big Bang physics is still in its infancy.

But we have no reason to expect that any god is likely to pop up. One never has before, once we discovered a natural mechanisms for a phenomenon previously attributed to him.

 

[Valjean]

I was not asking what would happen when science synthesizes life, I was saying that it would be demonstrated that life could come into existence through natural means when man manages to synthesize life.

OK. Some here have asked what would happen, and, I was illustrating that science is already on its way to synthesizing life, and demonstrating a natural mechanism for abiogenesis.
I addressed both questions.

If science succeeds in making artificial life, science succeeds in making artificial life. It will show that abiogenesis is true but logically it won't show that spirit is not needed for life and that life is chemically based.

Why does religion claim spirit is needed for life, if not to bolster its claim of God?
What actual evidence might be discovered for the claim?
Until such evidence be discovered, why would it be reasonable to believe in it, and why would it not be reasonable to expect a chemical basis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No we can't sweep unfulfilled prophecies under the carpet. I have found that those who are sceptical about the Bible see unfulfilled prophecies where a believer sees fulfilled prophecy. Or a sceptic might disregard evidence for a possible fulfillment of a prophecy and a believer see that evidence as proof that we cannot say that a prophecy has failed.
Other times it is just a different interpretation. Most skeptics might say for example that Matt 16:28 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”............................. is a failed prophecy and believers would say that Jesus referred to the transfiguration which directly follows the prophecy in the synoptic gospels (and is not in John's gospel)
And it is interesting that a prophecy like this which had failed would probably not be put in the gospels if the gospels were written late, so really for a sceptic it should be a matter of choosing whether they think the gospels were written late or if this prophecy was not fulfilled since believing the 2 probably would not work.

Prophecies from non Biblical sources can sometimes be true probably. I don't think anything compares to the Bible for true prophecies however.



You seem to know that the Pastafarian religion is invented. It is not that simple with the Bible and what it teaches.

Do you realize that some of the unfulfilled prophecies are very damaging to Christianity? How do you deal with those? I would say that denying them is an attempt to sweep them under the rug. Or do you just admit that they were wrong? I have found that many Christians have trouble dealing with even minor failed prophecies such as the Tyre prophecy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If science succeeds in making artificial life, science succeeds in making artificial life. It will show that abiogenesis is true but logically it won't show that spirit is not needed for life and that life is chemically based.

No, it will not show that abiogenesis is true.

Have you heard about Last Thursdayism? I have known of Christians that believed a version of it. But I would say that it would likely refute you claim about "spirit". That is assuming one of the steps in making life is not:

Okay, spirit, spirit, spirit, I know that I have a jar of it somewhere. Ahh! There it is. Add one teaspoon of spirit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is what I said. Science cannot see physical evidence. To be expected when science cannot detect spirit.

It does not appear to exist. How would you show that it does exist?