Life From Dirt?

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I said, it's all about how you just happen to feel.

Great way to make all of lifes important decisions

Well, I use reason, logic and evidence if relevant and include feelings if relevant.

 

[Audie]

That's true.
I'm a Christian theist and I find that whether I think the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literal or not it does not make a difference and there is always something to attack.
And it goes beyond that to all parts of the Bible that are attacked by atheists/skeptics.
All Bible believing theists are in the same boat in that regard.

Interesting.

It does not matter a bit whether or not
your "god" is a psycho monster.

You arevmaking things up yet again, about
" attacking" the Bible.

You are confused.

Pointing out that some part of the bible is fiction
unless seen in some light other than literal
is no attack. It's much closer to calling for some respect.

The people who do go with " literal or a lie"
are the ones making the Bible an absurd laughing stock.

 

[blü 2]

Possibly. Discoveries in chemistry may mean that adding some chemicals into a certain environment is all that is needed and all those hard things just happen like magic. And this would show something.

One line of enquiry in the study of / hunt for abiogenesis has been to find a place likely to have the potential to bring the necessary elements together. Here's a link showing why hydrothermal vents in the ocean are a promising candidate, how they hint at the potential to assemble the ingredients of a self-reproducing cell. Again, I don't suggest this is established, but it does show the hunt is guided by reasoning from evidence.

The fact that we are here shows that we are here I am told.

That seems reasonable. However, it doesn't do away with human curiosity to know how life began.

Israel was monotheistic from the time of Moses till Israel, on and off, turned to idols.

That's not what the bible says. The bible acknowledges that there are other gods ─ thou shalt have no other gods before me is probably the most famous example, but here are some more references ─

Exodus 15:11​

Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods? / Who is like thee, majestic in holiness, / terrible in glorious deed, doing wonders?​

​

Numbers 33:4​

upon their gods also the Lord executed judgments.​

​

Judges 11:23​

So the Lord, the God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel; and are you to take possession of them? 24 Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess.​

​

Psalms 82:1​

God has taken his place in the divine council; / in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.​

​

Psalms 86:8​

There is none like thee among the gods, O Lord, / nor are there any works like thine.​

​

Psalms 95:3​

For the Lord is a great god, / and a great King above all gods.​

​

Psalms 135:5​

For I know that the Lord is great; / and that our Lord is above all gods.​

and this goes on till the end of the Babylonian captivity. Only then do we find the declaration that Yahweh is the sole God.

And I suspect that the gap of more than 3bn years between the origins of life on earth, and H sap sap maybe 150,000 years ago ─ and then Yahweh, 3,500 years ago ─ isn't going to go away any time soon.

 

[Brian2]

That site is BS, I'm afraid. To claim that it is "mathematically impossible" for life to have arisen naturally is either silly or, perhaps more likely, deceit, i.e. to manufacture a fake talking point for creationists. Do you really suppose that if it truly had been found to be mathematically impossible, science would not acknowledge this? It would be the discovery of the century and Nobel Prizes would follow.

The headline is that abiogenesis is impossible. There is always change in probability when the right environment or ways of understanding are found. So I don't think what it says is proof. I also don't think it would matter what the probability supposedly is, science would always seek ways to show abiogenesis happened naturally.

England has an interesting theory that the flow of energy through chemical systems tends to maximise entropy and that maximisation tendency will quite naturally lead to self-organising of chemistry into life, given enough time, since living things increase entropy more rapidly than inanimate processes. He calls it "dissipation-driven adaptation". It's an elegant idea, though I have not seen much development of it since England first published it, I think in 2014.

That's a strange way to try to show that natural abiogenesis is true. It doesn't make much sense imo.

But Brian, this is the trouble. You are stumbling around, looking for sciency ideas that support what you want to believe, but you don't have the background to differentiate the serious ideas from the charlatanic BS. As I've often observed before on this forum, mainstream Christianity has no trouble reconciling itself to the findings of science, so long as one lets go of the notion of God needing to continually interfere in his creation, as if it were a badly maintained car. There is no evidence of that. On the contrary, the wonderful thing about creation is the way things seem to fit together and can be explainable in terms of each other. My strong advice is to consult theologians that understand science, rather than peeing into the wind trying to pretend science doesn't worlk.

I don't know the ins and outs of what is claimed on that site, but yes I could avoid a lot of debate if I understood Genesis 1-11 in a different way. But I have trouble with that. I might have a light bulb moment one day.

 

[Brian2]

Did you actually read and understand the objections to biblical historicity?

I have read a lot of objections to biblical historicity.
Some of it is good and I cannot answer it,,,,,,,,,,,,, yet. Other parts are opinion based and rely on what I see as archaeological errors. Others are based on the idea that all religion is BS and copied from other earlier religions.

 

[Brian2]

That is what I'm learning from my research into what terms mean, including scientific conjecture from what they think is from the beginning of life onward. Such as dna and genomes. While there are obviously structures called chromosomes and ribosomes, figuring how these things came about seems to be in the realm of fantastic possibilities.

I have no doubt that science one day will say that they have worked out how and in what environments life developed.
That sort of thing has already been done but more problems will be sort of sorted out and atheists and skeptics will have more to crow about even if science does not prove natural abiogenesis by doing that.
Headlines to the general public always create a lie.

 

[Brian2]

All of science is a work in process. What's not known today may be understood tomorrow. What's known today was unknown yesterday. When I was born DNA was not understood, and plate techtonics was fantasy.

The controversy is mechanism, the details are not the issue.
So yes, chemistry doesnot explain it all -- yet, but it is the only known, reasonable or proposed mechanism that would account for life. God/Magic is a special pleading and extraordinary claim, and explains nothing.

Natural mechanisms work when there is something to work with. When we come to creation, God has said that He did it and there is nothing to work with for a naturalistic answer, just speculations.
When we come to life all that science can do is define life in such a way that it is a chemical story and then work out some way that chemistry could have done it.

 

[Brian2]

Your evidence is subjective, so useful only to yourself, and I don't see how your beliefs are reasonable if they're unevidenced or logically invalid. Please explain.

Yes, I understand. Where evidence ends, so does reason, and "evidence for us," ie: feelings, intuition, &c, is epistemically and discursively useless. Your belief is unsupported by reason or evidence. Our lack of belief is the logical default.

They are evidenced by my subjective evidence. It is logically valid to say I have enough evidence to believe in a God, even if you think it is not enough or good evidence.
But I don't really need evidence to believe in a God, that is just your demand. If you don't believe or accept the evidence God has given that is up to you. You have put yourself in that position by saying that an immaterial God should have the evidence that the material universe has.

It is not. How is it rational? Please show your work.

Can you show me how it is rational to say that an immaterial God should have objective evidence that science can work with?
I actually believe first in the possibility of a God and then I find evidence that confirms that belief even if it is subjective.

No, it follows algebraically. Boolean Algebra Calculator - Boolean expression calculator

So no God is necessary, it can happen automatically, by ordinary chemistry.

Some chemistry happening automatically and not the whole thing, means that you have a science of the gaps place, science will work it out one day.

 

[Audie]

Natural mechanisms work when there is something to work with. When we come to creation, God has said that He did it and there is nothing to work with for a naturalistic answer, just speculations.
When we come to life all that science can do is define life in such a way that it is a chemical story and then work out some way that chemistry could have done it.

Someone CLAIMS he heard God say it?
That adds up to zero.

 

[Audie]

They are evidenced by my subjective ....
But I don't really need evidence to believe ..

I actually believe first in the possibility of a God and then I find evidence that confirms that belief even if it is subjective.

Yes! Exactly!

You have quite precisely described intellectual
dishonesty.

From time to time I point out that it is impossible to
be a well informed creationist with intellectual integrity.

All including yourself would agree you are not well
informed in any aspect of science.

You yourself des ribed your intellectual dishonesty.

It might be well to google "intellectual honesty"
and spend time is quiet contemplation..

It could only be more productive than making up
more false claims about atheists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said, The atheist and skeptic commandeer science for themselves and lie about science showing that God does not exist when sceince does not do that but the atheist makes up their evidence from things that science does not claim.

Does that mean that you think that science does not show that God does not exist?
Or does it mean that you think that the science that atheists use to show that there is not God, actually does objectively show that there is not God, and is not a subjective interpretation?

What atheist here has done that? Now your personal version of "God" has been shown not to exist, but that does not mean that all versions have been shown to be false. Not even all Christian versions of God have been shown not to exist.

Odds are that you will not understand this. There is a very similar response by those that won't allow them to understand that refuting their God is not a refutation of all versions of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your version of theism is not the only one around. You are not even the only type of a Christian.

I have a feeling that he will not understand this point. There is a rather specific phrase that those that do not understand respond with.

 

[exchemist]

The headline is that abiogenesis is impossible. There is always change in probability when the right environment or ways of understanding are found. So I don't think what it says is proof. I also don't think it would matter what the probability supposedly is, science would always seek ways to show abiogenesis happened naturally.



That's a strange way to try to show that natural abiogenesis is true. It doesn't make much sense imo.



I don't know the ins and outs of what is claimed on that site, but yes I could avoid a lot of debate if I understood Genesis 1-11 in a different way. But I have trouble with that. I might have a light bulb moment one day.

Do you know these people? :- BioLogos - God's Word. God's World. - BioLogos. I have not read in any great depth what they have to say, but it seemed to me from casual perusal that they are fairly sensible about all this. If I were you, this is the sort of reading I would do on the subject. There's also a guy called Alister McGrath, a fellow chemist (he was one year ahead of me at Oxford, though I never knew him), then biochemist and now Professor of Divinity. He is Anglican. He has written quite well on this.

Whereas the site you linked looks like a treasure trove of bad science. If I get bored I may well dip into it again, for some more nuggets of nonsense to dismantle.

 

[Valjean]

There are many believers.

True, and remarkable, given the lack of evidence.
Most people aren't very rational, particularly about things that affect them only indirectly.

Is what not true?

That we deny the theistshave objective evidence.

I see that science does not say that God does not exist. That is the subjective opinion of atheists who want to use science as their subjective evidence.

First, most atheists don't claim god doesn't exist. Why is this basic, definitive feature of atheism so elusive?
Second, the basic premise of atheism is reason or logic based, not founded on any scientific findings.
Third, science is a method of avoiding subjectivity.

Mostly your responses are probably not an atheist position.
When you atheists and science make unsubstantiated claims, you can jump to the conclusion that my responses are a theist position.

I find making unsubstantiated claims on RF can be hazardous.
Q: What unsubstantiated claims do you think atheism or science are making?

 

[Valjean]

My evidence is subjective and facts, reason and logic are convincing to me.
Show me a fact that shows that there is no God.
All I am doing is showing that a position that says that there is no God is subjective.

I never claimed facts showed God does not exist. I claim the idea is logically unsubstantiated; that it's poorly evidenced.

OK good, science does not show that God does not exist.
We don't know is a reasonable position for those who don't accept the subjective evidence of a theist.
I believe is a reasonable position for those who accept the subjective evidence of a theist.

And now we see eye-to-eye.

 

[Valjean]

It obviously worked or we would not be here. My claim is that it needed God to set up the right environment and it required God to have created the right material and it required God to start things off. And God may have done this more than once with different types of life forms. Gaps in the fossil record can cope with that instead of the theory of rapid evolution that has been suggested. Science can't cope with a God doing anything of course.

Your 'evidence' has retreated to a first cause assertion. which you know can't be refuted. But it is unevidenced conjecture. You can't meet your burden of proof, so it can be dismissed as unfounded.

But really abiogenesis seems to be evolution in chemistry to get the right things that chemicals form and eliminate the wrong ones, so that you end up with a functioning machine which may or may not be life, but ends up as life at some point.

We all know abiogenesis occurred. There is life, where previously there was none. Science proposes a familiar, testable mechanism. Theology proposes magic. There are no other propositions I'm aware of.

So which should a rational person believe? Is ignorance of the proposed scientific mechanisms accounting for the order and complexity reason to conclude "goddidit?" Is personal incredulity evidence of magic?

 

[Valjean]

Natural mechanisms work when there is something to work with. When we come to creation, God has said that He did it and there is nothing to work with for a naturalistic answer, just speculations.

You've spoken to Him? It's this claim has nothing to work with.
The naturalistic, scientific claim has all of physics and chemestry to work from.

When we come to life all that science can do is define life in such a way that it is a chemical story and then work out some way that chemistry could have done it.

How do you define life, absent chemistry? Is it some kind of magical spark?

 

[Valjean]

They are evidenced by my subjective evidence. It is logically valid to say I have enough evidence to believe in a God, even if you think it is not enough or good evidence.
But I don't really need evidence to believe in a God, that is just your demand. If you don't believe or accept the evidence God has given that is up to you. You have put yourself in that position by saying that an immaterial God should have the evidence that the material universe has.

Fine. You believe as you feel. But don't claim your belief has any epistemic validity. It's ontologically indefensible.

Can you show me how it is rational to say that an immaterial God should have objective evidence that science can work with?
I actually believe first in the possibility of a God and then I find evidence that confirms that belief even if it is subjective.

Science doesn't even attempt to work with the unevidenced, or the subjectively evidenced.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no doubt that science one day will say that they have worked out how and in what environments life developed.
That sort of thing has already been done but more problems will be sort of sorted out and atheists and skeptics will have more to crow about even if science does not prove natural abiogenesis by doing that.
Headlines to the general public always create a lie.

I've noticed that headlines in newspapers or on the internet can be misleading.

 

[YoursTrue]

The headline is that abiogenesis is impossible. There is always change in probability when the right environment or ways of understanding are found. So I don't think what it says is proof. I also don't think it would matter what the probability supposedly is, science would always seek ways to show abiogenesis happened naturally.



That's a strange way to try to show that natural abiogenesis is true. It doesn't make much sense imo.



I don't know the ins and outs of what is claimed on that site, but yes I could avoid a lot of debate if I understood Genesis 1-11 in a different way. But I have trouble with that. I might have a light bulb moment one day.

The problem is that gorillas and birds, for example, have not evidenced they have formed any kind of religious tenets. Only humans have done that.