Life From Dirt?

[Brian2]

Science does not claim that anything designed and created itself. The first life came about in the first suitable environment in hydrothermal vents by Natural Laws and natural processes.

Science does not claim that anything designed and created itself, that would imply that nature was alive. Science uses natural laws and processes. But I use different language than science and thought that people might be able to see that without any need to attack me or what I said. sigh. but no.

The fundamental objective evidence has determined that life came about naturally. If God exists God Created naturally.

No, the evidence has not determined how life came about.

 

[Brian2]

By natural laws and natural processes in an ideal environment in hydrothermal vents.

Interesting presumption or faith.

Good thing you agree it is imo on your part, because there is no evidence for ID. Yes it is possible that if God exists he Created and evolved life as the evidence has determined. This way there would not be the conflicts between ancient religious claims and science.

What would evidence for ID involve?
What would evidence against ID involve?

 

[Brian2]

Then you have not studied either very well. Yes, science changes. That is an asset. The Bible cannot change even though it s wrong again and again and again. Instead apologists have to lie for the Bible. If you look at how science changes you will see that it is continually getting more and more accurate. The Bible is just wrong. It cannot improve.

I don't think it can be known in some areas if science is continually getting more and more accurate.

 

[Brian2]

False. When there is no evidence of gods or pixies, then you do not require a presumption they weren't involved.
Once more: the presumption is entirely on the side of those that wish to include gods or pixies while having no evidence of them.

False. The Bible is evidence of God and nature in all it's wonder and grandeur is evidence of God.
Science cannot use that sort of evidence or even if miracles happen through prayer.
Science has to ignore any hypothesis that God was involved unless the evidence is such that it can be tested and falsified.
If people want to take it past that and say that there was no God involved that is a faith statement. Science as such does not do that, but skeptics and atheists do it seems, even if they deny it.

 

[Brian2]

Based on WHAT?
You are just repeating your claims instead of answering the question.



No. We just refuse to see further then what the evidence shows. Without evidence, there is nothing other to look at.


We have plenty of independently verifiable evidence of how cars are the result of designers.
We also have zero natural processes that explains the existence of cars.

No natural processes explain the existence of the universe or life. It is all in the imagination of people who want to believe those things.
Show me where science has shown the existence of the universe or life, except for things in your head.
A delusion is similar to something that does not exist I hear.

 

[ratiocinator]

The Bible is evidence of God and nature in all it's wonder and grandeur is evidence of God.

How can a self-contradictory, incoherent, disjointed collection of books be evidence for a god, exactly?

Science has to ignore any hypothesis that God was involved unless the evidence is such that it can be tested and falsified.

If the 'evidence' is not testable or falsifiable, it isn't evidence.

If people want to take it past that and say that there was no God involved that is a faith statement.

Hardly anybody claims to know there is no god involved. There is just no reason at all to take the idea seriously.

 

[Brian2]

The evidence you, by your own admission, reject for for example alien abductees.
It's the exact same type of "evidence" as you have for your beliefs: people making claims. "testimony".

So I believe they experienced something.

No. Rather because you accept "testimony" when it matches your beliefs but happily reject it when it doesn't.
Double standards.

Are you saying that people give testimony about aliens, bigfoot etc and actually know what aliens and bigfoot etc look like etc or assuming they have the experience, it may not have anything to do with aliens etc.

Which is the same type of reason people believe in scientology, islam, alien abduction, etc.
The point. You keep missing it.

OK just to keep you happy, if God draws me to any of those things I will believe them also.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

False. The Bible is evidence of God

No. The bible is a collection of claims concerning gods.

and nature in all it's wonder and grandeur is evidence of God.

How?

Science cannot use that sort of evidence or even if miracles happen through prayer.

Because it isn't proper verifiable evidence. They are just claims and anecdotes (which are also just claims).
Sounds like you don't understand what valid evidence actually is.
If it's not independently verifiable, then it's just more claims.

Science has to ignore any hypothesis that God

Hypothesis are independently testable.
What you really mean are, again, claims.
There is no "god hypothesis", because god claims aren't testable.

was involved unless the evidence is such that it can be tested and falsified.

Correct.
Unfalsifiable claims are a dime a dozen. Potentially infinite in number, only limited by human imagination.
I can come up with a bazillion unfalsifiable claims right on the spot and you wouldn't be able to disprove any single one of them, on the count of them being untestable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable. They are utterly useless and a complete waste of time.
Hence: undetectable graviton pixies. Relativity equations don't have a variable for them, or any of the other infinite amount of unfalsifiable things you could invent out of thin air, for exactly that reason.

If people want to take it past that and say that there was no God involved that is a faith statement.

Nobody does that because that too is a waste of time.

For example, how many medical papers have you read where it is said that "cancerous cells aren't caused by undetectable cancerous dragons"?
Do you know of a physicist who wastes his time trying to point out that undetectable graviton pixies aren't involved in regulating gravity?

Note the word I bolded in your statement. That's a hint of how it's a useless statement.
It's also a blatant attempt at shifting the burden of proof. YOU are the one who wants to insist a god was involved. Upto you to come with evidence for that statement.

If the best you got is "well, you can't prove god was NOT involved" then wooptie-doo.

Science as such does not do that, but skeptics and atheists do it seems, even if they deny it.

Which skeptics and atheists would that be?
Can you quote one on this forum?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No natural processes explain the existence of the universe or life.

We have plenty of plausible hypothesis.
We have zero evidence of unnatural causes.

It is all in the imagination of people who want to believe those things.

Nobody "believes" any of these things. The "beliefs" are entirely on your end.

Show me where science has shown the existence of the universe or life, except for things in your head.
A delusion is similar to something that does not exist I hear.

Maybe you should apply your "logic" to your own beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So I believe they experienced something.

Sure. So do I. But that's not what is under discussion, now is it?

Are you saying that people give testimony about aliens, bigfoot etc and actually know what aliens and bigfoot etc look like

Are you not aware of these testimonies?
Many of them are so sincere they even pass lie detector tests.
They literally put their social reputation on the line by trying to convince people that what they think to have experienced, actually happened - knowing full well the majority of people will consider them nuts. They are very aware that by sharing these beliefs, they will pay an immediate social price. That's how serious they are.
But you don't believe them, do you?

etc or assuming they have the experience, it may not have anything to do with aliens etc.

How would you know?

OK just to keep you happy, if God draws me to any of those things I will believe them also.

You keep circling around the point made.

 

[shunyadragon]

Interesting presumption or faith.

Perpetua; proble mwith the English language and intentional ibirance of science.

What would evidence for ID involve?

The fact that Methodological Naturalism has falsified that natural processes explain the complexity of life. Scientific Methods use objective verifiable methods to predict the possible outcomes of natural cause and effect events. The complexity of life is a product of natural casue and effect events over billions of years.

What would evidence against ID involve?

Same as above. The problem is that hypotheses to support ID must falsify the negative that the complexity of life cannot come about by natural processes. Not only that the staff at the Discovery Institute failed to do this, but scientific research that all the examples of life's complexity proposed by the Discovery Institute have been adequately demonstrated by science to be a product of natural processes.

The critics of science with an ancient religious agenda often 'argue from ignorance' concerning what they claim science does not know. This is not only a logical fallacy, but fails to demonstrate the ID argument,

The fact that the existence of a possible 'Designer' cannot be objectively determined, ie God, Brahman, Zeus, Aliens, or a Council of Gods, cannot justify ID.

It actually kind of impossible to falsify the negative negative in Methodological Naturalism. There is no such thing as negative evidence to falsify a hypothesis.

 

[Bthoth]

The people who became the ones we know as Hebrews existed back then.

All of us people existed back then, our lineages were all alive back then.

The language (hebrew) did not exist back then. Oldest observance is about 1000bc and that material is close to nothing, if you look at the evidence. It is stretching to even consider hebrew, the langauge existed before 600BC.

No, Moses would not have known the language of the Hebrews as an infant.

I know, as the language did not exist while he was alive.

I don't think that is known.

Look up semitic language group. The very term semitic is about a language group.

The book of Maat came from around 3000 BC and hopefully any laws made by humans would reflect something of what humans are.

I am aware that the rules existed before anything of torah or any story of a moses.

It looks like Arkenatan reigned while Israel was conquering and settling down in Canaan in 2nd half of 14th cent BC. (1350-1335)

Yep, the NEW Kingdom (levant) was an egyptian vassal, during the very period that many claim, an israel was born, per OT.

That's the crash! Archaeology proves the biblical frame is incorrect. My joke is: What is an exodus, from Egypt to Egypt (New Kindgom)?

Why would I want to say Abraham was Egyptian when the story says he came from Ur of the Chaldeans, Mesopotamia.

The story is what to question as incorrect. If you want to apply circumcision to Abraham, then the god that told Abraham must have been a pharaoh. Again, archaeology proves the requirement was in egypt, well before anything of torah (the story) even existed.

Why would to circumcision of one family and it's servants by known in history?

No idea what that means......... please rewrite the question?

Even by the time they went into Egypt with Jacob there were only about 70 people.

Again, you are focused on the biblical story and that is what to shelf as historical record

Moses son had not been circumcised and it is not known if Moses was or not.

When i read the story, I noticed that the daughter of pharaoh just about immediately identified the child as non egyptian (book says hebrew), as soon as she opened the basket. My thought is the BOY was NOT circumcised and how she made the claim. She perhaps had never seen a male uncircumcised before. To be without, by her time period was perhaps uncivilized to royalty.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science does not claim that anything designed and created itself, that would imply that nature was alive. Science uses natural laws and processes. But I use different language than science and thought that people might be able to see that without any need to attack me or what I said. sigh. but no.

It is good that you acknowledge the problem of stating the foolish notion that anyone believes 'Nature Creates itself.' Is the use intentional sardasm? Using correct language to make a coherent argument is important so that you may be properly understood. There are other fundamentalist Christians have used the same meaningless statement.

No, the evidence has not determined how life came about.

This reflects the fallacy of a negative 'arguing from ignorance' with an ancient religious agenda, which does not address how and what science does not and does have evidence for concerning the knowledge of abiogenesis. This argument dodges the fact that natural evolution has demonstrated that from simple one celled organisms to the complexity of life we have today has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that natural evolution describes the history of life.

The science of abiogenesis is at best only fifty years old when the first real research began, and yes, there have been many advances since. I have posted a thread with the recent research and evidence for abiogenesis. It is clearly acknowledged as in all sciences there are obvious unknowns, but 'arguing from ignorance' with simplistic statements as above with a religious agenda is not a rational argument against abiogenesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

So I believe they experienced something.

Sure there is not questioned they experienced "something" but what?

Are you saying that people give testimony about aliens, bigfoot etc and actually know what aliens and bigfoot etc look like etc or assuming they have the experience, it may not have anything to do with aliens etc.

The same applies to those that claim to have experienced or believe the "supernatural" attributed to God(s), It may have nothing to do with Gods etc.

 

[shunyadragon]

No natural processes explain the existence of the universe or life. It is all in the imagination of people who want to believe those things.
Show me where science has shown the existence of the universe or life, except for things in your head.
A delusion is similar to something that does not exist I hear.

You are severely neglecting hundreds of years of science based on 'objective verifiable evidence' for natural processes and NAtural Laws going back to before Isaac Newton. Even going back to the proposals by Lucretius and science of Islamic science based on direct observations of nature. The above statement more reflects the problem of religious beliefs in the 'supernatural' and Gods.

Also the above resembles a Hindu philosophy that our physical existence is an illusion, and science cannot explain anything about or physical existence, and it is all imagination.

This post and many previous posts by other fundamentalist Christians represent classic fallacies like the the following:

Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The invincible ignorance fallacy, also known as argument by pigheadedness, is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Interesting presumption or faith.

We know natural laws and processes exist and occur. There is no faith or presumption required to observe that.

What would evidence for ID involve?
What would evidence against ID involve?

You're the one making the claim that it's designed. What evidence do you rely on to believe that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

False. The Bible is evidence of God and nature in all it's wonder and grandeur is evidence of God.

No, the Bible contains the claims about God. And not just any god, one very specific God.

Science cannot use that sort of evidence or even if miracles happen through prayer.

Because the Bible is the claim, not the evidence.

Science has to ignore any hypothesis that God was involved unless the evidence is such that it can be tested and falsified.

Of course. Same reason science "ignores" hypotheses about invisible pixies creating the universe.

If people want to take it past that and say that there was no God involved that is a faith statement. Science as such does not do that, but skeptics and atheists do it seems, even if they deny it.

No atheists here have said that to you. In fact, we've gone out of our way to explain how not believing in a thing isn't the same as claiming that thing doesn't exist. Over and over again. Yet you keep claiming it .... why??

 

[shunyadragon]

According to the evidence the gospels were written not long enough after Jesus to account for the addition of embellishments. Witnesses of the events would still have been alive when the synoptic gospels were written.

Actually no, the gospels in their present form did not exist until well after 200-300 AD. There is not one scrap of the gospels within 200 years of th elife of Jesus, and absolutely no second source testimony of the existence of Jesus within his life. The known references to Jesus and the followers of Jesus are third hand references.

Most agree that the resurrection story was proclaimed from the start of the preaching of the gospel.

No, again there is record of this claim until the known text of the gospels after 200 AD. Yes, Christians believe the supernatural accounts of the gospels including the Resurrection are ture.

Perceived by me and possibly the majority of the world's population. IOW God is generally accepted.

Possibly, but which God(s)

Everyone can see evidence for God but some people seem to think that it has been shown by science that God was not necessary in the design and creation of the universe, or just prefer to just say that we don't know and should not believe things that we don't know for sure. But these people believe many things that they don't know for sure. Their view that God was not necessary is subjective, just like my view that God would have been necessary.



Evidence for Jesus is part of the evidence for God of course.

To circular to be valid.
Some seem to think' is the subjective belief of individuals, and does not represent science. Science in and of itself cannot deal with the subjective existence of God(s) or the supernatural

Witnesses wrote down their stories and Luke collected stories from witnesses.

Actually there is no evidence of this.

So there is evidence from many witnesses and not just someone writing a story.

No not one scrape within the life of Jesus.

This is good evidence imo and confirms the prophecies and so that the God of the Bible is real, and the resurrection confirmations show also that Jesus is the one sent by this God.

Good thing it is imo on your part, because the fulfillment of prophecies is highly subjective and inconsistent. The Jews know the Hebrew very well, and it is their book, and they as a matter of fact reject the Christian in terpretation. It is not evidence by definition.

No confirmation outside those that subjectively believe it so. So circular it bits you in the butt

Belief is of course a faith but is faith that you can be rational about. The evidence is there.
But of course it would be irrational to believe every written legend.

 

[shunyadragon]

So have you got a way to determine if things in nature are designed or not?
I just assume design because that is what it looks like. How do you do it?
I did not say scientists are making an argument from incredulity. Where did you get that idea from?

See post #3271

Though the bottom line is there is absolutely no objective evidence of a Designer.

 

[Bthoth]

Actually no, the gospels in their present form did not exist univ well after 200-300 AD. There is not one scrap of the gospels within 200 years of th elife of Jesus, and absolutely no second source testimony of the existence of Jesus within his life.


No, again there is record of this claim until the known text of the gospels after 200 AD. Yes, Christians believe the supernatural accounts of the gospels including the Resurrection are ture.

Ah yes, you are aware.......

Dan Brown wrote a book on it too.

Good thing it is imo on your part, because the fulfillment of prophecies is highly subjective and inconsistent.

Perfectly put, the prophecies are unfulfilled and incomplete.

The Jews know the Hebrew very well, and it is their book, and they as a matter of fact reject the Christian in terpretation. It is not evidence by definition.

Funny how that is, they wrote the prophecies and yet do not side with christianity on the topic of jesus.

I do wonder how it is allowed to have TV shows on the Jewish programs suggesting the jewish jesus or Christian Jews.