Abiogenesis

[shunyadragon]

I think a problem you have is that you do not read what I have said.

The problem is whar you said. Clear it up based on science.

Science does not deal with those questions outside science. It is both scientists and others who deal with them outside science and when non scientists hear that science sees life as coming from chemicals and that life could be on other planets because the chemicals are there it certainly gives the impression to laymen that science sees life as chemicals only. And let's face it, that is what science is seeking to show imo and that even consciousness comes from those chemicals.

The 'certainly gives the impression' from the layman's perspective is not meaningful unless science as science is taken into consideration. Yes, the present evidence demonstrates that life developed from inorganic chemicals, and yes it could be on other planets. This does negate the Creation of life by God through natural methods. Yes the 'Objective Verifiable evidence' demonstrates that consciousness came about through evolution as the nervous system evolved. Consciousness has been demonstrated as throughout the animal world by degrees where animals have a complex nervous system

I know you want to defend poor defenceless science, but maybe inadvertently it is heading towards showing that God is not needed. But of course it has not succeeded, it hypothesises only, but the public does not know that, especially impressionable kids who love science.

Science will not likely never be able to demonstrate God does not exist, nor determine the necessity of God, which is far far beyond the limits of science.

Biased extreme sarcasm and an arogant agressie begative view of science noted. Science is in no way 'poor defenseless.' It is supported by the 'Objective Verifiable Evidence' where theological worldviews have none beyond belief and faith, Yes science has succeeded in the consensus of 95%+ of all scientists where Theological beliefs and faith lack any sense of agreement with thousands of different and conflicting beliefs.

Where is there any 'Objective Verifiable Evidence' that supports one religious belief is true and the others are fals?

 

[Brian2]

Not so. There is simply no evidence for Godidit. The burden of proof lies upon the person making that claim. You should be asking yourself why the supporters of Godidit, and there are believers in the sciences, cannot support that.

As much as you claim that there is a supposed rule against Godidit you cannot seem to find one.

Naturalistic methodology is the rule and with it comes the rule that science cannot accept evidence for Goddidit outside the things that can be studies by science.
Science is for the study of things that can be studied by science only and so cannot come to a definite conclusion about whether Goddidit or not,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but that does not stop people from making science into some sort of evidence for Goddidnotdoit. But that is using science in a way it is not designed for.
So there is evidence that Goddidit which is invalid for science even though it exists.

 

[Brian2]

Great. Now find some reliable evidence, which in this case would be scientific evidence, that supports your beliefs.

It's not up to me personally to do that. The minority scientists have done that work. I just side with them because of my religious beliefs and others no doubt side with the ruling majority because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Naturalistic methodology is the rule and with it comes the rule that science cannot accept evidence for Goddidit outside the things that can be studies by science.
Science is for the study of things that can be studied by science only and so cannot come to a definite conclusion about whether Goddidit or not,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but that does not stop people from making science into some sort of evidence for Goddidnotdoit. But that is using science in a way it is not designed for.
So there is evidence that Goddidit which is invalid for science even though it exists.

Naturalistic methodology is the rule and with it comes the rule that science cannot accept evidence for Goddidit outside the things that can be studies by science.
Science is for the study of things that can be studied by science only and so cannot come to a definite conclusion about whether Goddidit or not,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but that does not stop people from making science into some sort of evidence for Goddidnotdoit. But that is using science in a way it is not designed for.
So there is evidence that Goddidit which is invalid for science even though it exists.

Nope, you are quite wrong. You have been corrected on this many times over.

Only natural events need a natural explanation. That does not mean that a magical event could not leave evidence behind. All that believers in magic need to do is to explain how the observed evidence points to a magical cause. This is why so many of the myths of the Bible fail. The believers in magic or miracles if you prefer, cannot find any evidence for their beliefs even with not having to explain how Godidit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not up to me personally to do that. The minority scientists have done that work. I just side with them because of my religious beliefs and others no doubt side with the ruling majority because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

It is at the very least up to people that share your beliefs. When you or others that you agree with, make a claim you take on a burden of proof.

If God is real, and takes action at some time that affects the Earth, then those actions could and should leave some sort of evidence behind, even if you can't explain how he did it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Naturalistic methodology is the rule and with it comes the rule that science cannot accept evidence for Goddidit outside the things that can be studies by science.
Science is for the study of things that can be studied by science only and so cannot come to a definite conclusion about whether Goddidit or not,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but that does not stop people from making science into some sort of evidence for Goddidnotdoit. But that is using science in a way it is not designed for.
So there is evidence that Goddidit which is invalid for science even though it exists.

There is absolutely no 'Objective Verifiable Evidence for God. You cannot expect science to accept the subjective evidence for God anymore than you can use the Bible as a guide to build a jet palne.

 

[Brian2]

Nope, you are quite wrong. You have been corrected on this many times over.

Only natural events need a natural explanation. That does not mean that a magical event could not leave evidence behind. All that believers in magic need to do is to explain how the observed evidence points to a magical cause. This is why so many of the myths of the Bible fail. The believers in magic or miracles if you prefer, cannot find any evidence for their beliefs even with not having to explain how Godidit.

What, in what I said, was wrong?
Why isn't the existence of the Church evidence for Jesus having risen from the dead?
What is more magical, matter coming to life and consciousness all by itself or a designer and life giver doing it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What, in what I said, was wrong?
Why isn't the existence of the Church evidence for Jesus having risen from the dead?
What is more magical, matter coming to life and consciousness all by itself or a designer and life giver doing it?

It is only evidence that people believed in him. Your claim would be the same as a Muslim claiming that the existence of Islam is evidence that Mohammed split the Moon in two.

 

[Brian2]

..................................

I can't go on.You win. But you did have a problem understanding what I was really saying in my posts.

 

[Brian2]

It is at the very least up to people that share your beliefs. When you or others that you agree with, make a claim you take on a burden of proof.

If God is real, and takes action at some time that affects the Earth, then those actions could and should leave some sort of evidence behind, even if you can't explain how he did it.

Evidence left behind is the whole of creation and the intelligence behind it and the life in it. The more these things are examined the more certain that is imo but seeing the forest for the tree is not so easy for some.
The burden of proof is taken on by the neutral 3rd party, science.
In the meantime believers in God still believe and non believers still do not believe.
Believers see evidence for an intelligent and powerful designer and life giver and non believers see none.

 

[Brian2]

It is only evidence that people believed in him. Your claim would be the same as a Muslim claiming that the existence of Islam is evidence that Mohammed split the Moon in two.

The difference is that Christianity and the whole gospel is built around Jesus death and resurrection, and it would not have kicked off if Jesus did not resurrect, and those who spread the gospel would not have risked their lives for something they knew to be a lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence left behind is the whole of creation and the intelligence behind it and the life in it. The more these things are examined the more certain that is imo but seeing the forest for the tree is not so easy for some.
The burden of proof is taken on by the neutral 3rd party, science.
In the meantime believers in God still believe and non believers still do not believe.
Believers see evidence for an intelligent and powerful designer and life giver and non believers see none.

Nope, you do not seem to understand what evidence is. The universe is only evidence that the universe exists.

Since we are now in the realm of science one cannot even have evidence if one does not have a testable hypothesis in the first place. What is your belief and what reasonable test based on the merits of your hypothesis could possibly show it to be wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The difference is that Christianity and the whole gospel is built around Jesus death and resurrection, and it would not have kicked off if Jesus did not resurrect, and those who spread the gospel would not have risked their lives for something they knew to be a lie.

Sorry, that is such a poor argument that it can be refuted with a :

So what?

 

[shunyadragon]

What, in what I said, was wrong?
Why isn't the existence of the Church evidence for Jesus having risen from the dead?
What is more magical, matter coming to life and consciousness all by itself or a designer and life giver doing it?

All of this represents religious claims with only claims of subjective non-verifiable evidence. For example: There are no independent outside historical witness to the life of Jesus and the miracles in his life. This is the same problem with the miraculous claims of all ancient religions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Evidence left behind is the whole of creation and the intelligence behind it and the life in it. The more these things are examined the more certain that is imo but seeing the forest for the tree is not so easy for some.
The burden of proof is taken on by the neutral 3rd party, science.
In the meantime believers in God still believe and non believers still do not believe.
Believers see evidence for an intelligent and powerful designer and life giver and non believers see none.

The overwhelming problem with Intelligent Design advocates is you need to propose a scientific hypothesis that would negate the possibility that our physical existence has natural origins. At present ALL theories and hypothesis verification and predictability confirm that the our physical existence is the product of Natural Laws and natural processes. No evidence of a miraculous Creation. It is possible that God did Create our physical existence, but by the evidence God did so through Natural Laws and natural processes.

Intelligent Design is the proposal of subjective religious based hypothesis that is not falsifiable by scientific methods.

 

[`mud]

EXADLY WUT HE SAID !

 

[Subduction Zone]

The overwhelming problem with Intelligent Design advocates is you need to propose a scientific hypothesis that would negate the possibility that our physical existence has natural origins. At present ALL theories and hypothesis verification and predictability confirm that the our physical existence is the product of Natural Laws and natural processes. No evidence of a miraculous Creation. It is possible that God did Create our physical existence, but by the evidence God did so through Natural Laws and natural processes.

Intelligent Design is the proposal of subjective religious based hypothesis that is not falsifiable by scientific methods.

The few times that they have tried to use the scientific method their hypotheses end up being refuted. Who can forget "Irreducible complexity".

 

[`mud]

Ahhh... that there be `gods` to guide us, but....they are hiding from us...and the books are crumbling.

 

[`mud]

I'm preety old, but I don't remember----" Who can forget "Irreducible complexity"."

 

[Brian2]

There is absolutely no 'Objective Verifiable Evidence for God. You cannot expect science to accept the subjective evidence for God anymore than you can use the Bible as a guide to build a jet palne.

You seem to understand what I am saying and repeat it in your own words but then you disagree with me and how I said it.
Science is science and theology is theology. What I have trouble with is people claiming that all the evidence points to one thing without qualifying the whole statement with it being scientific evidence.