Abiogenesis

[Brian2]

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?

Isn't it the same with hypotheses about where the universe came from and where life came from. What could show that the naturalist answers are wrong?
If a falsifiable hypothesis is needed for science then is abiogenesis or origins of the universe science even legitimate science?
What is the evidence for a naturalistic answer? That what you can see and test is nature,,,,,,,,, and chemicals react with chemicals so life came from chemicals? That science has decided that energy cannot be created or destroyed so the chaotic material of the universe has always been in existence and so the universe came about naturally?
All this stuff is comparable with evidence for a creator and life giver.
If people want to say "I don't know" to how things happened then that is up to them. I go with the evidence for a creator and life giver even if it is not what a scientist might call objective or might not be acceptable in science. The evidence is there however.

 

[Brian2]

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

So what?

That people saw a resurrected Jesus and were prepared to die rather than deny it. So what?

 

[Brian2]

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.

I suppose it is not as if the miracles are experiments that can be done again for confirmation. There is however witness to the miracles and to the resurrection and it is pretty convincing when those who saw the risen Jesus were willing to suffer for that, and they would not have done that if it was a lie.
There are miracles in ancient religions no doubt but there are 4 gospels and so numerous people who were witness and the truth of the matter is that we know they are telling the truth because they became Christians.
You want independent witness for the resurrection but that would really show that the witness was a liar, otherwise he would be a Christian.
This is not what is scientifically acceptable however, but the evidence for abiogenesis and a universe just coming about by itself is not really scientifically acceptable,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,imo,,,,,,,,,unless one has already rejected the evidence for a creator and life giver and a naturalistic answer is the only alternative.
The science for these things is no better than speculation even if science cannot find a God to pin those things on to.

 

[Brian2]

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 idea that things came about naturally is not falsifiable but is still classed as science.

 

[Brian2]

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

I like irreducible complexity even if it has been shown in probably a lot of cases to not be irreducible if this and that and a few other things happened at the same time and met in the middle.
Your position seems to be that if science finds out that it is remotely possible for something to have happened without God then that is the way it happened.
It is a faith like a religious faith, not evidence except a remote possibility that has not been tested.
Btw I liked that yeast experiment. It will be interesting to see if anything else comes of it. We might be dead before that happens but it would be interesting to know.

 

[shunyadragon]

The idea that things came about naturally is not falsifiable but is still classed as science.

This statement is a contradiction and reflects a lack of knowledge and understanding of science. The definition of 'falsifiable of theories and hypothesis in terms science is the same the determination that our natural physical existence came about naturally.

 

[shunyadragon]

I like irreducible complexity even if it has been shown in probably a lot of cases to not be irreducible if this and that and a few other things happened at the same time and met in the middle.

More problems of the lack of understanding of the basics of science and math. The determination of the statistical probability has absolutely nothing to do with the problem of 'irreducibility of complexity.' The claim of 'irreducibility of complexity' has to with the claim that Natural Laws and natural processes cannot explain complexity in life and nature. Science has determined that ALL the vogus claims of 'irreducibility of complexity' made by ID advocates have been determined to come about naturally.

Your position seems to be that if science finds out that it is remotely possible for something to have happened without God then that is the way it happened.
It is a faith like a religious faith, not evidence except a remote possibility that has not been tested.
Btw I liked that yeast experiment. It will be interesting to see if anything else comes of it. We might be dead before that happens but it would be interesting to know.

It is not a question of 'remotely possible' that something comes about naturally it is simply the determination by science that complexity comes about naturally. Science does not make the determination whether God exists or that our physical existence came about naturally or Created by God. The 'Objective Verifiable Evidence' is overwhelming that our physical existence came about by Natural Laws and natural processes. It is possible that God Created out physical existence by Natural LAws and natural processes determined by God.

The scriptural claims of ancient religions of how Creation took place including the Bible are far too contradictory and inconsistent to explain the nature and origins of our physical existence, life and humanity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't it the same with hypotheses about where the universe came from and where life came from. What could show that the naturalist answers are wrong?
If a falsifiable hypothesis is needed for science then is abiogenesis or origins of the universe science even legitimate science?
What is the evidence for a naturalistic answer? That what you can see and test is nature,,,,,,,,, and chemicals react with chemicals so life came from chemicals? That science has decided that energy cannot be created or destroyed so the chaotic material of the universe has always been in existence and so the universe came about naturally?
All this stuff is comparable with evidence for a creator and life giver.
If people want to say "I don't know" to how things happened then that is up to them. I go with the evidence for a creator and life giver even if it is not what a scientist might call objective or might not be acceptable in science. The evidence is there however.

Yep. Hypotheses and theories involving the Big Bang and abiogenesis need to be testable. And they do tend to be testable.

The testing involves not just the fact that chemicals react, but how they react.

You do not seem to understand what constitutes evidence since there is none for your "creator god"

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

It is not that "science has decided" what matters is what the evidence supports.

Come up with a testable hypothesis, one that can be refuted on the merits of one's beliefs and not the perceived failures of others, and then you can claim to have evidence, maybe. Until then all you have are unsupported claims.

 

[Valjean]

That people saw a resurrected Jesus and were prepared to die rather than deny it. So what?

Hardly a unique situation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That people saw a resurrected Jesus and were prepared to die rather than deny it. So what?

Who do you think died? The number of known martyrs is very very low. Paul. Yes. But he never saw a resurrected Jesus, he said so himself. Peter? Maybe, but of the two sources accredited to him one of them is thought to have not been written by him and the other is questionable. The other tales appear to be just tales. So you might have one actual martyr and that happens all of the time. People are willing to die for their religious beliefs even if they know that they are wrong. The tales of endless martyrs is not supported by history, or even the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like irreducible complexity even if it has been shown in probably a lot of cases to not be irreducible if this and that and a few other things happened at the same time and met in the middle.
Your position seems to be that if science finds out that it is remotely possible for something to have happened without God then that is the way it happened.
It is a faith like a religious faith, not evidence except a remote possibility that has not been tested.
Btw I liked that yeast experiment. It will be interesting to see if anything else comes of it. We might be dead before that happens but it would be interesting to know.

No, at least not that I am aware of. I have seen creationists use bad math that is easily refutable. Almost every odds argument are based upon a strawman. They will improperly represent what is proposed to have happened. For example they make bad assumptions about how chemical reactions take place. Once one identifies the strawman their argument falls apart.

Find an argument that has passed real peer review. I do not think that you can find any.

 

[Brian2]

This statement is a contradiction and reflects a lack of knowledge and understanding of science. The definition of 'falsifiable of theories and hypothesis in terms science is the same the determination that our natural physical existence came about naturally.

If "The idea that things came about naturally is not falsifiable" then why do you want the God did it hypothesis to be falsifiable?
I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence.

 

[Valjean]

If "The idea that things came about naturally is not falsifiable" then why do you want the God did it hypothesis to be falsifiable?
I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence.

Why is it you even think the Goddidit hypothesis is credible? How is it any more credible than transdimensional mice did it?

Moreover, Goddidit is an assertion of agency. It says nothing of mechanism. It doesn't explain anything. If you're interested in how something happened, Goddidit doesn't even address the question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If "The idea that things came about naturally is not falsifiable" then why do you want the God did it hypothesis to be falsifiable?
I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence.

The problem with non-falsifiable concepts is that by definition they cannot have scientific evidence for them. You are the one that is trying to claim that there is evidence that God formed life. If so you would need to state your concept in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis. The problem with creationists is that they want their ideas to be scientific and not religious. The few times that they tried to make a testable hypothesis they failed. Behe, the person that came up with the phrase, actually defined "Irreducible complexity". HIs hypothesis was quickly refuted. He made a very very poor assumption. The rotator flagellum of bacteria was his favorite example. He thought that because it does not work without just one of its part made it impossible to have arisen through evolution since it would have useless appendage. And that was his fatal assumption. The rotator flagellum still "works" without some of its parts. It performs a different job. In other words it started out with a different job and the new ability emerged as it evolved. This happens quite often in evolution. It was shown how the precursors to the rotator flagellum worked from just a basic "porthole" for waste all the way up to the functioning flagellum works.

Behe forgot that scientists are inquisitive. When the structure of the flagellum was analyzed it led to new questions. How did this crazy thing evolve? Behe made the unwarranted assumption that it could not. The problem was that by the time his book was published saying how it was impossible he had already been refuted. He suffered a similar embarrassment at the Dover trials where he tried to claim that there was no work that explained the evolution of the immune system. He was surrounded by a series of publications that showed that he was wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

If "The idea that things came about naturally is not falsifiable" . .

.

Already responded to this. All of our physical existence is potentially falsifiable that is the nature of science. From the previous post, "This statement is a contradiction and reflects a lack of knowledge and understanding of science. The definition of 'falsifiable of theories and hypothesis in terms science is the same as the determination that our natural physical existence came about naturally."

then why do you want the God did it hypothesis to be falsifiable?
I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence.

Again . . . There is no physical 'Objective Verifiable Evidence' for the existence of God. Science requires 'Objective Verifiable Evidence' to peopose a hypothesis of theory for it to be falsifiable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.

Already responded to this. All of our physical existence is potentially falsifiable that is the nature of science. From the previous post, "This statement is a contradiction and reflects a lack of knowledge and understanding of science. The definition of 'falsifiable of theories and hypothesis in terms science is the same as the determination that our natural physical existence came about naturally."



Again . . . There is no physical 'Objective Verifiable Evidence' for the existence of God. Science requires 'Objective Verifiable Evidence' to peopose a hypothesis of theory for it to be falsifiable.

Creationists tend to want a God that is verified through evidence. There particular "God" does not appear to exist. Of course that does not refute all Gods. I don't know why but they seem to want to limit their God to having to use miracles. That paints him as a bit of a bumbler when I see it.

Writing code for a computer can be very complex. And since people are far from perfect there are constant cleanups of errant code. But take a relatively simple program. A competent coder can correctly write the code for a simple program the first time out. A less competent one would have to go back a few times, and perform "miracles". Or they would seem to be such to a user since the code did not work and now it does. So once again, why liken God to an incompetent programmer? If he exist he should be able to do better.