Eden & Geology

[shunyadragon]

I know what methodological naturalism is.

It is not reflected in your posts.


[quorw] If you define "life" as chemistry or as a property of matter then abiogenesis can say it is finding the origins of life. The definition is an assumption however. [/quote[

That is not how you define life. Definitions of words are not assumptions,

You just said what I said, that all science has is speculation,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and of course the assumption that life is only chemistry.

If you understand Methodological Naturalism you would understand that 'all science has is NOT speculation. Again the assumption of science is NOT that life is only chemistry.

Refresher in English . . . https://www.google.com/search?q=spe...12j0i512l7.6199j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

spec·u·la·tion
/ˌspekyəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
   "there has been widespread speculation that he plans to quit"

That's sort of what I said, create life, demonstrate it and it will be more than speculation/hypothesis.

False.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think the confusion began with science making nothing actually mean "something". Maybe they should have made up another word.

Total lack of understanding of Quantum Mechanics, and the definition of 'nothing' from the scientific perspective. Beginnings from the philosophical 'absolute nothing' are not objectively known to exist.

Sounds reasonable to me but gets away from my point that time had a beginning.

This is possibly with the beginning of the time/space nature of our universe if our universe is not cyclic, which it possibly is cyclic. The beginning of our universe is based on Quantum Mechanics from previously existing singularity, and not nothing. Your religious assumptions does not take into consideration the Quantum world of Quantum Mechanics,

Objectively there is no known evidence that our physical existence had a beginning from 'absolute nothing.'

There is evidence for chemistry, that's all, and even that seems to show intelligence was behind it and that it did not happen by chance.

Religious subjective assumption Nothing in nature takes place by chance naturally. Natural Laws and natural processes determine what takes place naturally.

 

[Brian2]

What are your scientific qualifications to even ask this question, and have you done a search for peer reviewed scientific research on abiogenesis? I am a scientist qualified to ask such questions and constantly do internet searches on abiogenesis and there are hundreds every year on the subject. Again . . . 'Do have the background to even understand the chemistry and paleogeology behind abiogenesis?

It sounds like you want me to believe whatever the science says.
Why should I when I know it is based on naturalism and so can only give one side of the story, the physical side, and even that is speculation/hypothesis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It sounds like you want me to believe whatever the science says.
Why should I when I know it is based on naturalism and so can only give one side of the story, the physical side, and even that is speculation/hypothesis.

When did anyone demonstrate that there is actually another "side" in the first place?


You think it's speculation/hypothesis that the natural world exists and operates in the ways we have observed and measured? Seriously?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting quote. Imo it turns the circular reasoning around and makes it look as if the circular reasoning is in seeing the prophecy as true. The dating however can be done with the internal evidence from the New Testament itself without the extra sceptical assumption of the prophecy being false. That assumption is what brings in circular reasoning imo. Assume lies in the gospels and end up saying that you have evidence for them because the gospels were written late and by people who did not know what Jesus said or did.
To assume the prophecy false and so the writing to be after 70AD is to ignore the other evidence to the contrary.
Luke wrote Acts after his gospel and knows historically accurate things from early in the first century in Acts that a later writer would not have know. Luke in Acts does not mention that Jerusalem was destroyed and that would be an important thing to include in his writings if it had happened before he finished writing Acts, which is later than his gospel.
Luke says he got his information from those who were witnesses to Jesus and there from the start. Luke also uses information from Matthew and Mark. To me it looks as if those 3 were all written early.
Interestingly the gospel that was written late, John, is the only one that does not write about the prophecy of the Temple.

I constantly see believers in prophecy use circular reasoning. By the way, they are not assuming that prophecy is false. Unless you can prove it it is never a good idea of accusing others of assuming. They merely say with this information when were the books written. You appear to be assuming that mentioning those events were prophecy when they were merely history.

And the author of Luke Acts (probably not Luke) was a first century author. That he knew first century current events (not history at that time) is not surprising. But then he also got some facts wrong. Do you remember how he screwed up the nativity myth? And if you read what he says carefully he does not even say that he got the stories from eyewitnesses. He says that the people that he got ti from got it from eyewitnesses and that the story was passed down:

2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

It does not say that he talked with eyewitnesses. It does not even imply that.

So Luke, that one that Christians point to, did not say what they thought that he said. He actually got a huge chunk of his book from Mark. There are spots where it is copied word for word. There appears to have been at least a generation of oral tradition before the stories were written down. And stories, myths, and legends can easily arise in a mere thirty years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Errors are eliminated when the writers knew Jesus or heard from those who heard and saw Jesus. The apostles were still alive when the gospels were written and John and Matthew are claimed to have been apostles.

If that were true you might have a case. But none of them were.

By the way, why do you keep thinking that the Gospels were written by those that they were named after? The books are anonymous. None of them were written by the Twelve Disciples. And at that time an "apostle" was merely a believer that spread the word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And also is not evidence for no God.
But of course there is evidence for a God in the things that science does not accept as evidence.
And it interesting that people want to bring in the same methodological naturalism into the study of the Bible, which helps eliminate the Bible as evidence.

No one has claimed "evidence for no God" on the atheist side. We do not need evidence since we simply lack a belief. If theists could find sufficient evidence we would change our minds.

It should raise questions in your own head: If God is real why is there such a lack of evidence for him? Is he playing hide and seek on purpose?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually it seems that the only evidence that the gospels were written after 70AD is methodological naturalism brought into the study of the New Testament and assumes that the Temple destruction prophecy must have been written after 70AD.

Are you now trying to claim that Marks "prophecy" of the destruction of the temple was a prophecy of Jesus? If that is the case it is then a failed prophecy. Parts of it, the truly important part, neve came true. Many Christians understand this and do not equate the events of what was it64 CE with that supposed prophecy because of that.

 

[shunyadragon]

It sounds like you want me to believe whatever the science says.
Why should I when I know it is based on naturalism and so can only give one side of the story, the physical side, and even that is speculation/hypothesis.

Metaphysical Naruralism can only give the physical side of the nature of our existence, and of course, is neutral to all other claims and beliefs outside the nature of our physical existence.

As described before you need a lesson in English. Science is not based on speculation concerning the nature of our physical existence..

https://www.google.com/search?q=spe...12j0i512l7.6199j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

spec·u·la·tion
/ˌspekyəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know what methodological naturalism is.

The statement made me think otherwise.

If you define "life" as chemistry

Not "my" definition. Life at bottom IS chemistry. Every single process in living organisms are, at bottom, chemical processes.

You can deny this if you want. Doesn't make it any less true.

or as a property of matter then abiogenesis can say it is finding the origins of life. The definition is an assumption however.

No, it's an observation. In the words of Neil deGrass Tyson: "Life, at bottom, is just an extreme expression of complex chemistry"

You just said what I said, that all science has is speculation,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

No. "not having conclusive answers" does NOT, by any means, mean that all they have is "speculation".
Quite a few things about the process of abiogenesis are known.

You seem to be pretending that either one knows NOTHING AT ALL about the process OR one knows EVERYTHING there is to know. There's a whole gradient in between those two, which you are simply ignoring at the moment.

and of course the assumption that life is only chemistry.

Not an assumption. Instead, an observation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is evidence for chemistry, that's all, and even that seems to show intelligence was behind it and that it did not happen by chance.

???

Since when does the presence of chemistry / chemical processes "show that intelligence was behind it"?

 

[gnostic]

It sounds like you want me to believe whatever the science says.
Why should I when I know it is based on naturalism and so can only give one side of the story, the physical side, and even that is speculation/hypothesis.

No, you can believe whatever fantasy you like, but you are in a Science and Religion forum.

So if you are going to bring up science, you should actually know or learn what the scientific theories are all about, and not argue against some things that you have no understanding what you are arguing about...

Here, is where creationists demonstrated ignorance, but the solution to this problem, is to learn what they don’t understand. But the problem with creationists is that they refused to learn from their mistakes.

...or worse, an even bigger problem than ignorance, creationists fabricated some things up that have absolutely nothing to do with sciences.

I have seen many creationists use this tactics. And it is this tactics that make non-creationists not trusting what they say or claimed.