Life From Dirt?

[Brian2]

I appreciate, therefore I am.

We are no more than thought bubbles that come and go as chemicals in our brain interact.

 

[Polymath257]

Concepts are real physical processes in our brain. OK
We perceive beauty. But beauty is just a subjective judgement that we make about something. OK
We perceive love. Similarly just a subjective judgement and label we put on feelings we have or of the actions we or others might do. OK
We perceive a car, and a car is genuinely real imo but of course our perception does not match the actual car.

Correct. Our senses are limited and we often process the information incorrectly.

We perceive consciousness. This is more tricky. Who perceives consciousness?

No, we perceive that we are conscious. Who does that? We do.

Maybe it is this consciousness that perceives everything else and we (that is this consciousness) calls itself "I" and defines itself according to thoughts, feelings, experiences, family history etc that somehow it remembers.
But really all this consciousness is fleeting and comes and goes with the chemical reactions in our brain in what we call our life.
OK

Consciousness is a process in our brains. I fail to see what you are driving at here.

 

[Polymath257]

I can see that it would bring in that question with people who have assumed that science, the study of the physical, has told the whole story and there really is nothing else.

People find meaning in very different ways. Some people like the ritual of religions as well as the social aspect.

Is this assumption something you want to say is not an assumption, but is reality? Or do you want to believe in god and want to know how?

I want to know the truth. If there is a God, I would like to know that such is the case. If there is not a God, I would like to know that is the case.

I don't make an assumption either way, initially. But, what i have found in my investigations it hat the 'God assumption' adds nothing to my understanding.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes there is that benefit, especially if one sees theories in science as facts,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, even before they have been fully shown to be true. But we all do that with science, and some more than others, especially if they do not believe in a God and there is no alternative than abiogenesis and naturalistic evolution.
But the way science is presented at times does make it look like the only show in town worth watching.

I would say that the scientific method (skeptical use of observations to make models and test them) is the only show in town for determining truth about the real world.

If that is not your goal, then a different show would be more appropriate for you.

I would point out that the 'God assumption' adds nothing to our understanding. It only pushes back questions one more step. For example, what allows God to make universes? How can God be conscious? Through what process does God do what (s)he decides? How can we test our ideas about God? How can we choose between different God beliefs and at least determine which are false? How did God come to be alive? What processes allow God to live?

The list goes on and on, with no way to answer these questions. Abiogenesis and evolution are much more cohesive and testable.

 

[Brian2]

You could have looked these up yourself, but you're steadily convincing me you don't actually read the bible ─
Jesus ascends from Bethany (on the Mount of Olives close to Jerusalem) Luke 24:50.
Jesus ascends from Jerusalem ─ Acts 1:4, 1:9.
Jesus ascends from Galilee ─ Mark 16:7, 16:19; Matthew 28:16.


All the detail you need is set out above.

Acts 1:12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk[c] from the city.
Mark 16:9-20 is considered a later addition and is not included these days in Bible translations or is in itallics and with a footnote about it.
It is easy to see the summary nature of the addition. It does not say where the ascension took place however and does not say many things.
Matt 28:16-28 doesn't tell us about the other times Jesus met with His disciples after the resurrection but does say about His meeting them on a certain mountain in Galilee, and what He told them. However it says nothing about Jesus ascending to heaven from this mountain.

 

[Brian2]

Except that evolution had been happening on planet Earth for more than three billion years before God was around.

And abiogenesis happened before that. But abiogenesis is chemical evolution I suppose.................. and the evolution of life is just chemical evolution also of course.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, but to be rational one has to realize that there is no evidence for that belief.

Yes and no.
There is subjective evidence for the existence of God and so in that way there is evidence for God's involvement in abiogenesis and evolution.
But of course abiogenesis has not been shown to be possible.
And if the problems get resolved that does not mean that is evidence that it happened without God,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, just to be rational about it.

 

[Audie]

Yes there is that benefit, especially if one sees theories in science as facts,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, even before they have been fully shown to be true. But we all do that with science, and some more than others, especially if they do not believe in a God and there is no alternative than abiogenesis and naturalistic evolution.
But the way science is presented at times does make it look like the only show in town worth watching.

" Theory as fact" is such lamebrain
garbage it's a marvel even " we", being the creationists
keep bringing it up.

Nobody with a nodding acquaintance with science
thinks there are " no alternatives" possible.
That's a "believer" claim.
Dumb, but " no possible alternative" to their
" god" could exist is what they think .
I..


A debate is like, talk to people who are here,
not about those you imagine exist somewhere.

If you or anyone has a " show" that explains the
data of chemistry. boology, etc, bring it on.

But you dont and never will.

But creationists, being incapable
of intellectual integrity, keep right
on pretending and denying.

And making things up.

 

[gnostic]

Naturally we are not talking about natural, normal circumstances with Mary. But then one would have to look at a man being composed from the ground as an adult (Adam) and a female coming from Adam's rib. With God, all things are possible.

The thing is that there are no unnatural and supernatural circumstances in this world.

The supernatural, the paranormal, the unnatural, are all myths, unreal or surreal imaginations or fantasies, false beliefs, no better than fairytales...because THEY DON’T EXIST IN NATURE.

If you want to believe in something that don’t exist in nature, then that’s your problem, and your prerogative, as you are free to believe whatever nonsense you want to believe, which would include creation of Adam and Eve, and that of Mary’s unrealistic conception and pregnancy.

• In nature, you cannot human from dust.
• And in nature, if you were to create another human from the original’s rib, you would create another man, not a woman. So Eve should be just a copy of Adam.
• And in nature, the only parthenogenesis being possible, and that cannot possibly happen with Mary, because Mary isn’t a plant, insect, fish, amphibian, reptile or a bird. No mammals have been known to naturally reproduce through parthenogenesis.

If you even have quota of knowledge of human biology, that conception isn’t possible with unfertilized egg.

If you have study biology at all, the cells in human body, each contained 46 chromosomes, or 23 pairs.

But during sexual intercourse, the two gamete cells - the sperm and the egg (or ovum), will only have each 23 chromosomes.

It is only when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, that a single cell will form - the zygote - will have all 46 chromosomes.

If Mary didn’t have the egg fertilized by the sperm, then her egg (the gamete) will only have 23 chromosomes. Now I am no expert in biology, but if I am right, those missing chromosomes would result in either death or deformity of any offspring.

If someone with better understanding than me in human biology, can correct me in regarding to my assumption the missing chromosomes will result severe deformities or death.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes and no.
There is subjective evidence for the existence of God and so in that way there is evidence for God's involvement in abiogenesis and evolution.
But of course abiogenesis has not been shown to be possible.
And if the problems get resolved that does not mean that is evidence that it happened without God,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, just to be rational about it.

Yes, I should have used the phrase "reliable evidence". Subjective evidence is pretty much garbage. Even those that rely on it know this. That is why those relying on subjective evidence almost never post it. After all, no one likes to be laughed at.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes there is that benefit, especially if one sees theories in science as facts,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, even before they have been fully shown to be true. But we all do that with science, and some more than others, especially if they do not believe in a God and there is no alternative than abiogenesis and naturalistic evolution.
But the way science is presented at times does make it look like the only show in town worth watching.

You may be confused a bit. Theories explain facts. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution just as the theory of gravity explains gravity. As @Polymath257 just pointed out, some sort of abiogenesis occurred on the Earth. The various hypotheses of abiogenesis currently attempt to explain that fact. There is no full or complete explanation yet. That is why it is still in the hypothetical stage. Even if we get answers for all of the steps it may still be hypothetical. Not because it did not happen. But rather because scientists have found more than one answer on how certain steps could have occurred.

Believers in magical god poofing can't seem to find any evidence for their beliefs. The closest that they have ever come have been arguments based on logical fallacies that have been shown to be wrong again and again. That is what the argument of Irreducible Complexity is. It boils down to "You do not know how this could happen, therefore it is impossible". That is an argument from ignorance. Worse yet, for each and every example that I am aware of the argument has failed, with the exception of a couple of gnarlier problems in abiogenesis. In evolution where it was first used it is an utter failure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would point out that with parthenogenesis, the offspring of Mary would be female.

Jesus was the first transman.

 

[blü 2]

Acts 1:12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk[c] from the city.
Mark 16:9-20 is considered a later addition and is not included these days in Bible translations or is in itallics and with a footnote about it.
It is easy to see the summary nature of the addition. It does not say where the ascension took place however and does not say many things.
Matt 28:16-28 doesn't tell us about the other times Jesus met with His disciples after the resurrection but does say about His meeting them on a certain mountain in Galilee, and what He told them. However it says nothing about Jesus ascending to heaven from this mountain.

Quote me the part where Paul's Jesus ascends to heaven.

Quote me the part where Mark's Jesus ascends to heaven.

Quote me the part where Matthew's Jesus ascends to heaven.

Quote me the part where Luke's Jesus ascends to heaven.

Quote me the part where John's Jesus ascends to heaven.

Quote me the part where Acts's Jesus ascends to heaven.

 

[gnostic]

And abiogenesis happened before that. But abiogenesis is chemical evolution I suppose.................. and the evolution of life is just chemical evolution also of course.

There is subjective evidence for the existence of God and so in that way there is evidence for God's involvement in abiogenesis and evolution.
But of course abiogenesis has not been shown to be possible.
And if the problems get resolved that does not mean that is evidence that it happened without God,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, just to be rational about it.

First.

What is “subjective evidence”? DEFINE it.

How would you USE “subjective evidence” is?

Regardless of how define and use, being “subjective” is regards along similar lines as having -

(A) personal opinion,​

​

(B) personal preference (eg taste in looks, in beauty, personal preferences are about personal likes or dislikes)​

​

or (C) personal belief (in which what you have accepted is based on faith)...​

...NONE OF WHICH are “reliable” to Natural Sciences or to Physical Sciences.

They are unreliable because they are subjected to biases. Therefore, they are not “evidence” at all.

Don’t get me wrong, “being subjective” is great, because they have their uses outside of Physical Sciences or of Natural Sciences.

For instances, there are places for “being subjective”, like in psychology, psychiatry, behavioral science, psychological therapy, etc (in which these fields all under the umbrella of Social Sciences), where knowing patients or clients, like how they feel (their emotions), how they behave, what do they think about, all of these matter so the patients can be treated in some ways.

Another examples within Social Sciences, like in anthropology which are studies of human cultures. Or sociology, which are studies of how people behave in social settings like in communities or in societies, so their relationship or interactions with one another in groups.

There are many other sciences in Social Sciences, like archaeology, political science, economics, laws, ethics, etc.

Social Sciences don’t require to restrict itself to Scientific Method, and that’s why Social Sciences, like psychology, are commonly referred to as “soft science”.

But “being subjective” isn’t restricted to Social Sciences, because a person’s imagination and creativity involved being subjective. So their are uses for “being subjective” outside of all sciences, like in arts (eg drawing, painting, sculpture, etc), music composition, song writing, writing literature (eg epic, poetry) or novel fiction, etc. all of these fall under the category of Humanities. This is where “being subjective”, where creativity and imagination thrive, and great masterpieces are achieved in arts, music or literature.

Humanities are non-scientific disciplines or studies, which also include history, languages (eg spoken or written languages, philology), morals, etc.

What you need to understand Brian2, is there are time and place for “being subjective”, but subjective have very little use in Natural Sciences or in Physical Sciences, because subjective leads to biases, so it isn’t reliable.

So what is this “subjective evidence”?

Second...

...I’ll leave my “second” in another post, as it regards to Abiogenesis vs Creationism.

 

[gnostic]

And abiogenesis happened before that. But abiogenesis is chemical evolution I suppose.................. and the evolution of life is just chemical evolution also of course.

There is subjective evidence for the existence of God and so in that way there is evidence for God's involvement in abiogenesis and evolution.
But of course abiogenesis has not been shown to be possible.
And if the problems get resolved that does not mean that is evidence that it happened without God,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, just to be rational about it.

Second.

Everything you see, people, animals and planets, the lands and seas, mountains, forests, deserts, the planet Earth, the sun and other stars, and so on, all matters are made of molecules, which are made of atoms, and atoms are made of smaller particles.

So essentially, all matters, inorganic or organic, relied on two very basic and fundamental sciences:

1. Physics
2. Chemistry

So even, when you dealing with biology of life, every cells in any organisms are made of chemical molecules or compounds with carbon atoms.

Carbon by itself, isn’t organic. To be organic, it relied on compounds or molecules containing also oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc, blinded chemically in some ways to form some types of molecules.

What do you think molecular biology and biochemistry are?

They are the studies of biological molecules (or more precisely macromolecules) like proteins, nucleic acids and carbohydrates, which are essential in every cells of every living organisms. Without these macromolecules, there are no cells, and without cells, there can be no life.

Both biochemistry and molecular biology are required understanding of how cells work.

Abiogenesis is simply using knowledge of biochemistry & molecular biology together to form the basis of Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis involved the basic principles of both physics and chemistry being implemented together.

Abiogenesis therefore relied on the understanding of natural processes, such as chemical reactions, to determine the origins of the 3 essential biological macromolecules (proteins, nucleic acids & carbohydrates, as well as lipids).

As I have you and other creationists, “God did it” or the “Designer did it” aren’t explanations, and you cannot the existence of either God or Designer, which would make creationism and Intelligent Design both pseudoscience - both unfalsifiable concepts.

Unfalsifiable concept is one that cannot be tested, so it cannot be verified, nor can you refute it, because there are zero evidence for this God or for this Designer existing.

 

[YoursTrue]

The thing is that there are no unnatural and supernatural circumstances in this world.

The supernatural, the paranormal, the unnatural, are all myths, unreal or surreal imaginations or fantasies, false beliefs, no better than fairytales...because THEY DON’T EXIST IN NATURE.

If you want to believe in something that don’t exist in nature, then that’s your problem, and your prerogative, as you are free to believe whatever nonsense you want to believe, which would include creation of Adam and Eve, and that of Mary’s unrealistic conception and pregnancy.

• In nature, you cannot human from dust.
• And in nature, if you were to create another human from the original’s rib, you would create another man, not a woman. So Eve should be just a copy of Adam.
• And in nature, the only parthenogenesis being possible, and that cannot possibly happen with Mary, because Mary isn’t a plant, insect, fish, amphibian, reptile or a bird. No mammals have been known to naturally reproduce through parthenogenesis.

If you even have quota of knowledge of human biology, that conception isn’t possible with unfertilized egg.

If you have study biology at all, the cells in human body, each contained 46 chromosomes, or 23 pairs.

But during sexual intercourse, the two gamete cells - the sperm and the egg (or ovum), will only have each 23 chromosomes.

It is only when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, that a single cell will form - the zygote - will have all 46 chromosomes.

If Mary didn’t have the egg fertilized by the sperm, then her egg (the gamete) will only have 23 chromosomes. Now I am no expert in biology, but if I am right, those missing chromosomes would result in either death or deformity of any offspring.

If someone with better understanding than me in human biology, can correct me in regarding to my assumption the missing chromosomes will result severe deformities or death.

The thing is some people believe in the power of God. You probably don't believe God actually created (made) the chromosomal structure. Please do not misunderstand, because while I firmly believe that God created the mechanisms moving life, it certainly is true that He permits things to happen now that are not protected by Him. I won't go into detail now. Since He is the Originator of life (the Lifegiver), or perhaps life enabler, He can do as He wills upon occasion. Rather than just let things happen. And cause Mary's body to form an embryo as without having had sexual intercourse. I am pretty certain that those who believe in evolution as true and absolute as the means of all lifeforms will say that the Bible is filled with myths and lies. I've noticed they don't like to expose their real viewpoints about religion, or their avowed religion.

 

[Brian2]

How many times does it need to be explained to you that there's a difference between not believing in a thing and claiming that thing doesn't exist?

Please take in this information and retain it. It would make discussions with you a whole lot easier.

Some people do believe that God does not exist. They of course are willing to change their mind if needs be.

 

[Brian2]

So you can't detect it in any way, but you know it's there??

Please explain that.

No I don't say I know God is there, I believe that God exists. It would be easier to converse with you in future if you could understand this.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some people do believe that God does not exist. They of course are willing to change their mind if needs be.

I used to believe that God did not exist as I grew into aduIthood and saw nothing in the world that impelled me to believe in God. But now I believe He does exist.

 

[Brian2]

Well, to us, they exist. Otherwise, it is a very old question persisting through many millenniums as to what exists and what not.
But talking of absolute truth, nothing exists other than the basic building block of the universe, 'physical energy' aka Brahman.
Our books say, "Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti" (What exists is one, there is no second).

When it comes to consciousness and the abstract things we perceive, that is where materialists try to make two or more into one.
Stating that consciousness is a byproduct of matter or saying that what exists is one, there is no second, states the position but does not verify it. iow it just defines everything from a materialist pov.