Scientific Method is useless in religion?

[Ben Dhyan]

I think I came about by the current scientific explanations. As they are based on evidence.

And so what is the current explanation that you faithfully believe is the way you came into being?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And so what is the current explanation that you faithfully believe is the way you came into being?

There is good evidence that I am the biological offspring of my parents. That is the most immediate thing I "faithfully" believe. As far as the more general question of how we all got here I know we evolved over time. I think its highly likely that we arose through some form of abiogensis. The universe is sculpted into its current from by the big bang oh so long ago. Prior to that who knows. I can accept gaps in my understanding and knowledge. We all have them regardless if we don't admit it. What I can't stand is empty made up answers that attept to fill the void they are so desperatly underqualified to do.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is good evidence that I am the biological offspring of my parents. That is the most immediate thing I "faithfully" believe. As far as the more general question of how we all got here I know we evolved over time. I think its highly likely that we arose through some form of abiogensis. The universe is sculpted into its current from by the big bang oh so long ago. Prior to that who knows. I can accept gaps in my understanding and knowledge. We all have them regardless if we don't admit it. What I can't stand is empty made up answers that attept to fill the void they are so desperatly underqualified to do.

The hypothetical abiogenesis theory is just that.....a hypothesis for which there is no proof...that life comes from non-life... The irony is that you admit that you can't stand empty made up answers to fill the void, and then you put forward abiogenesis as your explanation to fill the void...you came from the unliving...that's hardly a credible explanation unless you describe the process in detail so it can be understood scientifically...

 

[McBell]

The hypothetical abiogenesis theory is just that.....a hypothesis for which there is no proof...that life comes from non-life... The irony is that you admit that you can't stand empty made up answers to fill the void, and then you put forward abiogenesis as your explanation to fill the void...you came from the unliving...that's hardly a credible explanation unless you describe the process in detail so it can be understood scientifically...

You do understand the difference between abiogenesis and creation, right?
That abiogenesis is a hypothesis puts it way ahead of the wishful thinking that is creationism.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You do understand the difference between abiogenesis and creation, right?
That abiogenesis is a hypothesis puts it way ahead of the wishful thinking that is creationism.

I never mentioned 'creation', just pointing out that the abiogenesis hypothesis is an 'empty made up explanation' to fill the gap.....if you think it isn't...please explain the details of how life arose from non-life...

 

[McBell]

I never mentioned 'creation', just pointing out that the abiogenesis hypothesis is an 'empty made up explanation' to fill the gap.....if you think it isn't...please explain the details of how life arose from non-life...

you made the "empty made up explanation" claim, it is on you to support it.

You might want to start with gaining an understanding of what a hypothesis is and is not.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

you made the "empty made up explanation" claim, it is on you to support it.

You might want to start with gaining an understanding of what a hypothesis is and is not.

Huh? Please state the precise words that you refer to that is an "empty made up explanation" claim...for as it is, I have not a clue what you are talking about....

Oh and btw, I know very well what a hypothesis is....are you claiming abiogenesis is not a hypothesis?

 

[McBell]

Huh? Please state the precise words that you refer to that is an "empty made up explanation" claim...for as it is, I have not a clue what you are talking about....

you made the claim that abiogenesis is "an "empty made up explanation".
Source: posts #103 and #105

 

[Ben Dhyan]

you made the claim that abiogenesis is "an "empty made up explanation".
Source: posts #103 and #105

I was using the words that Monk Of Reason used in his post #102 in the context of responding to him. You just jumped in on the exchange to apparently defend abiogenesis as a fact ....but now since you did...the onus is on you to provide a scientific explanation as to how life came into being from non-life....that critical creation of life moment...

 

[McBell]

I was using the words that Monk Of Reason used in his post #102 in the context of responding to him. You just jumped in on the exchange to apparently defend abiogenesis as a fact ....but now since you did...the onus is on you to provide a scientific explanation as to how life came into being from non-life....that critical creation of life moment...

When did I use the word "fact"?
Nice try at moving the goal posts to your strawman, but it did not work.

I merely pointed out that the hypothesis abiogenesis is not the "empty made up explanation" you claimed it to be.
I also pointed out that it being a hypothesis puts abiogenesis much further from the "empty made up explanation" than creation.


defend your claim or not.
Either way, stop trying to move the goal posts and stop with the strawmen.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When did I use the word "fact"?
Nice try at moving the goal posts to your strawman, but it did not work.

I merely pointed out that the hypothesis abiogenesis is not the "empty made up explanation" you claimed it to be.
I also pointed out that it being a hypothesis puts abiogenesis much further from the "empty made up explanation" than creation.


defend your claim or not.
Either way, stop trying to move the goal posts and stop with the strawmen.

So you agree that abiogenesis is not a fact....merely a hypothesis...and a silly one as it defies logic for life to come from non-life.... However fwiw, it does not bother me if you and Monk have faith in it as an explanation...

 

[McBell]

So you agree that abiogenesis is not a fact....merely a hypothesis...and a silly one as it defies logic for life to come from non-life.... However fwiw, it does not bother me if you and Monk have faith in it as an explanation...

Again you assume to much.

You keep putting words in my mouth I have not said, you move the goal posts to your strawman....
You do not appear interested in honest discussion.

Have a nice day.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again you assume to much.

You keep putting words in my mouth I have not said, you move the goal posts to your strawman....
You do not appear interested in honest discussion.

Have a nice day.

I deal with logic......not merely belief..

But thanks for your salutations, you too....

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The hypothetical abiogenesis theory is just that.....a hypothesis for which there is no proof...that life comes from non-life... The irony is that you admit that you can't stand empty made up answers to fill the void, and then you put forward abiogenesis as your explanation to fill the void...you came from the unliving...that's hardly a credible explanation unless you describe the process in detail so it can be understood scientifically...

We know it is possible. We also know that since life didn't exist during the big bang it must have come about some time afterwards. Since we have no evidence for god then we look to natural explanations.

I will not tell you that there is unequvical proof of exactly how it happened but I can tell you that we know it is possible and that it is likely based off of evidence. It is the most credible explination we have.

Are you unfamiliar of the process of the theory? Or are you claiming it doesn't have one in the theory?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We know it is possible. We also know that since life didn't exist during the big bang it must have come about some time afterwards. Since we have no evidence for god then we look to natural explanations.

I will not tell you that there is unequvical proof of exactly how it happened but I can tell you that we know it is possible and that it is likely based off of evidence. It is the most credible explination we have.

Are you unfamiliar of the process of the theory? Or are you claiming it doesn't have one in the theory?

We are not debating the big bang......we are debating the hypothesis of abiogenesis..,and you admit there is no proof. That's all I require of you to conclude that you have faith in the hypothesis..but logically it is an impossibility for something to become its complementary opposite.....without a cause...non-life becoming life. Try and explain to me the logically how it could happen?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

We are not debating the big bang......we are debating the hypothesis of abiogenesis..,and you admit there is no proof. That's all I require of you to conclude that you have faith in the hypothesis..but logically it is an impossibility for something to become its complementary opposite.....without a cause...non-life becoming life. Try and explain to me the logically how it could happen?

I never said without a cause. Read up on it further but I doubt you will. I don't believe it to be exact fact but only a possibility. Though it stands to reason that life arose at some point. As an atheist I don't believe in god. Therefore....I believe that life arose at some point without god on the planet earth. A possible way it was done is laid out in abiogenisis. Its possible that some other mechanism better fitting that we have yet to discover is responsible. But it seems extremely unlikely that anything supernatural is involved.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I never said without a cause. Read up on it further but I doubt you will. I don't believe it to be exact fact but only a possibility. Though it stands to reason that life arose at some point. As an atheist I don't believe in god. Therefore....I believe that life arose at some point without god on the planet earth. A possible way it was done is laid out in abiogenisis. Its possible that some other mechanism better fitting that we have yet to discover is responsible. But it seems extremely unlikely that anything supernatural is involved.

You make a claim...I ask you logical questions about your claim and you never respond to them except to ask me to do some reading!!! Why are you not able from your own mind and in your own words address my questions directly? Give it a try and we will see how you cope? I repeat my position....logically it is an impossibility for something to become its complementary opposite.....non-life becoming life. Try and explain to me logically how it could happen?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You make a claim...I ask you logical questions about your claim and you never respond to them except to ask me to do some reading!!! Why are you not able from your own mind and in your own words address my questions directly? Give it a try and we will see how you cope? I repeat my position....logically it is an impossibility for something to become its complementary opposite.....non-life becoming life. Try and explain to me logically how it could happen?

Do you want me to explain the process of abiogensis? I can do that for you but I have a feeling that I will write out a long and detailed paragraph for you to whisk it away. Secondly life and non-life are not opposites. You are not "alive" at your basics. You are made of elements that are not "alive" themselves. Organic simply means carbon based and we have plenty of non-living carbon based chemicals. Carbon dioxiod and carbon monoxide to start. The hydrogen and oxygen in you are found in the non-living air. We are comprised of 4 of the 5 most common elements found in the universe fairly proportional to how they are in the universe. The only exception to this is helium. We don't have helium within us because it is an inert element that doesn't react very strongly to any element and not at all to most.

Life is a wave of chemical energy that has been going for billions of years. The most likely way for it to have started was with protiens that formed spontaneously. Protiens are capable of self replication and started simple. As the replication process continued errors are made. Most errors are bad but some very precious few are benificial. The accumulated strands of benificial and add complexity. At some point the changes become recongizable as rudamentary RNA strands. Somewhere along the line hydrogen bonds form a double helix allowing two RNA strands to become one that is now twice as complex. Other structures that are benificial form. Probably the first would be lipid bi-layer we see in all animal and Bacterial cells. ITs extremely simple and often occurs naturally outside of life. Other key structures then can evolve. Mitochondra were most likely (actually almost surely) created when a cell attempted to eat another cell but created a symbiotic relationship instead.

From there its not hard to take the leap to simple bacteria.

So to recap.
1) We know protiens can form naturally and can self replicate.
2) Early Earth would have been prime time for such spontaeous developments.
3) We are made of the common elements around us. This indicates we are not foreign objects to the earth and to think of living and non-living as seperate chemically is wrong.
4) All structures of early cells are products of naturally occuring chemical phenomoneon and many of which happen spontaneously today.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Do you want me to explain the process of abiogensis? I can do that for you but I have a feeling that I will write out a long and detailed paragraph for you to whisk it away. Secondly life and non-life are not opposites. You are not "alive" at your basics. You are made of elements that are not "alive" themselves. Organic simply means carbon based and we have plenty of non-living carbon based chemicals. Carbon dioxiod and carbon monoxide to start. The hydrogen and oxygen in you are found in the non-living air. We are comprised of 4 of the 5 most common elements found in the universe fairly proportional to how they are in the universe. The only exception to this is helium. We don't have helium within us because it is an inert element that doesn't react very strongly to any element and not at all to most.

Life is a wave of chemical energy that has been going for billions of years. The most likely way for it to have started was with protiens that formed spontaneously. Protiens are capable of self replication and started simple. As the replication process continued errors are made. Most errors are bad but some very precious few are benificial. The accumulated strands of benificial and add complexity. At some point the changes become recongizable as rudamentary RNA strands. Somewhere along the line hydrogen bonds form a double helix allowing two RNA strands to become one that is now twice as complex. Other structures that are benificial form. Probably the first would be lipid bi-layer we see in all animal and Bacterial cells. ITs extremely simple and often occurs naturally outside of life. Other key structures then can evolve. Mitochondra were most likely (actually almost surely) created when a cell attempted to eat another cell but created a symbiotic relationship instead.

From there its not hard to take the leap to simple bacteria.

So to recap.
1) We know protiens can form naturally and can self replicate.
2) Early Earth would have been prime time for such spontaeous developments.
3) We are made of the common elements around us. This indicates we are not foreign objects to the earth and to think of living and non-living as seperate chemically is wrong.
4) All structures of early cells are products of naturally occuring chemical phenomoneon and many of which happen spontaneously today.

I understand the hypothesis of abiogenesis.....and I see the gap that is wide open and not addressed by it or you.....and have been asking you to fill it with your confident faith that there is a logical explanation. But you have yet again avoided answering it....so unfortunately I must repeat it again and again as necessary until you address it or admit you can not provide one.....please explain logically how life can come from non-life.. by life I mean that which has the animating principle...by non-life I mean that which is devoid of the animating principle?
.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I understand the hypothesis of abiogenesis.....and I see the gap that is wide open and not addressed by it or you.....and have been asking you to fill it with your confident faith that there is a logical explanation. But you have yet again avoided answering it....so unfortunately I must repeat it again and again as necessary until you address it or admit you can not provide one.....please explain logically how life can come from non-life.. by life I mean that which has the animating principle...by non-life I mean that which is devoid of the animating principle?
.

What gap?