Where is the evidence for non- creationism?

[Desert Snake]

There was a time, before science discovered more about our solar system, when non creationists, basically were sure, that the close universe would be teeming with life.

What they found, were a bunch of inhospitable planets.

Life from elsewhere, theory, the best at the time, took a big hit.

The further away the proposed, "source", for the plants etc, on earth, the more unlikely

The proposed earth timeline, even taken to extremes, is problematic for the fabled "primordial swamp", and now the distance for interplanetary probability is surpassing sci-fi believability.



Where is the evidence for anything besides creationism?

 

[sayak83]

There was a time, before science discovered more about our solar system, when non creationists, basically were sure, that the close universe would be teeming with life.

What they found, were a bunch of inhospitable planets.

Life from elsewhere, theory, the best at the time, took a big hit.

The further away the proposed, "source", for the plants etc, on earth, the more unlikely

The proposed earth timeline, even taken to extremes, is problematic for the fabled "primordial swamp", and now the distance for interplanetary probability is surpassing sci-fi believability.



Where is the evidence for anything besides creationism?

I can't make head or tail of your post.

 

[Sunstone]

Are you seriously suggesting that a lack of life in the rest of the solar system is strong evidence that life on earth was created? If so, what's your reasoning?

 

[Jumi]

There was a time, before science discovered more about our solar system, when non creationists, basically were sure, that the close universe would be teeming with life.

A lot of people believed things that turned out to be false. People still believe things that are false or will turn out to be false. This includes both the creationists and the non-creationists.

The proposed earth timeline, even taken to extremes, is problematic for the fabled "primordial swamp"

So how much do you know biology?

now the distance for interplanetary probability is surpassing sci-fi believability.

So you believe things don't travel between planets? We get hit by things from outside our planet constantly.

Where is the evidence for anything besides creationism?

Creationism isn't evidence. It's a belief that an almighty being created all this from nothing without nature taking steps to get where we are today.

I'll repeat it again... you don't need to be creationist to believe God.

 

[Desert Snake]

Are you seriously suggesting that a lack of life in the rest of the solar system is strong evidence that life on earth was created? If so, what's your reasoning?

That's the premise. In absence of evidence for something else, you choose the most likely option, no matter how speculative it might be.

Or, you can choose unknown.
I don't have a problem with speculation, even absent of any other evidence.

I will say that the premise may or may not include evidence for creationism, from a persons standpoint

 

[Jumi]

Absence of evidence is proof of something? Good luck...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There was a time, before science discovered more about our solar system, when non creationists, basically were sure, that the close universe would be teeming with life.

What they found, were a bunch of inhospitable planets.

Life from elsewhere, theory, the best at the time, took a big hit.

The further away the proposed, "source", for the plants etc, on earth, the more unlikely

The proposed earth timeline, even taken to extremes, is problematic for the fabled "primordial swamp", and now the distance for interplanetary probability is surpassing sci-fi believability.



Where is the evidence for anything besides creationism?

Life on another planet does nothing to 'solve' questions around abiogenesis.

 

[Desert Snake]

Life on another planet does nothing to 'solve' questions around abiogenesis.

I agree, but it could be something, and certainly was something more than what they were considering.

 

[Valjean]

There was a time, before science discovered more about our solar system, when non creationists, basically were sure, that the close universe would be teeming with life.

What they found, were a bunch of inhospitable planets.

Life from elsewhere, theory, the best at the time, took a big hit.

OK. This could be an interesting thread, but first, let's clarify our terms, or we'll end up talking past each other.
When you say "non creationists," are you talking about scientists who don't believe in creationism, the average Joe with neither knowledge not interest in the subject, or something else? By "creationism," I'm assuming you're referring to The Christian doctrine that a God poofed the universe into being by magic?

l don't think there was a time when non creationists were sure the solar system teemed with life. Yes, there was speculation -- canals on Mars, people on the moon seen through early telescopes -- but this was just speculation, by people who really knew nothing about the bodies in question, or even about basic biology.

Nobody was "sure" of anything. A few speculated, that's all. That ended when the unfounded speculation did; when scientists learned something about the planets and found conditions there were inhospitable,

"Life from elsewhere theory:" Now this is a whole different premise from your first: that life existed elsewhere in the solar system. You've introduced a new, unrelated concept, and one that has not taken any 'big hit'.

You call it a 'theory'. How are you defining "theory?" In science, theory is not speculation.

The further away the proposed, "source", for the plants etc, on earth, the more unlikely

Not sure I'm following here. Are you talking about panspermia, abiogenesis, or something else? What are you saying is unlikely?

The proposed earth timeline, even taken to extremes, is problematic for the fabled "primordial swamp", and now the distance for interplanetary probability is surpassing sci-fi believability.

Again, I'm not following. The proposed 'earth timeline'? timeline for what? and what is this primordial swamp?
If this is a current theory in biology, what does it propose, what evidence does it present, and why is it 'problematic'?

Where is the evidence for anything besides creationism?

Where is the "evidence" for creationism? Creationism is a proposal of magic. There is no 'evidence' supporting it.
I think you're proposing a false dichotomy; that if a natural origin of life is discredited it constitutes evidence for your supernatural proposition. This is illogical.

There is overwhelming evidence for a natural origin and development of life. If you have any evidence of a magical origin please present it.

 

[Cacotopia]

Speculation and assumptions based on information that isn't there often leads to blatantly incorrect conclusions.

Do you use this methodology for anything else in your life? I bet you don't. People like to be informed before they make decisions on things. The problem with belief is there aren't really any direct consequences when you draw a conclusion based solely upon faith and zero evidence. You don't buy a used car with faith, or buy a house without ever walking inside of it or having checked it out. Or put a blindfold on open the housing market ads to a page unknown point to a spot and buy it.

Pretty much every other decision you make you try to fact check or research to make the best decision possible. Even impulsive people do this, less so than a person that is reserved. You ever go to school on test day with the faith you will succeed having decided to never read the material the test will be on? No.

It's this faith business you somehow subconsciously/consciously I don't know which, throw out all your reasoning skills. WHY. How does it make sense to you?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree, but it could be something, and certainly was something more than what they were considering.

I'm a 'they', if they means secularist, evolutionist (meh, you know what I mean) or atheist.
Theists sometimes posit God as a first cause, as an uncaused cause. Atheists don't have that get out of gaol free card, so we learn to grow comfortable with 'I don't know' in terms of first cause.

If life started on another planet, and then 'travelled' here, it has no impact on first cause. Much like I don't believe positing God does.

 

[sayak83]

I agree, but it could be something, and certainly was something more than what they were considering.

Earth is the only planet in the solar system where liquid water can exist on the surface due to its location relative to the sun. So absence of life in other planets in the solar system is expected and not surprising at all, given what we know about how life can originate naturally from chemistry. On the other if we had seen other inhospitable planets teeming with life despite the conditions, that would have been evidence against a natural origin of life.

 

[Valjean]

Earth is the only planet in the solar system where liquid water can exist on the surface due to its location relative to the sun. So absence of life in other planets in the solar system is expected and not surprising at all, given what we know about how life can originate naturally from chemistry. On the other if we had seen other inhospitable planets teeming with life despite the conditions, that would have been evidence against a natural origin of life.

or evidence that liquid water wasn't the sine qua non of life.

 

[sayak83]

or evidence that liquid water wasn't the sine qua non of life.

Its not necessarily water. Alcohol could work, ammonia is especially good replacement for water. The point I am making is that there is a form of life on a planet that does not fit with anything that natural chemistry can generate. Silicone trees growing in Venus or something.

 

[David T]

There was a time, before science discovered more about our solar system, when non creationists, basically were sure, that the close universe would be teeming with life.

What they found, were a bunch of inhospitable planets.

Life from elsewhere, theory, the best at the time, took a big hit.

The further away the proposed, "source", for the plants etc, on earth, the more unlikely

The proposed earth timeline, even taken to extremes, is problematic for the fabled "primordial swamp", and now the distance for interplanetary probability is surpassing sci-fi believability.



Where is the evidence for anything besides creationism?

I can't make head or tail of your post.

There was a time, before science discovered more about our solar system, when non creationists, basically were sure, that the close universe would be teeming with life.

What they found, were a bunch of inhospitable planets.

Life from elsewhere, theory, the best at the time, took a big hit.

The further away the proposed, "source", for the plants etc, on earth, the more unlikely

The proposed earth timeline, even taken to extremes, is problematic for the fabled "primordial swamp", and now the distance for interplanetary probability is surpassing sci-fi believability.



Where is the evidence for anything besides creationism?

Since creationism is new and really another version of reality outside reality, we live in a virtual reality, I would suggest the evidence for creationism exists in your brain in a particularly creative region of the brain. Start there maybe the bible.Will begin to make sense..

 

[james blunt]

Since creationism is new and really another version of reality outside reality, we live in a virtual reality, I would suggest the evidence for creationism exists in your brain in a particularly creative region of the brain. Start there maybe the bible.Will begin to make sense..

If we live in virtual reality then the virtual reality has a creator, this creator then also has a creator . If you looked beyond the beyond, then start there and religion will make sense.

 

[Audie]

There was a time, before science discovered more about our solar system, when non creationists, basically were sure, that the close universe would be teeming with life.

What they found, were a bunch of inhospitable planets.

Life from elsewhere, theory, the best at the time, took a big hit.

The further away the proposed, "source", for the plants etc, on earth, the more unlikely

The proposed earth timeline, even taken to extremes, is problematic for the fabled "primordial swamp", and now the distance for interplanetary probability is surpassing sci-fi believability.



Where is the evidence for anything besides creationism?

Someone may have been sure that the near universe was teeming with life.

There never was a "life from elsewhere" theory.

We are unaware that "primordial soup" (so 19th century!) is a "failed"
idea.

You are both way out of date, and ahead of the curve on that.

As to your last q, lets try this. Where is the evidence for anything besides
"Last Thursdayism"?

Last Thursdayism is an unfalsifiable hypothesis that states that the world was created last Thursday. It's an Omphalos hypothesis I.e the world was created recently. According to this all the memories of the past (the memories prior to last Thursday) were embedded in us by God. All the books, technology, stars, and anything else were made last Thursday. This makes the hypothesis unfalsifiable as one might have argued and said in defiance,"But I remember what happened last week Monday!"

 

[Audie]

Its not necessarily water. Alcohol could work, ammonia is especially good replacement for water. The point I am making is that there is a form of life on a planet that does not fit with anything that natural chemistry can generate. Silicone trees growing in Venus or something.

Strange things filter-feeding thro the liquid gasses of Jupiter.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Absence of evidence is proof of something? Good luck...

Wow. Now that's deep.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, but the OP is terribly misinformed.

Where is the evidence for anything besides creationism?

In all of biological research.