Did Abiogenesis Actually Happen?

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

Have you noticed it how a particular brand of Christians constantly makes sweeping claims about atheists - and then applies them to every individual? It is very hard to make any progress in conversations with them when their expectation of what an atheist should believe overrides what the particular individual clearly says.

Yes I have. Very frustrating because sometimes you truly want to know what makes someone tick. You know what I'm mean? 

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

Indeed. It would be nice to hear what someone thinks about your argument, rather than what they think about some generic argument to which you have heard thousands of people's responses already.

I will add that, before I started discussing these things online, it never even occurred to me that I was in the same group as other people who do not actively practice religion. It would be like putting me in the same group as other people who do not do snowboarding. Strange notion that, because me and my neighbor John both do not do something, we must have a lot of views in common.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

Have you noticed it how a particular brand of Christians constantly makes sweeping claims about atheists - and then applies them to every individual? It is very hard to make any progress in conversations with them when their expectation of what an atheist should believe overrides what the particular individual clearly says.

May, I am so glad that you aren't like other atheists and want to make progress in conversations.  I laid out some simple questions that seem to be major problems for abiogenesis - its just a few, I didn't talk about all the issues.  But since you are different than the other atheists who run every time science is brought up, I'd appreciate you answering them for me.

My initial post:  https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176078/#Comment_176078 ;

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Thanks in advance for proving not all atheists don't have a clue and believe in a theory that can't be shown to work.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

Have you noticed it how a particular brand of Christians constantly makes sweeping claims about atheists - and then applies them to every individual? It is very hard to make any progress in conversations with them when their expectation of what an atheist should believe overrides what the particular individual clearly says.

May, I am so glad that you aren't like other atheists and want to make progress in conversations.  I laid out some simple questions that seem to be major problems for abiogenesis - its just a few, I didn't talk about all the issues.  But since you are different than the other atheists who run every time science is brought up, I'd appreciate you answering them for me.

My initial post:  https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176078/#Comment_176078 ;

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Thanks in advance for proving not all atheists don't have a clue and believe in a theory that can't be shown to work.  

Soundly defeated. You're in no position to judge who has a clue and who doesn't. Your argument is 'god did it' which is debunked do to lack of evidence. You are arguing on behalf of your god who you're afraid to declare. You talk of amino acids and rna while demanding explanations you can't give yourself because you have no clue. Did I mention 'god of the gaps' and 'god did it' are failed arguments and have been debunked? And you know it, and why they are debunked.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

Have you noticed it how a particular brand of Christians constantly makes sweeping claims about atheists - and then applies them to every individual? It is very hard to make any progress in conversations with them when their expectation of what an atheist should believe overrides what the particular individual clearly says.

May, I am so glad that you aren't like other atheists and want to make progress in conversations.  I laid out some simple questions that seem to be major problems for abiogenesis - its just a few, I didn't talk about all the issues.  But since you are different than the other atheists who run every time science is brought up, I'd appreciate you answering them for me.

My initial post:  https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176078/#Comment_176078 ;

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Thanks in advance for proving not all atheists don't have a clue and believe in a theory that can't be shown to work.  

Soundly defeated. You're in no position to judge who has a clue and who doesn't. Your argument is 'god did it' which is debunked do to lack of evidence. You are arguing on behalf of your god who you're afraid to declare. You talk of amino acids and rna while demanding explanations you can't give yourself because you have no clue. Did I mention 'god of the gaps' and 'god did it' are failed arguments and have been debunked? And you know it, and why they are debunked.

Again, an observation - some want to make this about faith and avoid discussing the science.  The topic is did abiogenesis happen.  It is not did God do it.  That's your bugaboo, not mine.  I have focused my argument on the scientific issues with abiogenesis.  And I am still waiting for someone to show me how abiogenesis is a valid approach.

And again, I mention that my faith is not dependent upon abiogenesis being disproved, but your faith has no other alternative and must bitterly cling to a theory where the science doesn't work.  For the purposes of this debate, my faith is irrelevant.  The science seems relevant to me for this debate, and for some reason, its the very thing that only the so called 'faith' people are discussing, while the atheists are running away from it like Hunter Biden from a drug test, or Joe Biden from a cognitive test.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

May, I am so glad that you aren't like other atheists and want to make progress in conversations.  I laid out some simple questions that seem to be major problems for abiogenesis - its just a few, I didn't talk about all the issues.  But since you are different than the other atheists who run every time science is brought up, I'd appreciate you answering them for me.

My initial post:  https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176078/#Comment_176078 ;

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Thanks in advance for proving not all atheists don't have a clue and believe in a theory that can't be shown to work.  

You seriously think I am going to engage with you with a prompt like this?

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

Have you noticed it how a particular brand of Christians constantly makes sweeping claims about atheists - and then applies them to every individual? It is very hard to make any progress in conversations with them when their expectation of what an atheist should believe overrides what the particular individual clearly says.

May, I am so glad that you aren't like other atheists and want to make progress in conversations.  I laid out some simple questions that seem to be major problems for abiogenesis - its just a few, I didn't talk about all the issues.  But since you are different than the other atheists who run every time science is brought up, I'd appreciate you answering them for me.

My initial post:  https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176078/#Comment_176078 ;

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Thanks in advance for proving not all atheists don't have a clue and believe in a theory that can't be shown to work.  

Soundly defeated. You're in no position to judge who has a clue and who doesn't. Your argument is 'god did it' which is debunked do to lack of evidence. You are arguing on behalf of your god who you're afraid to declare. You talk of amino acids and rna while demanding explanations you can't give yourself because you have no clue. Did I mention 'god of the gaps' and 'god did it' are failed arguments and have been debunked? And you know it, and why they are debunked.

Again, an observation - some want to make this about faith and avoid discussing the science.  The topic is did abiogenesis happen.  It is not did God do it.  That's your bugaboo, not mine.  I have focused my argument on the scientific issues with abiogenesis.  And I am still waiting for someone to show me how abiogenesis is a valid approach.

And again, I mention that my faith is not dependent upon abiogenesis being disproved, but your faith has no other alternative and must bitterly cling to a theory where the science doesn't work.  For the purposes of this debate, my faith is irrelevant.  The science seems relevant to me for this debate, and for some reason, its the very thing that only the so called 'faith' people are discussing, while the atheists are running away from it like Hunter Biden from a drug test, or Joe Biden from a cognitive test.

Again, no one runs from the science. I (can't speak for others) think abiogenesis did happen in some way because we're here. Right now the field is in its infancy. No one knows that much relatively speaking so it's logical for models to be raised and then debunked as new information slowly begins to emerge. Since I always use empirical evidence as guide in debating you I find it odd you accuse me of running from science while declaring your faith has no role in your god of the gaps argumentation. No evidence suggest a god or intelligence is needed. The universe isn't fined tuned for us and we are not the center of the universe. Everything we have learned through science has revealed naturalistic answers and there is no reason to think that will change as we move forward. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

Have you noticed it how a particular brand of Christians constantly makes sweeping claims about atheists - and then applies them to every individual? It is very hard to make any progress in conversations with them when their expectation of what an atheist should believe overrides what the particular individual clearly says.

May, I am so glad that you aren't like other atheists and want to make progress in conversations.  I laid out some simple questions that seem to be major problems for abiogenesis - its just a few, I didn't talk about all the issues.  But since you are different than the other atheists who run every time science is brought up, I'd appreciate you answering them for me.

My initial post:  https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176078/#Comment_176078 ;

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Thanks in advance for proving not all atheists don't have a clue and believe in a theory that can't be shown to work.  

Soundly defeated. You're in no position to judge who has a clue and who doesn't. Your argument is 'god did it' which is debunked do to lack of evidence. You are arguing on behalf of your god who you're afraid to declare. You talk of amino acids and rna while demanding explanations you can't give yourself because you have no clue. Did I mention 'god of the gaps' and 'god did it' are failed arguments and have been debunked? And you know it, and why they are debunked.

Again, an observation - some want to make this about faith and avoid discussing the science.  The topic is did abiogenesis happen.  It is not did God do it.  That's your bugaboo, not mine.  I have focused my argument on the scientific issues with abiogenesis.  And I am still waiting for someone to show me how abiogenesis is a valid approach.

And again, I mention that my faith is not dependent upon abiogenesis being disproved, but your faith has no other alternative and must bitterly cling to a theory where the science doesn't work.  For the purposes of this debate, my faith is irrelevant.  The science seems relevant to me for this debate, and for some reason, its the very thing that only the so called 'faith' people are discussing, while the atheists are running away from it like Hunter Biden from a drug test, or Joe Biden from a cognitive test.

Again, no one runs from the science. I (can't speak for others) think abiogenesis did happen in some way because we're here. Right now the field is in its infancy. No one knows that much relatively speaking so it's logical for models to be raised and then debunked as new information slowly begins to emerge. Since I always use empirical evidence as guide in debating you I find it odd you accuse me of running from science while declaring your faith has no role in your god of the gaps argumentation. No evidence suggest a god or intelligence is needed. The universe isn't fined tuned for us and we are not the center of the universe. Everything we have learned through science has revealed naturalistic answers and there is no reason to think that will change as we move forward. 

@Factfinder ;  @MayCaesar ;  @just_sayin

There is ZERO evidence for abiogenesis and it's a laughable theory in science today...an embarrassment.

In truth, the only thing factual about it is its own evolution from Charles Darwin’s original postulation – the alleged common ancestry of all plant and animal life - to today’s new-Darwinism which claims that the universe, including all organic life, created itself - out of one atom whose origin is “unknown.” What’s more, the only thing scientific about it is the fact that a substantial number of its proponents consider themselves and each other to be scientists. But stark reality exposes the new Darwinism as a pseudo-science at best, one whose claims cannot be confirmed or falsified by the time-tested scientific method. In fact, molecule-to-man evolution, stripped of all the obfuscating layers that insulate it from reality, is nothing more and nothing less than an opinion factory, generating in school textbooks and the mainstream media only those opinions that foster and further its doctrine.

Chief among its unproven assertions is the astonishing opinion that our universe and the life within it are purposeless, self-created accidents, natural occurrences subject to natural explanations. What could be more marvelous, more miraculous than creation of all things by a sovereign God? Why it’s the self-creation of molecule-to-man evolution according to the propaganda issuing from Evolution Central. Darwin’s brainchild – organic evolution - has been considerably fattened up, dressed out in the duds of royalty, and elevated to Emperor of the Kingdom of Science by those who would dispense with God and God-given morality. But the emperor really has no clothes. Exposed to the light of reason and the immutable natural laws that govern our lives, molecule-to-man evolution becomes simply another transparent covering for mankind’s sinful rebelliousness. So, to all who are engaged in reading this work, though you be showered later on with reams of scientific studies, tons of geologic evidence, and the bony remains of a thousand fossils, resist the temptation to accept as fact that which – in fact – is neither true nor even possible.

Molecule-to-man evolution not only has not been proven, it is an endeavor as fruitless as was the alchemists’ pursuit in the Middle Ages of the so-called “Philosopher’s Stone.” It was believed by “scientists” of that era that finding the “Philosopher’s Stone” would enable man to convert lesser metals such as iron and copper into pure gold. And more than that, it would reveal the secret to creation of life itself while enabling the development of miraculous elixirs to heal all of mankind’s maladies and bring about greatly extended life spans. The seed out of which that futile quest developed is traced to ancient times and one man’s opinion that gold – the noblest metal – evolved from baser metals lodged deep within the earth. That man was the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, and his opinion sent mankind on a vain search for the missing link (the “Philosopher’s Stone”) that supposedly caused conversion of base metals into gold, and held the secret of life as well.

Years and years of experimentation turned up nothing. The coveted “Philosopher’s Stone” was never found. Base metals lodged deep within the earth remained base metals. Gold was never anything more or less than gold. Aristotle was wrong. And all who believed him. The only thing produced was a cadre of charlatans who profited from the superstitions rampant in that era. Base metals do not evolve into gold. In fact, nothing evolves from one thing into something else of a higher order, for that – as we shall see – is an impossibility. Unable to produce on their predictions, alchemists and their science of Alchemy were discredited many centuries ago, only to return in our time as the New Darwinists and the so-called “science” of molecule-to-man evolution.

https://www.inplainsite.org/html/molecule_to__man_.html

 

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

There is ZERO evidence for abiogenesis and it's a laughable theory in science today...an embarrassment.

There is 100% more evidence for abiogenesis than god. Delusional fanatics pointing to their fairy god elf books aren't evidence god did it.

RickeyHoltsclaw

Factfinder said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

There is ZERO evidence for abiogenesis and it's a laughable theory in science today...an embarrassment.

There is 100% more evidence for abiogenesis than god. Delusional fanatics pointing to their fairy god elf books aren't evidence god did it.

@Factfinder ;  It's all bunk, Factfinder....it's a ruse for sinful humanity and foolish atheists.

Once again, the opinion of a lone individual – Charles Darwin – has sent mankind on a “wild goose chase” as certain of failure as the quest for a “Philosopher’s Stone.” From his observation of variations naturally occurring in animal “kinds,” [1] and their adaptability to diverse environments, Darwin falsely opined that gradual evolution, driven by what he called “natural selection,” accounted for the survival and development upward of animal organisms from one primitive, common ancestor. Contradicting the title given to his own book, though, Darwin stayed completely away from the touchy subject of the earth’s origin or the origin of life itself, thereby avoiding direct confrontation with the Biblical record of ex nihilo creation by an omnipotent God. Whereas men “who hold the truth in unrighteousness” [2] welcomed the opportunity to free themselves from accountability to a holy God, men of faith and wisdom were not fooled by Darwin’s hypothesis. And they still aren’t.

But many men of Darwin’s era had become “vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” [3] By embracing Darwinism in place of ex nihilo creation as recorded in the divine Scriptures, they “changed the truth of God into a lie.” [4] Led by a man named Thomas Huxley, advocates of Darwin’s postulations undertook to assemble proof positive that the impossible was not only possible, but through eons of time actually had occurred.

After more than 100 years, however, years of research, research, and more research, there’s not even one halfway-decent “proof” that m-to-m evolution ever has occurred, nor that it’s anything but a baseless opinion founded on the circular reasoning that evolution is the proof of evolution. Darwin saw one thing but assumed something else. He saw variation; he assumed evolution. There was living proof for what he saw. There still is no proof for his opinion that all living organisms trace their origins backward in time to one common ancestor. Neither is there proof for the more radical modern extensions of Darwin’s postulations such as the bear trap Darwin avoided - how living organisms actually originated.

https://www.inplainsite.org/html/molecule_to__man_.html

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

Have you noticed it how a particular brand of Christians constantly makes sweeping claims about atheists - and then applies them to every individual? It is very hard to make any progress in conversations with them when their expectation of what an atheist should believe overrides what the particular individual clearly says.

May, I am so glad that you aren't like other atheists and want to make progress in conversations.  I laid out some simple questions that seem to be major problems for abiogenesis - its just a few, I didn't talk about all the issues.  But since you are different than the other atheists who run every time science is brought up, I'd appreciate you answering them for me.

My initial post:  https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176078/#Comment_176078 ;

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Thanks in advance for proving not all atheists don't have a clue and believe in a theory that can't be shown to work.  

Soundly defeated. You're in no position to judge who has a clue and who doesn't. Your argument is 'god did it' which is debunked do to lack of evidence. You are arguing on behalf of your god who you're afraid to declare. You talk of amino acids and rna while demanding explanations you can't give yourself because you have no clue. Did I mention 'god of the gaps' and 'god did it' are failed arguments and have been debunked? And you know it, and why they are debunked.

Again, an observation - some want to make this about faith and avoid discussing the science.  The topic is did abiogenesis happen.  It is not did God do it.  That's your bugaboo, not mine.  I have focused my argument on the scientific issues with abiogenesis.  And I am still waiting for someone to show me how abiogenesis is a valid approach.

And again, I mention that my faith is not dependent upon abiogenesis being disproved, but your faith has no other alternative and must bitterly cling to a theory where the science doesn't work.  For the purposes of this debate, my faith is irrelevant.  The science seems relevant to me for this debate, and for some reason, its the very thing that only the so called 'faith' people are discussing, while the atheists are running away from it like Hunter Biden from a drug test, or Joe Biden from a cognitive test.

Again, no one runs from the science. I (can't speak for others) think abiogenesis did happen in some way because we're here. Right now the field is in its infancy. No one knows that much relatively speaking so it's logical for models to be raised and then debunked as new information slowly begins to emerge. Since I always use empirical evidence as guide in debating you I find it odd you accuse me of running from science while declaring your faith has no role in your god of the gaps argumentation. No evidence suggest a god or intelligence is needed. The universe isn't fined tuned for us and we are not the center of the universe. Everything we have learned through science has revealed naturalistic answers and there is no reason to think that will change as we move forward. 

I'm glad you aren't running from the science.  Go ahead, and lay some science on me.  I've been waiting.  You could start by answering the questions I asked @MayCasear to answer -   My initial post:  https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176078/#Comment_176078 ;

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; @MayCaesar

The Law of Biogenesis tells us that in nature, life comes only from life of its kind (Miller, 2012). Therefore, abiogenesis (i.e., life arising from non-living materials) is impossible, according to the scientific evidence. How then can atheistic theories like Darwinian evolution be considered acceptable? There is a growing trend among evolutionists today to attempt to sidestep the problem of abiogenesis by contending that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather is a theory which starts with life already in existence and explains the origin of all species from that original life form. However, this approach is merely wishful thinking—an effort to avoid the logical import of the Law of Biogenesis.

Historically, evolutionists have recognized that abiogenesis is a fundamental assumption inherent in evolutionary theory, and intuitively must be so. In 1960, British evolutionary physiologist, G.A. Kerkut, listed abiogenesis as the first assumption in a list of non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is founded. “The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred” (Kerkut, 1960, p. 6). Evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain the origin of species through natural means—without supernatural Creation. Logically, unless you concede the existence of God and subscribe to theistic evolution in order to explain the origin of life (a position that has been shown to be unsustainable, cf. Thompson, 2000), abiogenesis must have originally occurred in order to commence the process of Darwinian evolution. Abiogenesis is required by evolution as the starting point.

Further, atheistic evolutionary geologist, Robert Hazen, who received his doctoral degree from Harvard, admitted that he assumes abiogenesis occurred. In his lecture series, Origins of Life, he says, “In this lecture series I make a basic assumption that life emerged by some kind of natural process. I propose that life arose by a sequence of events that are completely consistent with natural laws of chemistry and physics” (2005, emp. added). Again, evolution is an attempt to explain life through natural means, and abiogenesis must go hand-in-hand with such a theory. Hazen further stated that in his assumption of abiogenesis, he is “like most other scientists” (2005). It makes perfect sense for atheistic evolutionists to admit their belief in abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis in place, there is no starting point for atheistic evolution to occur. However, many evolutionists do not want to admit such a belief too loudly, since such a belief has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. It is a blind faith—a religious dogma.

It is also true that atheists themselves use the term “evolution” as a generalized catchall word encompassing all materialistic origin models, including those dealing with the origin of the cosmos, not just the origin of species. A simple Google search of the keywords, “cosmic evolution,” illustrates that contention. Consider, for example, the title of Harvard University astrophysicist Eric Chaisson’s Web site: “Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind” (2012). Consider also the comments of NASA chief historian, Steven : “Cosmic evolution begins…with the formation of stars and planetary systems, proceeds…to primitive and complex life, and culminates with intelligence, technology and astronomers…contemplating the universe…. This story of the life of the universe, and our place in it, is known as cosmic evolution” (2005). If atheism were true, in this mythical story of how the Universe evolved from nothing to everything, abiogenesis must have occurred somewhere along the way. Thus, abiogenesis is a fundamental, implied phenomenon of evolutionary theory. Creationists are merely using atheistic evolutionists’ terms in the same way they use them.

The truth is, one cannot logically commence a study of Life Science or Biology—studies which are intimately linked with the theory of evolution by the bulk of the scientific community today—without first studying the origin of that life which allegedly evolved from a single-celled organism into the various forms of life on Earth today. Biology and Life Science textbooks today, with almost unanimity, include a discussion of biogenesis, abiogenesis (ironically, discussing the work of Pasteur, Spallanzani, and Redi, who disproved the theory of abiogenesis), and extensive discussions of evolutionary theory. The evolutionists themselves inevitably couple Biology and Life Science with evolution, as though they are one and the same. But a study of life—biology—must have a starting point. So, evolutionists themselves link the problem of abiogenesis to evolution. If the evolutionary community wishes to separate the study of biology from evolution—a position I would strongly recommend—then the evolutionist might be able to put his head in the sand and ignore the abiogenesis problem, but not while the evolutionist couples evolution so intimately with biology.

The reality is that abiogenesis stands alongside evolutionary theory as a fundamental plank of atheism and will remain there. The two are intimately linked and stand or fall together. It is time for the naturalist to forthrightly admit that his religious belief in evolution is based on a blind acceptance of an unscientific pheonomenon.

https://apologeticspress.org/abiogenesis-is-irrelevant-to-evolution-1631/

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

May, I am so glad that you aren't like other atheists and want to make progress in conversations.  I laid out some simple questions that seem to be major problems for abiogenesis - its just a few, I didn't talk about all the issues.  But since you are different than the other atheists who run every time science is brought up, I'd appreciate you answering them for me.

My initial post:  https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176078/#Comment_176078 ;

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Thanks in advance for proving not all atheists don't have a clue and believe in a theory that can't be shown to work.  

You seriously think I am going to engage with you with a prompt like this?

Again, I make my point that science can not show that abiogenesis occurred.  All scientific attempts to answer the questions I have mentioned have resulted in results that suggest abiogenesis could not happen.  Our atheist friends know this and so have avoided the scientific discussion of abiogenesis' viability.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

Interesting. I am not aware of any publications that convincingly show that "abiogenesis could not happen". Granted, I worked on this 4 years ago, and something may have changed since then: I have not kept track of the field.

Thank you for enlightening me! Would you, by any chance, have a link to that Earth-shattering publication?

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

No. Has anyone seen god do it? NO

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

No. Has anyone seen god solve the problem of there being no viable mechanism...? NO

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

No. Has anyone seen god...? No

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

Don't know. Has anyone seen god forming...? NO

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

Not that I know of. Has anyone seen god solve...? NO

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

Don't know. Possibly some evidence it could work but definitive, no. Any definitive evidence of a designer that works? Not only NO, but no evidence at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world#:~:text=The RNA world hypothesis is,of the ribosome in 2001.

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Not now. Any evidence a god did it? NO 

Now you answer some questions:

When the wind blew in ancient times and the ignorant thought it was a spirit god did science discover the correct reason?

When people thought the earth was flat did scientific observational techniques discover it wasn't?

When people thought the sun was 'god' did science disprove that myth?

When people thought the sun orbited the earth was science responsible for discovering it was the other way around?

Any physical, empirical evidence directly leading to an intelligent creator definitively discovering some super life form?

 

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

Interesting. I am not aware of any publications that convincingly show that "abiogenesis could not happen". Granted, I worked on this 4 years ago, and something may have changed since then: I have not kept track of the field.

Thank you for enlightening me! Would you, by any chance, have a link to that Earth-shattering publication?

There is no direct empirical evidence for abiogenesis.  If you disagree with this statement, then please site your source where life was created from non-life without human assistance or technology.  

The mathematical odds of accidental formation of life from non-life are astronomical unlikely.  I've cited multiple examples of this already at varying stages.  Multiplying the estimated age of the universe in seconds times the estimated number of particles in the universe, and the Planck's time constant gives the number of possible opportunities for life to occur by accident.

10^17 sec ×10^80 particles ×10^43 Planck's time = 10 ^ 14: 

This is an astronomical number of chances but not as large as the odds of putting together a working enzyme required for life, totally by accidental chance,
which is estimated to be 10^164

The odds of abiogenesis occurring on earth by chance are

10^140 / 10^164 =1/10^24

If that happened it would be considered a miracle.  Do you believe in miracles?  

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

I mentioned this before, and I will again: when talking to me and expecting a respectful reply, you have to demonstrate acknowledgment of the positions I have stated before. In this particular case, I explained earlier why the conclusion that abiogenesis has taken place - even in the lack of full understanding of precise mechanisms involved in it - makes logical sense. There, indeed, is no direct evidence of the process themselves that I am aware of. But lack of evidence does not constitute evidence of lack.

Your calculations make no sense to me. First you say that abiogenesis is impossible, then you provide calculations showing that it is unlikely. Is it impossible or unlikely? And how can you evaluate its probability if, as you yourself said, no one has a model of it? You cannot evaluate anything without a model.

It seems to me that you are just shuffling numbers around without any understanding of what these numbers denote and where they come from. What is Planck's time, for example? I strongly suspect that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Bogan

@just_sayin

Just-sayin quote  Now Bogie, that was mean to lump me in with Barnadot. 

 It was meant to explain that your premise, that religion is pro science, is so ridiculous that even Barnadot would not come out with a doozy like that.      Human history for the last 400 years has seen science push religious explanations for everything further and further backwards.     My favourite one was when the clergy refused to put lightning rods onto church steeples because the various Christian denominations had always claimed that lightning was a signs of God’s displeasure.       They kept that up until a bolt of lightning hit the steeple of a church in Brescia, Italy.     The church was being used to store thousands of pounds of gunpowder, and the resulting explosion nearly wiped Brescia off the map, killing thousands of pious Italians. 

 

Just-sayin quote          My observation is that the complexity of life suggests an intelligence. 

 If you are claiming that life needs an intelligent creator, then you have to explain just who created the Creator, who is an extremely “complex” person who popped into existence knowing everything, and with powers beyond physics and human conception?

 

 Just-sayin quote        I have repeatedly pointed out how attempts to explain how even the simplest of structures has failed by thousands of intelligent scientists using billions of dollars of equipment and can't make happen what they say chaos created. 

 Then you are using the old religious trick of saying, that “if scientists can not explain everything, then there must be a God”       The problem for you is that science just keeps advancing and it keeps pushing the religious explanations backwards.     If the next space probe to Saturn finds life in the water/ice fountains being squirted into space by Saturn’s gravitational pull on its moon Enceladus, then the religious idea that life is unique to earth, and that life can not be created by the right conditions, will be proven to be wrong. 

Just-sayin quote   I think we are working with different definitions of abiogenesis.  The Oxford dictionary definition is :the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.

 If your God is so “complex” and has so much intelligence that He can create matter out of nothing, then He is quite obviously some sort of life form.   If you claim that “complex” life forms need to be created, then who created your Creator?  

 

Just-sayin quote      I don't think God qualifies as 'inanimate'.  God is definitely alive. 

Okay, let’s look at that.    Do you know what a “logical procession” is?      If you claim that “complex” life needs a creator, and that your “complex” God is “alive”, then logically, your (extremely) “complex” God needs a creator himself.    Conversely, if you claim that your “complex” God who is “alive” does not need a creator, then you just destroyed the logic of your original logical procession.

 

Just-sayin quote    Now, God did not create himself - he is an eternal being who created space-time. 

You can not say that life needs a creator, then say that God is alive, and then refuse to admit that your own premise must apply to your own God.    Believing in two diametrically opposed concepts at the same time is called “cognitive dissonance” by psychologists. 

  

Just-sayin quote       And how long it took him I have not made claim about. 

The Old Testament Bible, which I seem to remember is supposedly written by God, clearly states that the universe was created in six days.      That means that God knocked up hundreds of thousands of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars, black holes, and quasi-stellars, as well as uncountable numbers of planetesimals, asteroids, and meteors within each galaxy, in the time it takes for planet Earth to make 6 rotations of its axis.      Such a concept is just potty, isn’t it? You could get away writing such nonsense 2000 years ago, but people are too educated and too smart today to give such an idea any credence.     Unless, of course, their minds have been conditioned by religion to accept nonsense as reality. 

 

Just-sayin quote   Do you not see the self-contradicting sentences you wrote? 

No.   But I can sure see your cognitive dissonance.

 

Just-sayin quote  If God is a 'life form', ie - alive, then he is not inanimate as abiogenesis claims.      “Abiogenesis” is the concept that life can self create.   

 If you claim that your “complex” God is “alive”, and that He did not need a creator, then you are proving that abiogenesis is correct.

 

Just-sayin quote    Or are you forgetting that the universe itself came from nothing? 

No one but religious people (or ignorant people)  think that the universe came from nothing.     The First Law of Physics says that, “matter can not be created nor destroyed.”

 

Just-sayin quote     Since you wanted to start our scientific discussion right now, how about you share the secret of how non-life created life - and include the specific details.

Your premise is what has allowed religious superstition to explain away the unexplainable with religious gibberish for millennia.          If something can not be explained, then some God must have done it.      That “explanation” for everything is getting pushed back by science all of the time.

 

Just-sayin quote   Don't be like atheists who say 'all you need is time, minerals, and energy'.  That's like saying 'just wait, magic will do it'. 

Which just happens to be a more reasonable and logical argument than “all complex life needs a creator, except he did not need a creator himself.” 

 

Just-sayin quote    At the end of the day, what you really do believe is that magic turned a rock into you.  You have ignored the odds of that happening naturally which are considered zero. 

Zero by whom?    A priestly caste who’s profitable business model is endangered by science?   Or, people who desperately need to believe that somehow, their conscious minds will live on into infinity? 

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Do you believe in miracles?  

Yes. And so far all of them have been natural phenomenon we know of.

MayCaesar

I concur. One of the miracles of this world is adults seriously believing in old fairytales. I would think most people should grow out of it by the age of 5-6. I sometimes slip into thinking that this is the age of the person I am talking about: "Awwww, you believe in god! Cuuuute!" Then I remember that I am talking to an adult... "F$ck."

True miracle.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; @MayCaesar ; Oh foolish atheists, headed to Hell in your sin, seeking every form of obfuscation to appease a seared conscience...you are sad.

What has NASA and Harvard said?

The ultimate mystery is inspiring new ideas and new experiments.

No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. And scientists are grappling with even deeper questions. If there was nothing to begin with, then where did the laws of nature come from? How did the universe "know" how to proceed? And why do the laws of nature produce a universe that is so hospitable to life? As difficult as these questions are, scientists are attempting to address them with bold new ideas - and new experiments to test those ideas.

Understanding how the universe began requires developing a better theory of how space, time, and matter are related. In physics, a theory is not a guess or a hypothesis. It is a mathematical model that lets us make predictions about how the world behaves. Einstein's theory of gravity, for example, accurately describes how matter responds to gravity in the large-scale world around us. And our best theory of the tiny sub-atomic realm, called quantum theory, makes very accurate predictions about the behavior of matter at tiny scales of distance. But these two theories are not complete and are not able to make accurate predictions about the very earliest moments when the universe was both extremely dense and extremely small.

Some of the best minds in physics are working on a new theory of space, time, and matter, called "string theory," that may help us better understand where the universe came from. String theory is based on new ideas that have not yet been tested. The theory assumes, for example, that the basic particles in nature are not point particles, but are shaped like strings. And the theory requires - and predicts - that space has more than the three dimensions in which we move. According to one version of the theory, the particles and forces that make up our world are confined to three dimensions we see - except for gravity, which can "leak" out into the extra dimensions.

String theory has led to some bizarre new scenarios for the origin of the universe. In one scenario, the Big Bang could have been triggered when our own universe collided with a "parallel universe" made of these extra dimensions. Scenarios like these are very speculative, because the string theory is still in development and remains untested, but they stimulate astronomers to look for new forms of evidence.

A new window on the universe: waves of gravity.

 
The most promising clue to our cosmic origins may be the tiny gravity waves set in motion during the Big Bang itself. These ripples of gravity have eluded detection so far, but NASA aims to look for them with the LISA mission, to be launched in the next decade. LISA technology will be so precise that it will measure the equivalent of the distance to the Moon to less than the width of a single atom. The mission will be complemented by the ground-based LIGO detector, already in operation.

Gravity waves are important because they are the only known form of information that can reach us, undistorted, from the instant of the Big Bang itself. The different scenarios for the early universe make different predictions for the size and pattern of these gravity waves. The hope is that gravity waves will help refute or support some of these theories of the early universe. The truth is, no one knows what we'll find. This is uncharted territory – a new window on the universe.

Is our universe unique?

Perhaps the most unsettling and far-reaching prediction of string theory - and also of the inflationary universe model - is that the universe we live in is probably not unique. The inflationary model predicts that Big Bangs are continually taking place in other regions of space - and string theory suggests that these other mini-verses may be so different from our own that even the laws of nature and the number of dimensions of space may be different.  

This notion - that the universe as whole may not look like the part we live in - may help explain a puzzling mystery about our own universe: Why are the constants and laws of nature just so, and not different? For example, why is the speed of light not faster than it is? Why are electrons so much lighter than the protons they orbit in atoms? What we do know is that if these fundamental laws and constants were even slightly different from what is observed, then life as we know it would not exist. (For example, atoms would be less stable, or stars and planets would not form.) Traditionally, physicists have sought some logical explanation for why the universe is as it is. But the likelihood of multiple universes raises the possibility that nature is merely playing dice: some universes have the right conditions for life, while others - the vast majority - do not.

Nature is full of surprises, and this dialogue with nature has far to go. With every generation, the universe we observe seems to be getting larger and more wonderful. Just a few hundred years ago, the stars we see in the night sky seemed to be the limits of our universe. Then Galileo's telescope opened up the panorama of stars that make up our Milky Way galaxy of stars. A mere century ago, humanity still had not discovered that there are billions of galaxies far beyond our own. Today, we can see as far as nature currently allows - back to the moment of the Big Bang itself. Our ideas and ingenuity are conjuring a universe even larger and more varied than we had ever imagined. Is it any wonder this is a great exploration?

https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; @MayCaesar ; Oh foolish atheists, headed to Hell in your sin, seeking every form of obfuscation to appease a seared conscience...you are sad.

What has NASA and Harvard said?

The ultimate mystery is inspiring new ideas and new experiments.

No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. And scientists are grappling with even deeper questions. If there was nothing to begin with, then where did the laws of nature come from? How did the universe "know" how to proceed? And why do the laws of nature produce a universe that is so hospitable to life? As difficult as these questions are, scientists are attempting to address them with bold new ideas - and new experiments to test those ideas.

Understanding how the universe began requires developing a better theory of how space, time, and matter are related. In physics, a theory is not a guess or a hypothesis. It is a mathematical model that lets us make predictions about how the world behaves. Einstein's theory of gravity, for example, accurately describes how matter responds to gravity in the large-scale world around us. And our best theory of the tiny sub-atomic realm, called quantum theory, makes very accurate predictions about the behavior of matter at tiny scales of distance. But these two theories are not complete and are not able to make accurate predictions about the very earliest moments when the universe was both extremely dense and extremely small.

Some of the best minds in physics are working on a new theory of space, time, and matter, called "string theory," that may help us better understand where the universe came from. String theory is based on new ideas that have not yet been tested. The theory assumes, for example, that the basic particles in nature are not point particles, but are shaped like strings. And the theory requires - and predicts - that space has more than the three dimensions in which we move. According to one version of the theory, the particles and forces that make up our world are confined to three dimensions we see - except for gravity, which can "leak" out into the extra dimensions.

String theory has led to some bizarre new scenarios for the origin of the universe. In one scenario, the Big Bang could have been triggered when our own universe collided with a "parallel universe" made of these extra dimensions. Scenarios like these are very speculative, because the string theory is still in development and remains untested, but they stimulate astronomers to look for new forms of evidence.

A new window on the universe: waves of gravity.

 
The most promising clue to our cosmic origins may be the tiny gravity waves set in motion during the Big Bang itself. These ripples of gravity have eluded detection so far, but NASA aims to look for them with the LISA mission, to be launched in the next decade. LISA technology will be so precise that it will measure the equivalent of the distance to the Moon to less than the width of a single atom. The mission will be complemented by the ground-based LIGO detector, already in operation.

Gravity waves are important because they are the only known form of information that can reach us, undistorted, from the instant of the Big Bang itself. The different scenarios for the early universe make different predictions for the size and pattern of these gravity waves. The hope is that gravity waves will help refute or support some of these theories of the early universe. The truth is, no one knows what we'll find. This is uncharted territory – a new window on the universe.

Is our universe unique?

Perhaps the most unsettling and far-reaching prediction of string theory - and also of the inflationary universe model - is that the universe we live in is probably not unique. The inflationary model predicts that Big Bangs are continually taking place in other regions of space - and string theory suggests that these other mini-verses may be so different from our own that even the laws of nature and the number of dimensions of space may be different.  

This notion - that the universe as whole may not look like the part we live in - may help explain a puzzling mystery about our own universe: Why are the constants and laws of nature just so, and not different? For example, why is the speed of light not faster than it is? Why are electrons so much lighter than the protons they orbit in atoms? What we do know is that if these fundamental laws and constants were even slightly different from what is observed, then life as we know it would not exist. (For example, atoms would be less stable, or stars and planets would not form.) Traditionally, physicists have sought some logical explanation for why the universe is as it is. But the likelihood of multiple universes raises the possibility that nature is merely playing dice: some universes have the right conditions for life, while others - the vast majority - do not.

Nature is full of surprises, and this dialogue with nature has far to go. With every generation, the universe we observe seems to be getting larger and more wonderful. Just a few hundred years ago, the stars we see in the night sky seemed to be the limits of our universe. Then Galileo's telescope opened up the panorama of stars that make up our Milky Way galaxy of stars. A mere century ago, humanity still had not discovered that there are billions of galaxies far beyond our own. Today, we can see as far as nature currently allows - back to the moment of the Big Bang itself. Our ideas and ingenuity are conjuring a universe even larger and more varied than we had ever imagined. Is it any wonder this is a great exploration?

https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm

That whole article and not one thing points to your fairy god elf. Imagine that. As we discover how wonderous and large the universe is, not one spec of evidence to support your fairy god elf books claims. Everything produces only natural evidence. Your myth failed you again ricky.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

I do not think he understood even 1% of the content of that article...

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

No. Has anyone seen god do it? NO

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

No. Has anyone seen god solve the problem of there being no viable mechanism...? NO

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

No. Has anyone seen god...? No

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

Don't know. Has anyone seen god forming...? NO

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

Not that I know of. Has anyone seen god solve...? NO

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

Don't know. Possibly some evidence it could work but definitive, no. Any definitive evidence of a designer that works? Not only NO, but no evidence at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world#:~:text=The RNA world hypothesis is,of the ribosome in 2001.

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Not now. Any evidence a god did it? NO 

Now you answer some questions:

When the wind blew in ancient times and the ignorant thought it was a spirit god did science discover the correct reason?

When people thought the earth was flat did scientific observational techniques discover it wasn't?

When people thought the sun was 'god' did science disprove that myth?

When people thought the sun orbited the earth was science responsible for discovering it was the other way around?

Any physical, empirical evidence directly leading to an intelligent creator definitively discovering some super life form?

 

Fact, I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you can't answer the questions.  After 100 years scientists working their whole lives with billions of dollars of technology behind them can't figure it out either.  Well, since the science doesn't work - and I'm not just talking about just 1 little point, but most of the theorized steps involved to making a cell just don't seem to work for random nature forming life, then we have to ask ourselves, what has the intelligence to create the complexity that we see in life, since nature can't do it.  And the only thing that seems to have intelligence in a universe without life would be God.  What other intelligence in a universe without life is there?  

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Do you believe in miracles?  

Yes. And so far all of them have been natural phenomenon we know of.

You mean like the guy whose amputated leg grew back overnight and had 24 eye witness accounts to verify it along with medical records?  Or the the woman who had been sent home to die who couldn't move her legs, was blind, and had several organs not working who got up out of bed after hearing God's voice and could walk, see and her organs were instantly healed and confirmed as a miracle by doctors at the Mayo Clinic?  Or the resurrection of Jesus where there were numerous witnesses of his death and then of him being alive - some of which wrote about it and gave their lives because they would not say it was false?  LOL

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

It is more probable that an intelligence is responsible for something as complex as DNA code than chaos.  That's logic.  Code needs a coder to make it. 

That's a great point. And if that is the case then how does it follow that this creator should be a Christian God (theos) as depicted in the Bible? Why not a scientific divine? Why not any other Deity? What about computer simulation? Why not Allah? Why not multiple theos/deities being responsible for different areas of the design? Why should this mean that a Christian God did it? 

RickeyHoltsclaw

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

It is more probable that an intelligence is responsible for something as complex as DNA code than chaos.  That's logic.  Code needs a coder to make it. 

That's a great point. And if that is the case then how does it follow that this creator should be a Christian God (theos) as depicted in the Bible? Why not a scientific divine? Why not any other Deity? What about computer simulation? Why not Allah? Why not multiple theos/deities being responsible for different areas of the design? Why should this mean that a Christian God did it? 

@ZeusAres ;  Elohim has not introduced Himself as associated with a religion but as Creator of all (Genesis 1:1). Jesus did not enter the Realm of Time as a "Christian" but those who serve Him and seek to follow His teachings were later called "Christians." Elohim IS a "Scientific Divine." He created Science and makes the scientific methodology possible via His immutability.

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

It is more probable that an intelligence is responsible for something as complex as DNA code than chaos.  That's logic.  Code needs a coder to make it. 

That's a great point. And if that is the case then how does it follow that this creator should be a Christian God (theos) as depicted in the Bible? Why not a scientific divine? Why not any other Deity? What about computer simulation? Why not Allah? Why not multiple theos/deities being responsible for different areas of the design? Why should this mean that a Christian God did it? 

Agent Smith, we have had this discussion before... You are to suggest other gods, but not to mention the simulation! Eh, time to work on yet another bugfix.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Do you believe in miracles?  

Yes. And so far all of them have been natural phenomenon we know of.

You mean like the guy whose amputated leg grew back overnight and had 24 eye witness accounts to verify it along with medical records?  Or the the woman who had been sent home to die who couldn't move her legs, was blind, and had several organs not working who got up out of bed after hearing God's voice and could walk, see and her organs were instantly healed and confirmed as a miracle by doctors at the Mayo Clinic?  Or the resurrection of Jesus where there were numerous witnesses of his death and then of him being alive - some of which wrote about it and gave their lives because they would not say it was false?  LOL

Had that fantasy happened, who would know how? it would have been 400 years ago according to the cult that devised the lie. But as this is in the science forum mythical fairy book stories do not count and there has never been evidence of a leg crawling out of a grave over 2 years after being buried and reattaching itself to its original stump. Your faith base claim that an empty grave means it's true is delusional. It means the guy presented had no amputation. That's the evidence. Despite the show your cult put on 400 years ago. So far only natural phenomenon have been observed and studied.

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

It is more probable that an intelligence is responsible for something as complex as DNA code than chaos.  That's logic.  Code needs a coder to make it. 

That's a great point. And if that is the case then how does it follow that this creator should be a Christian God (theos) as depicted in the Bible? Why not a scientific divine? Why not any other Deity? What about computer simulation? Why not Allah? Why not multiple theos/deities being responsible for different areas of the design? Why should this mean that a Christian God did it? 

From the evidence of creation, I don't know that you can deduce which God created everything.  I think you would need to look at other evidences to get a specific God.  I think you can deduce a few things from the evidence of the creation of the universe and of life - whatever created the universe must be strong enough to create a universe, and must be spaceless, and timeless, because he/it existed before space and time, that it/he must be intelligent to initiate creation and to do so with so much fine tuning and complexity.  The fact our 'code' is such that we have a strong sense of morals, indicates that the 'coder' has a strong sense of morals and justice.  Theologians would refer to this as the difference between general revelation - that which we can deduce about God from nature, and special revelation - that which we can only know from God from sources such as the Bible, and other communication.  

just_sayin

Bogan said:

@just_sayin

Just-sayin quote  Now Bogie, that was mean to lump me in with Barnadot. 

 It was meant to explain that your premise, that religion is pro science, is so ridiculous that even Barnadot would not come out with a doozy like that.      Human history for the last 400 years has seen science push religious explanations for everything further and further backwards.     My favourite one was when the clergy refused to put lightning rods onto church steeples because the various Christian denominations had always claimed that lightning was a signs of God’s displeasure.       They kept that up until a bolt of lightning hit the steeple of a church in Brescia, Italy.     The church was being used to store thousands of pounds of gunpowder, and the resulting explosion nearly wiped Brescia off the map, killing thousands of pious Italians. 

 

Just-sayin quote          My observation is that the complexity of life suggests an intelligence. 

 If you are claiming that life needs an intelligent creator, then you have to explain just who created the Creator, who is an extremely “complex” person who popped into existence knowing everything, and with powers beyond physics and human conception?

 

 Just-sayin quote        I have repeatedly pointed out how attempts to explain how even the simplest of structures has failed by thousands of intelligent scientists using billions of dollars of equipment and can't make happen what they say chaos created. 

 Then you are using the old religious trick of saying, that “if scientists can not explain everything, then there must be a God”       The problem for you is that science just keeps advancing and it keeps pushing the religious explanations backwards.     If the next space probe to Saturn finds life in the water/ice fountains being squirted into space by Saturn’s gravitational pull on its moon Enceladus, then the religious idea that life is unique to earth, and that life can not be created by the right conditions, will be proven to be wrong. 

Just-sayin quote   I think we are working with different definitions of abiogenesis.  The Oxford dictionary definition is :the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.

 If your God is so “complex” and has so much intelligence that He can create matter out of nothing, then He is quite obviously some sort of life form.   If you claim that “complex” life forms need to be created, then who created your Creator?  

 

Just-sayin quote      I don't think God qualifies as 'inanimate'.  God is definitely alive. 

Okay, let’s look at that.    Do you know what a “logical procession” is?      If you claim that “complex” life needs a creator, and that your “complex” God is “alive”, then logically, your (extremely) “complex” God needs a creator himself.    Conversely, if you claim that your “complex” God who is “alive” does not need a creator, then you just destroyed the logic of your original logical procession.

 

Just-sayin quote    Now, God did not create himself - he is an eternal being who created space-time. 

You can not say that life needs a creator, then say that God is alive, and then refuse to admit that your own premise must apply to your own God.    Believing in two diametrically opposed concepts at the same time is called “cognitive dissonance” by psychologists. 

  

Just-sayin quote       And how long it took him I have not made claim about. 

The Old Testament Bible, which I seem to remember is supposedly written by God, clearly states that the universe was created in six days.      That means that God knocked up hundreds of thousands of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars, black holes, and quasi-stellars, as well as uncountable numbers of planetesimals, asteroids, and meteors within each galaxy, in the time it takes for planet Earth to make 6 rotations of its axis.      Such a concept is just potty, isn’t it? You could get away writing such nonsense 2000 years ago, but people are too educated and too smart today to give such an idea any credence.     Unless, of course, their minds have been conditioned by religion to accept nonsense as reality. 

 

Just-sayin quote   Do you not see the self-contradicting sentences you wrote? 

No.   But I can sure see your cognitive dissonance.

 

Just-sayin quote  If God is a 'life form', ie - alive, then he is not inanimate as abiogenesis claims.      “Abiogenesis” is the concept that life can self create.   

 If you claim that your “complex” God is “alive”, and that He did not need a creator, then you are proving that abiogenesis is correct.

 

Just-sayin quote    Or are you forgetting that the universe itself came from nothing? 

No one but religious people (or ignorant people)  think that the universe came from nothing.     The First Law of Physics says that, “matter can not be created nor destroyed.”

 

Just-sayin quote     Since you wanted to start our scientific discussion right now, how about you share the secret of how non-life created life - and include the specific details.

Your premise is what has allowed religious superstition to explain away the unexplainable with religious gibberish for millennia.          If something can not be explained, then some God must have done it.      That “explanation” for everything is getting pushed back by science all of the time.

 

Just-sayin quote   Don't be like atheists who say 'all you need is time, minerals, and energy'.  That's like saying 'just wait, magic will do it'. 

Which just happens to be a more reasonable and logical argument than “all complex life needs a creator, except he did not need a creator himself.” 

 

Just-sayin quote    At the end of the day, what you really do believe is that magic turned a rock into you.  You have ignored the odds of that happening naturally which are considered zero. 

Zero by whom?    A priestly caste who’s profitable business model is endangered by science?   Or, people who desperately need to believe that somehow, their conscious minds will live on into infinity? 

Bogie, first let me tell you that you are one of my favorites on the site.  Others have boasted about all of their science and math knowledge with regards to this topic and have acted like they know everything.  But you are always keeping it real and have never pretended that you knew anything.  I like that about you.

I can't speak for all Christians, I can say, I don't see science as the enemy.  I think God works through natural means a lot.  I don't think he is limited to only working in nature though.  In regards to this topic, it would not affect my faith if a scientific explanation was discovered for how non-life turned into life.  I would still recognize that God created the universe using natural means.  It is the atheist in my opinion that has to ignore what the evidence says about life coming from non-life to maintain their hope in a method that appears to have several dead ends.

Only created things need a creator.  Speaking in philosophical terms, God is not just a sufficient cause of the universe, he is a necessary cause and being.  I don't know why you have such a problem with this idea - its what you believe about matter/energy.  You believe that it can't be created or destroyed - yet the big bang suggests that all matter/energy in the universe once fit in zero space.  How much stuff can you fit in zero space, Bogie?  its not that hard of a math problem.  Take the number that you think represents all the matter and energy in the universe and multiply it by 0 to represent the space.  OK, what number did you get?  Well that's the amount of matter/energy that existed at the beginning of the universe.  Whereas God, had to have existed outside of space-time to create it.  Are you suggesting that energy/matter exists outside of space-time, cause this is an interesting notion that logic and basic observation would suggest is not true.  If little baby universes have been being born from energy (there can't be matter outside of space-time) then, even if if they are eternally apart, eternity has existed since, well eternity, and our universe would be overwhelmed with energy from all those other universes.  Instead of the universe appearing to be expanding, it would look more like a steady state with energy and matter going everywhere.  There should be an infinitely high radiation level also that should be deadly.  

I understand that you would question where I get the odds are zero.  Math is hard.  Here is where I told you that:

One of the simplest life forms that we know of, parasitic bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium, would have needed about 256 genes. Assuming a modest 1000 or more base pairs long (the human gene is 24K long), and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The probability of getting one DNA gene right by random chance is about one in 10 to the 89,900 power - essentially 0.  And yet one of the simplest life forms has 256 genes.  

@Bogan, I know you brag that you are the descendant of rocks.  But even rock heads are made up of genes, and without a complex means of replicating them,, the odds are zero that you are the by product of a one night rock stand.  LOL

one in 10 to the 89,900 power odds means essentially zero.  Since there are only 1 in 10 to the 80th power of particles in the universe.  And 80th power is a lot smaller number than 89,000 power by about 88,920 zeros after the 1.  Before you reply, try this, write on a piece of paper a 1 followed by 80 zeros and visually see how big it is, then on a much bigger piece of paper, maybe a lot of sheets of paper write a 1 followed by 89000 zeros - see which is bigger.  The size of the numbers means that there isn't a 1 percent chance that life arose randomly from the universe, or a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent chance that it did, but a 0 percent chance that it did.  

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Theologians would refer to this as the difference between general revelation - that which we can deduce about God from nature, and special revelation - that which we can only know from God from sources such as the Bible, and other communication.  

I knew your source of faith was with the bible. just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin



Now you answer some questions:

When the wind blew in ancient times and the ignorant thought it was a spirit god did science discover the correct reason?

When people thought the earth was flat did scientific observational techniques discover it wasn't?

When people thought the sun was 'god' did science disprove that myth?

When people thought the sun orbited the earth was science responsible for discovering it was the other way around?

Any physical, empirical evidence directly leading to an intelligent creator definitively discovering some super life form?

 

Fact, I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you can't answer the questions.  After 100 years scientists working their whole lives with billions of dollars of technology behind them can't figure it out either.  Well, since the science doesn't work - and I'm not just talking about just 1 little point, but most of the theorized steps involved to making a cell just don't seem to work for random nature forming life, then we have to ask ourselves, what has the intelligence to create the complexity that we see in life, since nature can't do it.  And the only thing that seems to have intelligence in a universe without life would be God.  What other intelligence in a universe without life is there?  

They've figured out a lot the past 100 years. Figuring out what's possible and/or probable or not, over the course of time is working. That doesn't mean failure in any sense of the word. What they do have in every scientific field is repeated discoveries of natural phenomenon. The newer fields of study including abiogenies is on the same trajectory as well. No evidence of god. A 'code needs a coder'? In the computer world that makes since with human intelligence. But in biology the more we reduce the object of observation the more the apparent 'code' that we thought we were examining loses image cohesiveness and such projections dissolve. The only reason 'code' is used in science is because that's how our brains convert the images we see looking at through powerful microscopes, microbes intertwined with other microbiological entities. Point being terms like 'genetic information' are in reference to genes and their ability to pass on characteristics through generations. It's actually very supportive after vigorous falsification processes for why evolutionary theory is considered fact. 

Are you going to answer my previous questions? Or this one since you stopped being obtuse about where you're faith is grounded, the bible, why does it use 'day' increments? God outside of time doesn't explain it as it was specific, just as it was about the millennial reign. So why 'day' increments in the creation narrative just_sayin?

MayCaesar

There was a time when lightning was explained by the work of Perun, Zeus or Apollo. Back then everyone said, "Lightning is so out there, it will never be explained by science, so it must be the work of the gods". Nowadays this silly superstition is not seriously held by anyone.

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how questions of abiogenesis and the Big Bang are different: how does one conclude that, unlike gazillions of phenomena that in the past were attributed to gods, but nowadays are easily explained by science - these particular phenomena cannot be? 

I will probably not hear an answer until I die... And then I will be reborn as a lemur and my intellectual search will be over.

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

It is more probable that an intelligence is responsible for something as complex as DNA code than chaos.  That's logic.  Code needs a coder to make it. 

That's a great point. And if that is the case then how does it follow that this creator should be a Christian God (theos) as depicted in the Bible? Why not a scientific divine? Why not any other Deity? What about computer simulation? Why not Allah? Why not multiple theos/deities being responsible for different areas of the design? Why should this mean that a Christian God did it? 

From the evidence of creation, I don't know that you can deduce which God created everything.  I think you would need to look at other evidences to get a specific God.  I think you can deduce a few things from the evidence of the creation of the universe and of life - whatever created the universe must be strong enough to create a universe, and must be spaceless, and timeless, because he/it existed before space and time, that it/he must be intelligent to initiate creation and to do so with so much fine tuning and complexity.  The fact our 'code' is such that we have a strong sense of morals, indicates that the 'coder' has a strong sense of morals and justice.  Theologians would refer to this as the difference between general revelation - that which we can deduce about God from nature, and special revelation - that which we can only know from God from sources such as the Bible, and other communication.  

@just_sayin

That was a decent answer. Not sure I agree with everything but at least it was sincere. 

Theologians would refer to this as the difference between general revelation - that which we can deduce about God from nature, and special revelation - that which we can only know from God from sources such as the Bible, and other communication.  

Only one God/deity? What about multiple Gods responsible for different areas of the design, as opposed to just one? Also, could it not be that there is a Creator, but one who does not intervene in the affairs of humanity and has never done so (AKA deism)?

Lastly, isn't it at least plausible that everything in the religious scriptures from various religions are merely subjective interpretations of phenomena that could not otherwise be explained during those times? Otherwise, how do we deduce who is correct? There can only be one right one but they can all be false. 

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

Exactly. "that which we can only know from" god" Special sources from the bible and other communication? A good question would be to ask what other communication there is? Odd there could of been 300 other sources that could of come to mind but no, his answer was the bible and other sources, prefixed by 'special revelation'. Ricky would have just said the holy spirit. just_sayin may have been a little sincere when conceding science doesn't point to one specific god, but when he claims he wants to argue the science and not god, I'm not buying it.

Bogan

Bogan

Just-sayin quote  Bogie, first let me tell you that you are one of my favorites on the site.  Others have boasted about all of their science and math knowledge with regards to this topic and have acted like they know everything.  But you are always keeping it real and have never pretended that you knew anything.  I like that about you.

 Thank you, and I have great respect for your honesty and advocacy for what you believe in.     You are an example of a real debater to all of the trolls and pseudo debaters on this site.    Of which there are too many.   

 

Just-sayin quote  I can't speak for all Christians, I can say, I don't see science as the enemy. 

Which is a smart position, since science has now supplanted religion as an authority on why natural phenomenon’s occur.

 

Just-sayin quote I think God works through natural means a lot.  I don't think he is limited to only working in nature though.  In regards to this topic, it would not affect my faith if a scientific explanation was discovered for how non-life turned into life.  I would still recognize that God created the universe using natural means.  It is the atheist in my opinion that has to ignore what the evidence says about life coming from non-life to maintain their hope in a method that appears to have several dead ends.

 If NASA and the ESA find life on Enceladus in their next mission to Saturn, that idea will take a big hit. 

Just-sayin quote   Only created things need a creator. 

To say that life needs a creator, and that God is alive, means that God needed a creator himself.     I always get to this point with religious people.   Their faith is so strong that they can say that black is somehow white, and they refuse to recognise the absurdity.  

  

Just-sayin quote   Speaking in philosophical terms, God is not just a sufficient cause of the universe, he is a necessary cause and being.  I don't know why you have such a problem with this idea - its what you believe about matter/energy. 

I have a problem with illogical premises.   You claim that God is alive, and that life needs a creator, then deny that your god needs a creator.      And that this god who can make matter out of nothing, existed since infinity, until one day he decided to crate over a billion galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars, in the time it takes planet earth to revolve six times, and all for the benefit of an intelligent life form on earth, who for almost all of their existence was completely unaware of just how immense the universe really is. 

 

Just-sayin quote   You believe that it can't be created or destroyed - yet the big bang suggests that all matter/energy in the universe once fit in zero space. 

That premise, that matter can not be created or destroyed is the First Principle of Physics.       The human race could not have reached it’s present state of technology if our fundamental understanding of the very basis of physics is wrong.

 

Just-sayin quote       How much stuff can you fit in zero space, Bogie?  its not that hard of a math problem.  Take the number that you think represents all the matter and energy in the universe and multiply it by 0 to represent the space.  OK, what number did you get?  Well that's the amount of matter/energy that existed at the beginning of the universe.

 That neutron stars exist where a teaspoon full of “matter” can weigh a billion earth tons, and where a sun sized object can be reduced to the size of a few kilometres is a scientific fact.    Black holes see matter even more compressed.  

 

Just-sayin quote  Whereas God, had to have existed outside of space-time to create it.  Are you suggesting that energy/matter exists outside of space-time, cause this is an interesting notion that logic and basic observation would suggest is not true.  If little baby universes have been being born from energy (there can't be matter outside of space-time) then, even if if they are eternally apart, eternity has existed since, well eternity, and our universe would be overwhelmed with energy from all those other universes.  Instead of the universe appearing to be expanding, it would look more like a steady state with energy and matter going everywhere.  There should be an infinitely high radiation level also that should be deadly. 

 You are asking questions which nobody can answer, and may never be able to answer.    All we can do is speculate and decide which option is the most likely.    It is far easier for me to believe that the matter which comprises the universe has always been here and it always will, and that life can be created on any place in the universe where the right conditions exist for it’s self creation, than to believe that some self created, all knowing, all powerful god created an apparently infinite universe out of nothing, and then on one insignificant planet, in one insignificant galaxy, he, he made the human race for his own amusement. 

Factfinder

@Bogan

 You are asking questions which nobody can answer, and may never be able to answer. 

That is part of the typical 'god of the gaps' position. Introduce a lot of quasi-science so when you say you do not know; their response in their minds seems legit to just say 'it must be god'. 

In the meantime I've asked just_sayin these simple questions to answer, but he don't...

When the wind blew in ancient times and the ignorant thought it was a spirit god did science discover the correct reason?

When people thought the earth was flat did scientific observational techniques discover it wasn't?

When people thought the sun was 'god' did science disprove that myth?

When people thought the sun orbited the earth was science responsible for discovering it was the other way around?

Any physical, empirical evidence directly leading to an intelligent creator definitively discovering some super life form?

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

It is more probable that an intelligence is responsible for something as complex as DNA code than chaos.  That's logic.  Code needs a coder to make it. 

That's a great point. And if that is the case then how does it follow that this creator should be a Christian God (theos) as depicted in the Bible? Why not a scientific divine? Why not any other Deity? What about computer simulation? Why not Allah? Why not multiple theos/deities being responsible for different areas of the design? Why should this mean that a Christian God did it? 

From the evidence of creation, I don't know that you can deduce which God created everything.  I think you would need to look at other evidences to get a specific God.  I think you can deduce a few things from the evidence of the creation of the universe and of life - whatever created the universe must be strong enough to create a universe, and must be spaceless, and timeless, because he/it existed before space and time, that it/he must be intelligent to initiate creation and to do so with so much fine tuning and complexity.  The fact our 'code' is such that we have a strong sense of morals, indicates that the 'coder' has a strong sense of morals and justice.  Theologians would refer to this as the difference between general revelation - that which we can deduce about God from nature, and special revelation - that which we can only know from God from sources such as the Bible, and other communication.  

@just_sayin

That was a decent answer. Not sure I agree with everything but at least it was sincere. 

Theologians would refer to this as the difference between general revelation - that which we can deduce about God from nature, and special revelation - that which we can only know from God from sources such as the Bible, and other communication.  

Only one God/deity? What about multiple Gods responsible for different areas of the design, as opposed to just one? Also, could it not be that there is a Creator, but one who does not intervene in the affairs of humanity and has never done so (AKA deism)?

Lastly, isn't it at least plausible that everything in the religious scriptures from various religions are merely subjective interpretations of phenomena that could not otherwise be explained during those times? Otherwise, how do we deduce who is correct? There can only be one right one but they can all be false. 

Zeus, I think the most you can derive from creation of the universe and of the complexity of life, is that there is a God.  

Can all religions be right?  I would say no.  I would further say that not all Christians can be right because there are differences which are incompatible.  I would argue that not all acolytes of scientism can't all be right either.  They could all be wrong though.  Each individual claim would need to be looked at.  

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Zeus, I think the most you can derive from creation of the universe and of the complexity of life, is that there is a God. 

So if creation doesn't highlight any specific god, what's the point of deriving at a non fact asserting a god at all? After all we only have natural evidence, as you admit, no godly evidence of any distinct qualities.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@elijah44 ; Abiogenesis never happened...it's obfuscation for atheists seeking death in Hell while placating a seared conscience.

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

 Abiogenesis never happened...it's obfuscation for atheists seeking death in Hell while placating a seared conscience.

Atheists don't seek what's not real, that leaves hell out. Of course abiogenesis happened ricky, that's why you're alive writing santa for christmas gifts. Or am I assuming the wrong myth in your case?

RickeyHoltsclaw

Factfinder said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

 Abiogenesis never happened...it's obfuscation for atheists seeking death in Hell while placating a seared conscience.

Atheists don't seek what's not real, that leaves hell out. Of course abiogenesis happened ricky, that's why you're alive writing santa for christmas gifts. Or am I assuming the wrong myth in your case?

@Factfinder ; @ZeusAres42 ;  @MayCaesar

It matters not what the atheist "leaves out"...they will perish in Hell as it is written. Abiogenesis is a fools obfuscation...

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

It matters not what the atheist "leaves out"...they will perish in Hell as it is written. Abiogenesis is a fools obfuscation...

So says the reality denying indoctrinated non thinking tool of a long since dead cult manipulator. Dis Santa answer your prayers? 

RickeyHoltsclaw

Factfinder said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

It matters not what the atheist "leaves out"...they will perish in Hell as it is written. Abiogenesis is a fools obfuscation...

So says the reality denying indoctrinated non thinking tool of a long since dead cult manipulator. Dis Santa answer your prayers? 

Factfinder said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

It matters not what the atheist "leaves out"...they will perish in Hell as it is written. Abiogenesis is a fools obfuscation...

So says the reality denying indoctrinated non thinking tool of a long since dead cult manipulator. Dis Santa answer your prayers? 

@Factfinder ; Only the atheist fool would suggest that life emanated from dead matter. Heck, the wicked atheist can't even define the origin of matter, let alone life. 

 

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Zeus, I think the most you can derive from creation of the universe and of the complexity of life, is that there is a God. 

So if creation doesn't highlight any specific god, what's the point of deriving at a non fact asserting a god at all? After all we only have natural evidence, as you admit, no godly evidence of any distinct qualities.

Oh, I'm not saying there is no evidence for God outside of the creation of the universe and the creation of life.  I am merely pointing out that you cannot determine the specific God from that information alone.  I would argue that there are several lines of evidence for God from which you could arrive at a more specific God claim.  Historical events - such as the resurrection of Jesus if true would strongly suggest his message is true.  Fulfilled prophesy may be another.  Sacred texts may be another - such as the gospels in the New Testament.  

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Only the atheist fool would suggest that life emanated from dead matter. Heck, the wicked atheist can't even define the origin of matter, let alone life. 

Neither can the the perverted misogynistic god of the bible. If life can't come from nonlife, how is it that your mythical fairy god exist? Hmm. I await your braindead theist indoctrinated response as I know you haven't the intellect to explain your position rationally. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

Factfinder said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Only the atheist fool would suggest that life emanated from dead matter. Heck, the wicked atheist can't even define the origin of matter, let alone life. 

Neither can the the perverted misogynistic god of the bible. If life can't come from nonlife, how is it that your mythical fairy god exist? Hmm. I await your braindead theist indoctrinated response as I know you haven't the intellect to explain your position rationally. 

@Factfinder ; Our Creator has no genesis...He always was and will be...you believe that the Realm of Time and physics is the epitome of reality but there exists a Realm far superior and eternal compared to our temporary Realm of Time...our Creator has no genesis or beginning.

Elohim always was, is, will be.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Oh, I'm not saying there is no evidence for God outside of the creation of the universe and the creation of life.  I am merely pointing out that you cannot determine the specific God from that information alone.  I would argue that there are several lines of evidence for God from which you could arrive at a more specific God claim.  Historical events - such as the resurrection of Jesus if true would strongly suggest his message is true.  Fulfilled prophesy may be another.  Sacred texts may be another - such as the gospels in the New Testament.  

Seems like jumping to conclusions to me. Suppose it is proven one day beyond a reasonable doubt that the corpse of Jesus rose from its grave. What would this imply? That there is a phenomenon unknown to biology allowing the body of a dead human to sometimes recover and reanimate. It would be a very interesting finding warranting further studies. It would, however, not at all hint on any supernatural nature of this event.

Now, suppose the ancient humans witnessed that event. It would be quite reasonable to expect them to be shocked by it and attribute divine nature to it: that is how people treated every phenomenon they did not understand back then. It would be reasonable for this story to grow many leaves and find its way into human-written books such as the Bible. It would be also reasonable for that book to contain certain prophecies some of which would eventually come to be true - any prophecy has a non-zero probability to become true one day.

Would that not be a more reasonable explanation, than those humans' explanation? Is it not reasonable to analyze those events from the modern perspective, with all the knowledge that we have accumulated since 2,000 years ago - rather than have faith that those people possessed some divine knowledge (which, again, cannot be proven in any realistic way)?

It is strange how people like teaching others how to live their lives, criticizing others for various reasons - yet when it comes to particular ancient folklore, suddenly they grow pious. Were camel herders 2,000 years ago better informed, more rational and pragmatic, than modern people?

I have never understood this veneration of the ancients. They were the same humans as we are, only they knew a lot less about the world and had a far lousier quality of life. Seeking some profound wisdom in their teachings that cannot be found in modernity seems like a futile endeavor to me.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Zeus, I think the most you can derive from creation of the universe and of the complexity of life, is that there is a God. 

So if creation doesn't highlight any specific god, what's the point of deriving at a non fact asserting a god at all? After all we only have natural evidence, as you admit, no godly evidence of any distinct qualities.

Oh, I'm not saying there is no evidence for God outside of the creation of the universe and the creation of life.  I am merely pointing out that you cannot determine the specific God from that information alone.  I would argue that there are several lines of evidence for God from which you could arrive at a more specific God claim.  Historical events - such as the resurrection of Jesus if true would strongly suggest his message is true.  Fulfilled prophesy may be another.  Sacred texts may be another - such as the gospels in the New Testament.  

And again I would say the bible is not evidence as it's obviously fallible.