Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

[pood]

Nice one, let's focus and argue particularly on the 'smarmy retoricals' instead, but not acknowledge the NASA scientist (stock-in-trade?).

He’s an aerospace engineer. And he believes in God — not just God, but JC. So what? Lots of engineers seem drawn to tis type of thing, to ID. Is his private belief supposed to be scientific evidence for God? No.

 

[pood]

Francis Collins, a major biologist, also believes in God. So what? Someone’s beliefs, regardless of his or her credentials, are evidence for nothing. We want evidence for God. Where is it?

 

[Learner]

Nice one, let's focus and argue particularly on the 'smarmy retoricals' instead, but not acknowledge the NASA scientist (stock-in-trade?).

He’s an aerospace engineer. And he believes in God — not just God, but JC. So what? Lots of engineers seem drawn to tis type of thing, to ID. Is his private belief supposed to be scientific evidence for God? No.

To all believers it's a private belief, yet they believe in the same thing regarding God of the bible. What is evidence for them doesn't necessarily mean the already-set-in-mind atheists would see things in the same way, which is often the case. Science doesn't conflict with their beliefs as scientists!

 

[lostone]

Many famous, very smart, and highly respected people in human history have been on one side or the other. Based on what they see as evidence and logic. That proves nothing. We can reject or accept the logic and evidence they base their ideas on. Only we can decide what to us is valid evidence and logic.

The side that you or I chose also means little, except to us, and our personal choice, and it most surely is is a personal choice.

 

[lostone]

Nice one, let's focus and argue particularly on the 'smarmy retoricals' instead, but not acknowledge the NASA scientist (stock-in-trade?).

He’s an aerospace engineer. And he believes in God — not just God, but JC. So what? Lots of engineers seem drawn to tis type of thing, to ID. Is his private belief supposed to be scientific evidence for God? No.

To all believers it's a private belief, yet they believe in the same thing regarding God of the bible. What is evidence for them doesn't necessarily mean the already-set-in-mind atheists would see things in the same way, which is often the case. Science doesn't conflict with their beliefs as scientists!

They most certainly do not all believe in the same thing. They have myriad different beliefs, and have fought many wars and argued incessantly with each other over their differences in belief.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Now now Don2, you know how it goes. You'd be asked about the evidence for that.

For all evidence for Yahweh, e_i, there exists contrary evidence, e_j, such that a Loki prankster conclusion is infinitely more likely.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Nice one, let's focus and argue particularly on the 'smarmy retoricals' instead, but not acknowledge the NASA scientist (stock-in-trade?).

He’s an aerospace engineer. And he believes in God — not just God, but JC. So what? Lots of engineers seem drawn to tis type of thing, to ID. Is his private belief supposed to be scientific evidence for God? No.

To all believers it's a private belief, yet they believe in the same thing regarding God of the bible. What is evidence for them doesn't necessarily mean the already-set-in-mind atheists would see things in the same way, which is often the case. Science doesn't conflict with their beliefs as scientists!

They most certainly do not all believe in the same thing. They have myriad different beliefs, and have fought many wars and argued incessantly with each other over their differences in belief.

Indeed. They each have personal stories of a different god telling each of them they are the chosen people not the others. Each personal story of Allah is countered by a personal story of Jehovah which is countered by the Mormon god and Yahweh etc...each saying different things. This is best explained by everyone lying or a prankster god. If there was a true god who is omnipotent and omniscient his message wouldn't be less than 10% of the world messages.

 

[Elixir]

Nice one, let's focus and argue particularly on the 'smarmy retoricals' instead, but not acknowledge the NASA scientist (stock-in-trade?).

He’s an aerospace engineer. And he believes in God — not just God, but JC. So what? Lots of engineers seem drawn to tis type of thing, to ID. Is his private belief supposed to be scientific evidence for God? No.

To all believers it's a private belief, yet they believe in the same thing regarding God of the bible. What is evidence for them doesn't necessarily mean the already-set-in-mind atheists would see things in the same way, which is often the case. Science doesn't conflict with their beliefs as scientists!

Not only do all believers believe the same thing, but they all know exactly what the others believe.
At least they all go by the same book, so they think it’s the exact same belief. Differences are resolved by the tax free entity they support. They tend to nod and smile at faithspeak, confident that it’s a 100% shared belief. It’s so powerful, how can it not be?
If it’s just one too many talking donkeys for you, there are hundreds of different tax free orgs that offer variations on the Jesus/savior theme. From cults to Catholic, there’s an “exact same belief” for everyone!!

 

[Elixir]

let's focus and argue particularly on the 'smarmy retoricals'

That’s exactly what creos want to do EVERY TIME. they are confronted with scientific facts that fly in the face of their religious dogma.

I have a better idea; let’s focus on the SUBJECT OF THE OP.

“The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.”

I know that’s all too much for withered creo brains, but it would be a fascinating subject for discussion if the superstitious ghost whisperers would allow it.

 

[Elixir]

The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time

Yes it does! That’s exactly why it makes for interesting discussion. If all you have to add is “goddidit”, you’ve already said that, and are now excused.

What I wonder is whether the persistence of prokaryotic forms in a world that is 99+ percent inimical to them, speaks to an evolutionary continuum, or to separate occasions of abiogenesis.
There are carbon forms only produced by living things (endoliths), found in rocks that are 3.7 billion years old. Are those traces necessarily from prokaryotes or could eukaryotes possibly have been present at that time?

 

[TomC]

To all believers it's a private belief, yet they believe in the same thing regarding God of the bible.

I sincerely wish that were true.

Maybe it is in distant lands where they can't tell summer from winter.

Around here, things are different. The number of Believers who are convinced that God of the Bible agrees with them and therefore feel entitled to force their opinions on the rest of us is enormous.
Currently, a big deal are the folks convinced that God of the Bible meant to outlaw abortion, He just didn't get around to it or something.
Tom

 

[Learner]

let's focus and argue particularly on the 'smarmy retoricals'

That’s exactly what creos want to do EVERY TIME. they are confronted with scientific facts that fly in the face of their religious dogma.

So you say to yourself.
Bedsides, I took the 'lets focus..' line from what you wanted to do yourself in your previous relating post.

I have a better idea; let’s focus on the SUBJECT OF THE OP.

That's the idea I was alluding to when I was sarcastically saying: "let's focus on the smarmy rhetoricals"and so on.

“The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.”

Thanks for reporting.

I know that’s all too much for withered creo brains, but it would be a fascinating subject for discussion if the superstitious ghost whisperers would allow it.

Yes well, using simple basic logic...that doesn't necessarily require the 'higher level of cerebral functioning' like you possess, should remind you that many 'creos' are scientists too. Implication: the Hypothesis above is not a dilemma to these 'creos'. Ah.. but you must mean only the creos on these threads. Well nice try with that (science) angle,as per tactical-atheist usual. You are doing what we would be doing...

... giving reports!


I made a report on the NASA scientist - and what you think about that report is of course up to you.

 

[Elixir]

So, learner, I guess you have Nothing to add about the sequence of the appearance of eukaryotic lifeforms in a world dominated by prokaryotes?
I don’t give one flying fuck about your critiques of the critics of your superstition.

 

[Learner]

Nice one, let's focus and argue particularly on the 'smarmy retoricals' instead, but not acknowledge the NASA scientist (stock-in-trade?).

He’s an aerospace engineer. And he believes in God — not just God, but JC. So what? Lots of engineers seem drawn to tis type of thing, to ID. Is his private belief supposed to be scientific evidence for God? No.

To all believers it's a private belief, yet they believe in the same thing regarding God of the bible. What is evidence for them doesn't necessarily mean the already-set-in-mind atheists would see things in the same way, which is often the case. Science doesn't conflict with their beliefs as scientists!

They most certainly do not all believe in the same thing. They have myriad different beliefs, and have fought many wars and argued incessantly with each other over their differences in belief.

I meant generally speaking, All Christians believe in God.

 

[Learner]

Now now Don2, you know how it goes. You'd be asked about the evidence for that.

For all evidence for Yahweh, e_i, there exists contrary evidence, e_j, such that a Loki prankster conclusion is infinitely more likely.

Loki doesn't have a validator like Jesus is to God, does he? Obviously if we're considering Jesus existed of course.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Now now Don2, you know how it goes. You'd be asked about the evidence for that.

For all evidence for Yahweh, e_i, there exists contrary evidence, e_j, such that a Loki prankster conclusion is infinitely more likely.

Loki doesn't have a validator like Jesus is to God, does he? Obviously if we're considering Jesus existed of course.

Joseph Smith and Mohammed are validators for the mormon god and muslim god. As far as miracle claims there are plenty among the world's religions. So, yeah, this is evidence of a prankster god more than any one of the religions being valid.

 

[Elixir]

I meant generally speaking, All Christians believe in God.

So all Christians can be made to express agreement about some things regarding their god(s).
So what?
Not all Christians reject science, and not all science is anathema to Christianity.
So what?
There are still YECs, and they absolutely reject science.
OEC's also reject science, but not such a huge, integral chunk of it.
So what?
Science remains the most predictive and explanatory tool we have, in determining the origin of life.
Goddidit is not science, and doesn't do one damn thing to move us closer to understanding abiogenesis.

 

[bilby]

I meant generally speaking, All Christians believe in God.

They all believe in A god; It is far from clear that they all believe in the same god.

Certainly they disagree about how god behaves, what god does, what god wants, or what (and whether) he demands.

The problem here, as usual, is one of definitions. Christians don't agree on what "god" is; Nor do they have a working definition of "life".

A working definition of anything allows people to take ANY example of a system, and assign it to one (and only one) of two (and only two) categories, by (and only by) the consistent application of the definition in question.

A working definition of Y says: "X is an example of a Y, if (and only if) X has these features, and lacks those features".

So a working definition of "mountain" might be, for example, "a piece of terrain is a mountain if, and only if, a part of it is above 300m altitude measured from local mean sea level". It doesn't matter if others don't agree that this is the definition of a mountain; All that matters for a working definition, is that it is not self contradictory, and that it can be applied to all potential or proposed mountains, and used to consistently and absolutely classify them as either "a mountain" or "not a mountain"; And that having done so, there are no objects left unclassifiable in our definition, and no objects that are obviously and/or widely agreed to be misclassified.

"Life" cannot currently be defined in this way. All definitions of "life" either leave some things in the "unclassified" bucket, or in the "obviously misclassified" bucket.

The same is also true of "god".

The widespread belief, amongst people of all religious traditions and none, that "life" and "alive" are words with sound working definitions, is the cause of vast amounts of pointless bickering.

Discussion of the origin of "life" is pointless and futile, without a definition of what "life" even is. We don't have such a definition, and most people don't even realise it - it's "obvious" and "common sense" that the universe can be cleanly divided into "things that are alive" and "things that are NOT alive"; But sadly it's not true.

Are viruses "life"? Are crystals? Can we clearly determine when an animal is "alive"? A recently dead donkey has many cells that are definitely donkey cells, and definitely living cells, but the donkey is definitely dead. How do we resolve these definite statements?

Such edge cases are generally ignored, but they erode the entire business of deciding what "life" even is. It's far too early to talk about how "life" began, when we don't even know what "life" is; Or what a "beginning" would even mean; Or whether it happened many times, or only once.

All we know for sure is that appealing to yet another poorly defined entity ("god") is the antithesis of helpful to any effort to understand "life".

 

[Lion IRC]

If we grant that it is intelligent design, then the existence of this missing in action creator is much harder to explain than the original question about the existence of everything else.

Evidence for God - Exhibit B

I think there are, and have been, overwhelmingly more people (throughout history) who have had sensory evidence of a Higher Being than there are people who say they haven't experienced such evidence.

Is this an argumentum ad populam?

No. It's an argument from ubiquitous corroboration.

 

[Lion IRC]

The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.”

This is good - especially the word "formation".
The bible also uses the word formed.

Have you got anything which contradicts Genesis?