There is no evidence of Abiogenesis

[bilby]

e.g. They've found the physical City of David. It existed after all.

And IF that's true, and IF that was the only claim made in the Bible, you would have a point.

A scientific paper doesn't include methodologies for testing some of its claims; It includes methodologies for testing them all (which is why each paper tends to make only very limited claims).

Am I to take it that the ONLY things from the Bible that you believe are those with archaeological evidence that you can go and look at for yourself?

Or are you kidding yourself that a handful of verifiable facts, in a big book, imply that every claim in that book must be the truth?

 

[bilby]

But you see, what you describe here would apply to pretty much all the writings of antiquity. Because of your given criteria: none of writings including all those outside the bible are 'scientific papers'.

Yes, that's the case.

Why do you imagine it to be problematic?

Nothing written before the Age of Reason is really reliable. And very little of it matters to anyone except historians anyway. Certainly we don't rely on the writings of Hippocrates, or Socrates, or Beercrates, or any other ancient writers, for factual information to guide our decisions. They have some good ideas, but they also believed and wrote some abject nonsense, and only post-Enlightenment science can help us determine what is worth keeping.

The writings of antiquity are works of art; Some are history, but the majority are worth having despite their lack of scientific value, not because of it.

 

[pood]

Intelligent design is creationism. As we state-the-obvious _ Yes of course it is! Points all around people, theists and atheists...yay.

Sure Christians use the term. It doesn't have to be according to Christianity does it, especially if people are pondering on the hypothesis of ID? Ah but then that gives license to the theists to insert their God in the mix, I get it now. Keep the Christians out of the dialogue then I say, and let the investigations for the curious minded commence (further).

Once more, neither ID nor creationism are science.

Neither then by the apparent logic is a human-being, an 'intelligent agent' who by the intention of his will designs things...

You are right. The “logic” of your statement is only apparent. On even the most cursory scrutiny it falls apart.

Science (system of methods) itself, doesn't 'know' if Intelligent Design exists or not.

“Science” doesn’t “know” anything. ScienTISTS develop testable theories based on evidence. The point is that there is no evidence for ID, and no theory to test.

Regarding Human logic i.e. what makes sense within human comprehension, it doesn't know either. With the combined Human logic and the method of science - what are those "elements" or the 'lack of' in nature you notice under the microscope that suggests to you (generally those who make the claim) that nature is unguided?

You already asked what “guided” evolution would look like. Did you read my answer? If you did, I don’t think you responded to it. Now you are asking basically the same question. Would you mind, in the future, responding to the responses given you, instead of ignoring them and then rephrasing the same question?

As I explained, guided evolution would look like artificial selection, like dog breeding. That’s exactly what we do not see in nature. Instead we see natural selection and drift — evolution by accident, rather than guided.

As to nature itself, under the microscope or not, we see no evidence of design or guidance, just natural processes that can be described by physics and chemistry. Or do you believe that when something falls, it’s because an invisible, undetectable, unevidenced angel is pushing down on the object? You know, intelligent falling? Are you an advocate of both ID and IF?

Consider:

Once more, “Thor being an intelligent agent starting fires in the wild by hurling lighting bolts at dry leaves is not science.”You: “Neither then by the apparent logic is a human being, an ‘intelligent agent’ who by the intention of his will starts fires.”

I would say the same thing applies here: keeping the Christians out of the dialogue. You are introducing in the dialogue Norse theology.

It seems you are missing the point entirely. Frankly, you do not always write clearly. You SEEM to be taking the line that IF humans create life in the lab, THEN we have evidence that life itself was created by an intelligent designer. Is that not what you are pushing here? And I’m invoking Norse mythology to show you why your argument sucks. Do you know what a reductio ad absurdum is? I’m running such on your claim. I am pointing out that just because humans make fire, it does not follow that fire in nature is made by an intelligent agent. So to argue that if humans make life in the lab then life was designed by an intelligent agent in the wild, is exactly like saying that since humans can make fire, then some intelligent agent — say, Thor — makes fire in nature by hurling lighting bolts at try tinder and such. Do you understand now what I am saying, and how it discredits the argument you seem to be pushing?

Hopefully this will help your grasp how stupid the line of argument your are employing is, although, alas, I’ve already adumbrated this counterargument. Perhaps my repeating it will help you?

It helps my case thank you.

Of course it does not help your case — rather, it reduces it to absurdity, as I just again demonstrated.

So long as anyone, Christian or not, shows up at the door of science claiming otherwise, they will be rightly kept out of the dialogue. Period.

...science isn't an "opposite" to Creation or Intelligent Design!

Atheist sometimes hint this as an undertone beneath their arguments giving erroneous false ideas.

Science is indeed the opposite to creationism or intelligent design, until such time as creationists or IDiots come up with some scientific evidence for their claims, which they never have and never will.

Ok, then again: Do you think now, that such a thing is impossible?

I have never said it is impossible to come up with scientific evidence for ID. I have said there is none at the present time, which is precisely why it has no role in science, and NOT because scientists rule out ID a priori. That is now how science works. Produce some evidence for ID, and science will study and evaluate it.

I do say they never will produce any evidence, because if they had any, they would have produced it by now. They’ve been running this ID scam for decades. And we know it’s a scam because of the Wedge document.

 

[Elixir]

As I explained, guided evolution would look like artificial selection, like dog breeding. That’s exactly what we do not see in nature.

That’s what science-ignorant xtians often think DOES happen in nature - to them. They breed according to shameful preferences that are not their own, but rather are sinful urges imposed upon them because they stole skydaddy’s apple.

 

[pood]

As I explained, guided evolution would look like artificial selection, like dog breeding. That’s exactly what we do not see in nature.

That’s what science-ignorant xtians often think DOES happen in nature - to them. They breed according to shameful preferences that are not their own, but rather are sinful urges imposed upon them because they stole skydaddy’s apple.

Yes, and stealing skydaddy’s apple is no different in mythological structure than Prometheus stealing fire.

 

[steve_bank]

And now ladies and gentlemen, gods, and demigods in the audience I give you YAHWEH known throughout the cosmos for his impossible magic tricks.

applause....

And now folks I will do the seemingly impossible, I reach into my hat with nothing up my sleeve and presto-change-o abracadabra and pull a universe!!!!

Crowd roars and claps.

Fr my next trick I will cover a planet in water.....

 

[EricH]

I love reading the collected works of Beercrates in the evening, with a pint of lager. It makes the language much easier to understand as I don't read Greek otherwise.

 

[Learner]

The theory of evolution will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

Its called progress. Human curiosity drives us to better our understanding of the world, to both slake our thirst for knowledge and understanding, and to produce technological advances that better the lot of our species.

Progress yes indeed - the 'thirst for knowledge' that even for some, the curiosity that ID can be a hypothesis too.

One can hope that the last line highlighted in bold: '....to produce technological advanced that better the lot of our species' becomes so.

Let us keep having positive thoughts - putting to the back of our minds that 'a mere push of a button', technological advancement' can also kill thousands of people in one go.

You seem to be implying that a system of human inquiry that betters our understanding of the world and improves the quality of our lives is a bad thing or a negative, when the very opposite is true.

Not what I'm implying at all!

As you mention the 'system of human inquiry' to better understand etc.. It's absolutely necessary to the theists too, who were born in the modern technological world as you the atheist were.

Today we can cross the Atlantic in a matter of hours in an airplane instead of having to spend 8 to 10 days getting seasick, worrying about striking a iceberg and getting killed. We can launch satellites into orbit that allow us to talk to our loved ones across vast oceans, a thought that would have been inconceivable in the 19th century. Evolution, like every branch of science, is being studied, corrected and improved every day by countless people working, often cooperatively, across the globe.

I have already acknowledged and mentioned early in this discussion about explanations needing continuous updates as progress requires.

So anyway, here's what I was alluding to:

If a particular explanation is said to "dispel " a commonly known biblical event, like for example the flood. Being that explanations are also subject,-to-change which progress requires. Then your explanation wasn't quite accurate then was it?
Looks good today but it's useless tomorrow.

Today we can image and visualize the genes that cause cancer and allow its propagation being turned on and off through various therapies. And those who desperately want to cling to their religious beliefs have to denounce the very progress that makes their modern life possible.

Christians born into the modern world also fly planes, work in labs, program computers and use microwaves to heat up their dinners. Has your atheism clouded your thoughts processes that this reality has been filtered from your eyes?

If you like the Bible so much, go live like people did 2,000 years ago when the Bible was written. Then come back and tell us if you prefer the modern world, and the many gifts science has brought us.

I don't mind the modern world, and besides..I have lived without electricity in an environment among an indigenous group abroad (if I may boast), living quite comfortably picking up some of their knowledge, speaking their language and learning some useful skills.

But uncannily, you seem to be unaware that Christians have also pioneered and contributed to many scientific experiments and discoveries?

And, there is very little to correct about the theory of evolution that Darwin described. We have filled in holes in our understanding over the years,, [..] when you use words like "plod along" to describe the vast bodies of knowledge we have acquired since the time of Darwin, a mere century and a half ago, as compared to the many millennia of human history prior to Darwin, the words "plod along" suggest a deep seated and fundamental misunderstanding of, or in your case, likely a deep ignorance of the facts.

I am glad at least you're not using the once believed "ancestor" known as Lucy to demonstrate your argument.

Do start a thread if you want to discuss the shortfalls of our understanding of evolution and we, the forum members, can educate you.

You can educate me here on this thread.

TLDR; progress is good. And as a corollary, stagnation is bad. We can all agree on this. Why, then, are you suggesting the opposite as preferred?

Progress can be very good. I'm all for that!
(putting aside the progress of advanced efficiency to destroy the enemy).

 

[bilby]

Progress yes indeed - the 'thirst for knowledge' that even for some, the curiosity that ID can be a hypothesis too.

ID is an hypothesis.

So is "Rocks sometimes fall upwards".

Literally any testable guess you are able to make, about how reality might be, is an hypothesis.

Both the hypotheses above are disproven; They have been tested, and found to be false.

That's the scientific method, right there.

 

[bilby]

Christians born into the modern world also fly planes, work in labs, program computers and use microwaves to heat up their dinners.

And not a single one of them uses Christianity to do those things. Christian pilots rely on their instruments and their secular training. They don't fly the plane by means of faith or prayer.

You can pray for your microwave to heat up a meat pie until you die of starvation; It won't work unless and until you push the right buttons, in the right sequence. And if you do press those buttons, it works just as effectively for Christian, Hindu, Sikh, or Atheist.

 

[bilby]

If a particular explanation is said to "dispel " a commonly known biblical event, like for example the flood. Being that explanations are also subject,-to-change which progress requires. Then your explanation wasn't quite accurate then was it?
Looks good today but it's useless better tomorrow.

FTFY.

 

[Learner]

Progress yes indeed - the 'thirst for knowledge' that even for some, the curiosity that ID can be a hypothesis too.

ID is an hypothesis.

Cheers for that (if that's an acknowledgement)

So is "Rocks sometimes fall upwards".

Is that when you observe into space, rocks flying up and down and all over the place? I suppose 'technically' your statement is true, from an earth observation stand point.

(Ask a silly question get a silly answer etc.)

Literally any testable guess you are able to make, about how reality might be, is an hypothesis.

Both the hypotheses above are disproven; They have been tested, and found to be false.

"Disproven by methods subject to progress changes"?

That's the scientific method, right there.

Progress and things

 

[bilby]

One can hope that the last line highlighted in bold: '....to produce technological advanced that better the lot of our species' becomes so.

Let us keep having positive thoughts - putting to the back of our minds that 'a mere push of a button', technological advancement' can also kill thousands of people in one go.

Sure, but on balance, technology is overwhelmingly positive. In Biblical times, the Roman army was already able to kill thousands in one go, using nothing more advanced than sharp bits of metal.

But a Roman soldier who got a tiny cut that became infected was likely to lose a limb, or his life; A similar wound today is utterly unimportant only because we have antibiotics.

For every person killed by deadly technology, there are thousands who have had their lives saved by technology. And for every person injured by technology used for cruel or harmful ends, there are thousands whose lives have been improved by technology.

In the twenty first century, timagine that technology is biased towards being harmful (or even that it is not biased at all on the Good/Evil spectrum), takes an astonishing level of ignorance and lack of observation.

 

[bilby]

Progress yes indeed - the 'thirst for knowledge' that even for some, the curiosity that ID can be a hypothesis too.

ID is an hypothesis.

Cheers for that (if that's an acknowledgement)

So is "Rocks sometimes fall upwards".

Is that when you observe into space, rocks flying up and down and all over the place? I suppose 'technically' your statement is true, from an earth observation stand point.

(Ask a silly question get a silly answer etc.)

Literally any testable guess you are able to make, about how reality might be, is an hypothesis.

Both the hypotheses above are disproven; They have been tested, and found to be false.

"Disproven by methods subject to progress changes"?

That's the scientific method, right there.

Progress and things

WTAF??

You have the least apt username in the history of the Internet.

 

[steve_bank]

I worked with Christian creationist engineers, they compartmentalize religion and science.

They would not use the bible to build a bridge, but will compartmentalize and ignore science when it refutes YEC.

There are Christian schools that have good science programs.

The RCC was always a mix of religion and science as long as sconce made room for god.

Some years back I worked with a new grad from the University Of Washington. He said he was once approached by Christian students and told he should drop engineering because it was evil. He was Christian.

If you listen to Christian TV and radio including FOX you will hear anti science rhetoric. 'Secular Science' is out to destroy religion. Ridiculous pseudoscience like the Creation Museum link I ootsed with a picture of a human with a dinosaur.

Today we know there is tier is notjhing mysterious about an eclipse, no superstition about it. No sign from a god.

Ben Franklin invented a lightning rod to protect homes and barns. In his ex[rent he showed lighting to be a natural electrical phenomena. It caused a theological reaction. Heven was above and lightning which came from above where gid and heaven were was a sign frm god if it hit your house. Some Christians preched lightning rods were an abomination agianst god.

One of the last remaning superstitionss/myths is evolution vs creationism. It is shwn that life is a natural prcess not needng of a creator.

Somke do, we generally no longer bewlive evil spirts in the bdy coase disease, and drilling a hole in the skull to let them out is absurd.

Ther are still those who blieve it. When I was rehabbing in a nursing home one of my roomates I had thought his preblems were caused by evil spirits. He would sit in the dark in his wheel chair and hit himself to purge himself. Huld liern to an RCC radio show that repeated Hail Mary for 30 minutes.

I met his moter when she visited, just as crazy.

 

[pood]

The theory of evolution will always be an explanation in which there will always be the need for it to be corrected and updated as it plods along.

Its called progress. Human curiosity drives us to better our understanding of the world, to both slake our thirst for knowledge and understanding, and to produce technological advances that better the lot of our species.

Progress yes indeed - the 'thirst for knowledge' that even for some, the curiosity that ID can be a hypothesis too.

Thee is no progress here — not for you, anyway. Not a single person here has denied that ID is a hypothesis. Here’s another hypothesis: Santa Claus comes down the chimney each Christmas and delivers presents. Another: the world was created by an invisible pink unicorn. Another: Donald Trump is a decent man.

Do you notice what all these have in common?

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

 

[Learner]

If Christians put all that imagination and thought on region towards things more productive they could actually accomplish something useful.

They have. Again... they've introduced hospitals, charities for the poor and hungry and contributed as pioneers to science.

Cmon Learner. did the ancient Jews rub elbows with dinosaurs? A my aunt used to say, 'tell the truth and shame the devil'.

Interestingly, according to Genesis there were great behemoths. Tails that were as large as Ceders.

'Intelligence' is hopelessly human centric. Physically we are a mass of cells incineration wit each other.

Yeah, tell me about it. Like,if you break down this "physicalness' to the most fundamental of levels, are we still a "physical" body in terms of our human centric intelligence, or are we, at the most fundamental level, really ghosts?

How does the Sun 'know' how to make nuclear fusion generating energy?

How does tghe moon know how to orbit the Earth?

Philosophical determinism has had lengthy debaates on philosophy forum. Are you predestined to do somethng or are you an independent agent?

I have a simple view on this I'm afraid. Assuming there are many 'view points' of a known idea or piece of knowledge that varies by a large number which creates a individual uniqueness for each person. Then I see these as being independent acts of agency. In this regard I don't see determinism here.

Yes Learner, scince can not disprove ID, which is an out for religion, a loophole. God as envisioned by Christians can not scientifically be disproven.

Science can not disprove ID?
You'll have to debate that one with our friend pood.

Computer universe theory and information theory are theories which yes would also hint code word for God.

Fortunately for the proponents of these theories, they aren't bothered with religion debates or the debaters of religion.

Supernatural claims of existence of god can and are disproven, for example YEC.

It depends on how the claim is described or made, and by whom.

For example: God will not suddenly put million of dollars in your account if you keep praying. The atheist thinks there's an argument to be made here.. so he emphasises on the argument that prayers don't help you when you are penniless etc.

But then science can not disprove leprechauns in Ireland.

Nor intelligent life forms on other planets, despite there being uncountable solar systems of every possible environment. Undetectable by current means!

ID fails logically not scientifically. ID theory does not explain whee the designer came from.

Not knowing where the designer comes from is not a logical issue.

You may know... if the designer tells you. He would still be the designer even if he refuses to tell you, or... he does tell you but you aren't able to comprehend.

Designer is an obvious code word for god.

Yes it is. Whether there is a real interest to ponder or investigate with the view that we are 'not the only ones' in the universe,that
we are not uniquely alone (an interesting discussion itself). That older beings many thousands years more advanced would be god-like to humans, is a conversation that could hint God yes of course.

Not being bothered about atheists who debate Christians (and ID) is all that matters to those curious individuals who think it might be possible.

And Learner, why are there no biblical reports of dinosaurs with humans in the bible r anywhere else??

Surely you're not going do the 'exact word fallacy" as atheists often do. Do you know when the word dinosaur started appearing? (It was the1800s. The word 'dinosaur' was an invention accredited to biologist Richard Owen)

Dragons, Behemoths, leviathan and great beasts could be contenders for dinosaurs.

Those ancientt hums must have been able to run really fast.

Did Humans Live with Dinosaurs?

Did Humans and dinosaurs live together?

creationmuseum.org

View attachment 47739

So When Did Dinosaurs Go Extinct?

We can see that dinosaurs still existed during the time of Noah’s Flood because we find dinosaur fossils today that were formed when conditions were right during the global Flood. Dinosaurs could have gone extinct any time after the two of each kind got off the Ark, just like many other animals have gone extinct since the Flood.

1. No scientific evidence of a global flood.

Ok, but It sure looks like it - the evidence of sea-life on every mountain, the 'not so hard to believe it's plausible' by the fact that 70% of the earth is covered with water. The built ruins under the oceans.

2. No archeological evidence of humans with dinosaurs. No T Rex bones around campfires.

During and after such a flood perhaps not. Curiously are elephant bones around campfires common today? Rather an elephant than a T-rex for obvious reasons.

 

[bilby]

So is "Rocks sometimes fall upwards".

Is that when you observe into space, rocks flying up and down and all over the place?

Rocks in space do not "fly up and down and all over the place". They are in "free fall", that is, they fall in the direction that is "down" from their own frame of reference - ie towards the nearest heavy object.

An astronaut in the ISS is not in 'zero gravity'; The Earth's gravity at that height is about 8.7m.s^-2, which is 89% of the gravity at sea level.

The ISS is in free fall - it is falling without being acted on by any forces other than gravity. An astronaut on board is also in free fall. So he accelerates downwards at the same rate as his space station, and so his acceleration relative to the space station is zero. Relative to the dominant mass in his vicinity (Earth), he and his space station fall down.

They never hit the ground, because they are moving sideways so fast that by the time they get there, the ground's not there any more.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/

Dr Randall Monroe, formerly at NASA, provides a really simple and easy to grasp description of this at that link; I strongly recommend it.

I suppose 'technically' your statement is true, from an earth observation stand point.

Then you suppose wrong.

 

[bilby]

they've introduced hospitals, charities for the poor and hungry and contributed as pioneers to science.

None of those things are things they did because they were Christians, though. All of those things have been done by Christians and non-Christians alike; And all were done before Christianity (or even the Judaism from which it evolved) existed.

Caring for the poor, the hungry, the sick and the injured us a human, not a Christian, trait. As is the tendency to want to find out how things work, and to use the scientific method to do that - something that long pre-dates the use of the phrase "scientific method" to describe what they are doing.

One reason why Christians are disliked by non-Christians is their blind tendency to claim the whole credit for stuff that everyone else is doing as well, as though they alone had a monopoly on being kind, generous, or nice.

How would you feel, as a Christian, if every time you gave to charity, some smiling imbecile told you that that was everso atheist of you, and expected you to take that as a complement?

 

[Learner]

Christians born into the modern world also fly planes, work in labs, program computers and use microwaves to heat up their dinners.

And not a single one of them uses Christianity to do those things. Christian pilots rely on their instruments and their "secular" training. They don't fly the plane by means of faith or prayer.

Prayers to power the plane?

I don't recognise this in Christianity. Perhaps you're mixed up with some form of 'law of attraction' manifesting physical things into reality etc.
If Christians did use prayer it would be to pray for a safe flight and they'd pray to bless the passengers and their co-pilots.

Secular training... lol I like the humour.

You can pray for your microwave to heat up a meat pie until you die of starvation; It won't work unless and until you push the right buttons, in the right sequence. And if you do press those buttons, it works just as effectively for Christian, Hindu, Sikh, or Atheist.

We pray to say Thanks for what we recieve. Even when the bible says we have to work with our hands. Christians are quite aware that a hot Sunday Roast isn't going to suddenly appear by instant prayer willy nilly.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.