Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Reproduce life then. Get some amino acids together and make them live.
Okay. Give me a couple hundred million years, a planet with the right conditions, and I'll get right back to you.
That is the blind faith part of the argument. Have I not said a bunch of times, I am not trying to debunk one theory more than any others? I am merely pointing out, every idea about the origin of life and (despite what's been stated as scientific fact) the origin of man requires a leap of faith. Whether it be that something sparked in the atmosphere to create an amoeba, God created the world in 7 calendar days, or whatever.
No. It doesn't. There are biological and chemical processes that we can understand. There are observations we can make about the animals around us, our own biology, and the history of the earth as shown in its geological record. We can take these facts and create a theory. That is not an act of faith, it is an act of reason.
And, there are no scientific "facts". I don't even know what that means. There are facts we can observe as humans, there are theories we can test by building experiments, and there are predictions we can make based upon these theories and experiments. They are predictions, but they are not made through the act of wishing really hard for the magic pony to sprinkle rainbow dust on us and provide enlightenment (an act of blind faith).
I think we're all trying to say the same thing. Yes, I agree.
I think so. BTW, I've been looking at the theistic evolution site you referenced a while ago. I like those guys! Getting to a framework where you can insert God or not, and still have things work equally well either way, seems like an easy way to avoid pointless conflict.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I am merely pointing out, every idea about the origin of life and (despite what's been stated as scientific fact) the origin of man requires a leap of faith.(Grinds teeth). "The origin of life" and "the origin of man" are two totally distinct questions. (The latter has pretty good evidence. The former, not so good.) Constantly lumping them together is a standard Creationist obfuscation tactic, as is calling evidence-based theories "faith."Kirth,
You and I have both pointed this out several times across several threads. Time to stop feeding the troll.
Yeah, I'm done too. I'm going to go get some peanut butter and look for spontaneous life there as further evidence that I can't think rationally.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think we're all trying to say the same thing. Yes, I agree.I think so. BTW, I've been looking at the theistic evolution site you referenced a while ago. I like those guys! Getting to a framework where you can insert God or not, and still have things work equally well either way, seems like an easy way to avoid pointless conflict.
That does sound interesting. Can you post the site again, Moff?
Good call, gents. Time to go back to work.
|
I think we're all trying to say the same thing. Yes, I agree.I think so. BTW, I've been looking at the theistic evolution site you referenced a while ago. I like those guys! Getting to a framework where you can insert God or not, and still have things work equally well either way, seems like an easy way to avoid pointless conflict.
"Pointless conflict"?
Isn't that what a combat between two 1e clerics would be?
"Pointless conflict"? Isn't that what a combat between two 1e clerics would be?
Am I allowed to say "rim shot" without thinking of a glaive?
|
That does sound interesting. Can you post the site again, Moff?I think we're all trying to say the same thing. Yes, I agree.I think so. BTW, I've been looking at the theistic evolution site you referenced a while ago. I like those guys! Getting to a framework where you can insert God or not, and still have things work equally well either way, seems like an easy way to avoid pointless conflict.
It looked like a good direct response to the "answers in Genesis" crap site I found LONG ago. It has a number of good articles in it that basically say "we're not sure, but this a possible way to look at it or a possible way for it to happen".
I am merely pointing out, every idea about the origin of life and (despite what's been stated as scientific fact) the origin of man requires a leap of faith.(Grinds teeth). "The origin of life" and "the origin of man" are two totally distinct questions. (The latter has pretty good evidence. The former, not so good.) Constantly lumping them together is a standard Creationist obfuscation tactic, as is calling evidence-based theories "faith."
I don't agree and not because I am trying to obfuscate or "troll". While you may choose to separate the two, most origin theories do not separate the concepts. Just because the one you ascribe does happen to do so, doesn't prevent the concept from being considered the "evolutionary" explanation for origin as opposed to a "creationist" explanation of origin or the "scientologistic" explanation or whatever.
You choose to use evolution to explain the origin of man from an amoeba or simian or however far down the chain you want to take it. That still preposes that other origin of man theories must be incorrect or simply invalid and immediately assumes some other method for the origin of life as well which basically makes the origin of life and origin of man via evolution a package deal. Certainly you can say that you don't have the evidence to support a given origin of life theory, but that still leaves the leap of faith to arrive that there must be one which leads you to your scientific basis for you belief on the origin of man. This being diametrically opposed to creationist or other metaphysical ideas of origin requires they be discussed as one unit, not separated. At least for the purpose of this conversation. Which still remains that faith is required to believe any single idea for the origin of life as we know it.
My whole point once again. No one group can sneer at the blind faith of another since every group has one thing at minimum for which they must assume to be true despite a lack of evidence.
I find it highly ironic that you agreed with Pres Man in the other thread considering he said exactly the point I was making.
Perhaps you as an individual can separate the two ideas of origin, but I admit in my limited experience as a human, most people who ascribe to evolution as the origin of man evidence also have a non-theistic view of how the origin of life also started, which was leaning my discussion towards that blind faith comment in the concept.
Hopefully, we understand one another now. I was beginning to lose hope since the pony just wanted to mire me down in semantics. I would have liked to believe the fact I lack a degree in a scientific field would have been evident and dissecting my arguments for terminological correctness would have been saved for grading term papers and not the "civil" thread. :D
I would have liked to believe the fact I lack a degree in a scientific field would have been evident and dissecting my arguments for terminological correctness would have been saved for grading term papers and not the "civil" thread.
The thing is, everyone's opinion is not always "just as valid" as everyone else's: if my car breaks down, my mechanic's opinion is probably a lot more valid than my barber's.
And that brings us back to talking in circles. Unless you can separate your own viewpoint from others', there's nothing left to discuss.
Looks like our posts came at the same time. Check mine out. I concede I made assumption about your statements, but as I have said, this mostly about the idea of people slandering others zealously based on scientific or religious belief of the origins of life. It all requires belief in something for which it is likely no evidence will ever be found.
Looks like our posts came at the same time. Check mine out. I concede I made assumption about your statements, but as I have said, this mostly about the idea of people slandering others zealously based on scientific or religious belief of the origins of life. It all requires belief in something for which it is likely no evidence will ever be found.
Got it! Edited above. And in the same vein, I'd also tend to accept a biochemist's view on how likely the evidence is to be found, vs. that of a person with no knowledge or background whatsoever. The biochemist might be dead wrong, but at least he's making an educated guess, rather than a random one. And in my experience, educated guesses in the long run turn out to be better than random ones, in most cases -- not all, by any stretch of the imagination, but a significant majority.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I find it highly ironic that you agreed with Pres Man in the other thread considering he said exactly the point I was making.
Perhaps you as an individual can separate the two ideas of origin, but I admit in my limited experience as a human, most people who ascribe to evolution as the origin of man evidence also have a non-theistic view of how the origin of life also started, which was leaning my discussion towards that blind faith comment in the concept.
Hopefully, we understand one another now. I was beginning to lose hope since the pony just wanted to mire me down in semantics. I would have liked to believe the fact I lack a degree in a scientific field would have been evident and dissecting my arguments for terminological correctness would have been saved for grading term papers and not the "civil" thread. :D
Or, you could become educated and save us all the trouble of educating you on the scientific process and what it means. There is evidence for the theory of evolution.
Hint: faith isn't involved.
I seem to be having problems with invisible posts at the moment on this thread, and not to be seeing everything everyone's saying. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing... :-?
I get that a lot. Post a dummy post and then delete it. The phantom posts should then show up.
I would have liked to believe the fact I lack a degree in a scientific field would have been evident and dissecting my arguments for terminological correctness would have been saved for grading term papers and not the "civil" thread.The thing is, everyone's opinion is not always "just as valid" as everyone else's: if my car breaks down, my mechanic's opinion is probably a lot more valid than my barber's.
That semantics comment was directed at the pony not you, Kirth. Besides, I don't recall making much of an opinion just an observation.
I don't recall making much of an opinion just an observation.
"It is likely no evidence will ever be found" is a prediction, not an observation. And that's a key point of science: we primarily judge the usefulness of hypotheses on how well their predictions turn out. Your hypothesis is that a materialistic explanation for the origin of life is equally as unlikely as a theistic one. I don't know at present, but I do look forward to seeing what additional evidence, if any, is uncovered in the future. I make no prediction regarding odds.
Or, you could become educated and save us all the trouble of educating you on the scientific process and what it means. There is evidence for the theory of evolution.
Hint: faith isn't involved.
Strangely, I don't recall asking for quick study of empirical analysis and the scientific method. Nothing I have talked about could be proven using these as it stands. Perhaps you haven't been following the conversation very closely. No one has stated that the theory of evolution lacks evidence. On the contrary, I do believe everyone involved in this conversation has said there is an abundance of evidence.
I certainly do not understand your hostility towards me either. I have been exceedingly polite.
"It is likely no evidence will ever be found" is a prediction, not an observation
Lol! Okay, so there was an opinion in my posts somewhere, I will give you that.
I just meant my overall posting has been to support the observation I made about faith in whatever origin of life theory fits one's fancy and how we are all in the same place when it comes to that.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Strangely, I don't recall asking for quick study of empirical analysis and the scientific method.
Okay, but don't be surprised if the lack of understanding of the scientific method makes it difficult to consider your points.
Nothing I have talked about could be proven using these as it stands. Perhaps you haven't been following the conversation very closely. No one has stated that the theory of evolution lacks evidence. On the contrary, I do believe everyone involved in this conversation has said there is an abundance of evidence.
I guess I misunderstood this then:
No one group can sneer at the blind faith of another since every group has one thing at minimum for which they must assume to be true despite a lack of evidence.
I read that as saying there is a lack of evidence for the theory of evolution. I suppose you might've been saying there's lack of evidence that what I (and other humans) perceive is reality and not just the Matrix, but if that's your definition of faith, all interactions with the universare are matters of faith.
Perhaps that's semantics, but it's pretty hard to discuss faith/evidence if we have to assume that everyone has faith that the universe exists. If that's the conversation we're having, then, okay, everything ever is a matter of faith.
Also, it's not as if this is a democratic process. The fact that some people believe the theory of evolution without evidence doesn't somehow imply that the theory of evolution is without evidence, or that any belief in such theory requires faith.
I certainly do not understand your hostility towards me either. I have been exceedingly polite.
It's my thang.
1. Suggested idea for how something operates, functions, or exists within a given concept. Widely accepted as being beyond dispute with the acknowledgement that a superior idea may exist which will supersede it
Theoretical construct which attempts to describe how something operates, functions, or exists. In order for it to be scientific it must lead to conclusion which can, in principle, be verified to be false directly or inderctly by an experiment.
2. Believing in something that cannot be proven based on no, little, or partial evidence. I.e. Judeo-Christian God, life sparking from amino acids, thetans, etc. (I realize the age-old, "Am I real? Are you real?" argument could start here, but I am assuming we are all beyond that silliness.)
I reiterate that theories cannot proven. By definition. THence, there is no 100% evidence for any theory whatsoever. If partial evidence is not enough to support scientific claims then all scientific knowledge is meaningless or "blind-faith". Which of course makes it quite difficult to explain how the modern world works.
3. I am not truly speaking of Darwin's theory of evolution, but rather the idea that all life culminated as the result of random chance and then evolved from one species to another.
Then, rigorously, you are not talking about theory, but about scientific hypotheses for the origin of life. Once again, no scientist chooses one of the current hypotheses (or at least should not) by "blind faith". Evidences are weighed, and many different approaches are attempted to understand how life emerged. This is the kind of topic which is considered "under investigation". If you are claiming that taking position in favor of one of the proposed hypotheses by weighing known evidence, while being open to other evidence which forces a revision of one's concepts is "blind faith", you are mistaken.
It's my thang.
That's funny. I thought your thang was smaller.
Just doing my part.
If you believe that Darwinism or any other science based theory for the origin of life requires no leap of faith to maintain, then you are either too indoctrinated to continue this argument, or are missing my point entirely.
There is a third option: you are not aware of the way theories are structured and investigated. The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life. It however, presupposes the existence of life, as a postulate, say.
But you seem eager to talk about a different topic which is the origin of life. One of the current hypotheses for the origin of life does involve the idea that enviromental restrictions can impose order to an otherwise random process, in a manner similar to what is understood from Darwin's theory. For instance, one experimentally verifies that certain peptides or polynucleotides can replicate in certain situations. Since both kinds of molecules carry information, and since that information can be changed by chemical means, it is reasonable to hypothesize that evolution can "improve" sequences of aminoacids or nucleotides in respect to capacity to repclicate when subjected to restricitng conditions. Since some experiments corroborate that idea (for instance, a mixture of auto-replicating RNA sequences undergo selection when exposed to different conditions), it is said that the hypothesis is supported by this evidence. Note that evolution is being applied to support a tentative mechanism to explain life (since it is so successful at explaining other phenomena), not the other way around. Evolution theory does not need a "theory for the origin of life" to be established as a good theory.
The fact that we do not know yet what is the correct hypothesis for a specific problem in science has nothing to do with faith, and does not mean there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence, which does not yet give the whole picture. If scientists had "faith" on one particular mechanism for the origin of life they would not be investigating it with so much enthusiasm.
Okay, but don't be surprised if the lack of understanding of the scientific method makes it difficult to consider your points.
Um, okay. As mentioned before this is a discussion of those parts of any origin of life theory which require an assumption to be made. So I suppose I am confused why you think the scientific method would be germane to that topic.
I guess I misunderstood this then:
No one group can sneer at the blind faith of another since every group has one thing at minimum for which they must assume to be true despite a lack of evidence.I read that as saying there is a lack of evidence for the theory of evolution.
You are correct, you did misunderstand. Repeatedly. The theory of evolution as a biological phenomenon across generations is not the subject of this debate. Therefore no one involved in this conversation has said it lacks evidence.
I certainly do not understand your hostility towards me either. I have been exceedingly polite.
It's my thang.
Then while I am getting myself educated at your request, you can honor this request of mine:
Get some therapy. Work out those anger management issues and for the love of Pete, hug a child. For crying out loud! You're a pretty pony!
|
|
Okay, but don't be surprised if the lack of understanding of the scientific method makes it difficult to consider your points.Um, okay. As mentioned before this is a discussion of those parts of any origin of life theory which require an assumption to be made. So I suppose I am confused why you think the scientific method would be germane to that topic.
I guess I misunderstood this then:
No one group can sneer at the blind faith of another since every group has one thing at minimum for which they must assume to be true despite a lack of evidence.I read that as saying there is a lack of evidence for the theory of evolution.You are correct, you did misunderstand. Repeatedly. The theory of evolution as a biological phenomenon across generations is not the subject of this debate. Therefore no one involved in this conversation has said it lacks evidence.
I certainly do not understand your hostility towards me either. I have been exceedingly polite.It's my thang.Then while I am getting myself educated at your request, you can honor this request of mine:
Get some therapy. Work out those anger management issues and for the love of Pete, hug a child. For crying out loud! You're a pretty pony!
pinvendor,
As has been mentioned a dozen times now by at least four different people, evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the origin of life. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Nothing. Why you keep bringing it up as a point against evolution when evolution is absolutely silent on the matter is beyond me. Perhaps you could explain? Or is it just your inability to distinguish a difference between the origin of life itself and the origin of any one species once life has started?Incidentally, repeatedly saying that there is no evidence for one thing (origin of life) and then switching that to say there is no evidence for something else (origin of man) is not polite. It's disingenuous or ignorant at best and a lie at worst. Neither is polite.
There is a third option: you are not aware of the way theories are structured and investigated. The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life. It however, presupposes the existence of life, as a postulate, say.
Perhaps you're right, maybe I am as uneducated as Sebastian says.
Or maybe...
But you seem eager to talk about a different topic which is the origin of life.
Oh, you do get it!
Evolution theory does not need a "theory for the origin of life" to be established as a good theory.
*sigh* No one is trying to challenge the theory of evo...blah, blah, blah. Man, I am so tired of saying that.
The fact that we do not know yet what is the correct hypothesis for a specific problem in science has nothing to do with faith, and does not mean there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence, which does not yet give the whole picture.
Of course, but being able to verifiably record the changes of one generation of a species to another is a far cry from being able to see some peptides reproduce in very defined environment and conjecture that life started from that point. That would be the leap of faith in the idea that I have been talking about. Just because it sounds plausible to you, doesn't mean it isn't the equivalent of someone else saying they had a dream sent to them from God. Both are potenially very real depending on your beliefs. All that experiment can really concretely state is "Peptides repreoduce when a very defined set of parameters occur." Not "This is a probable way life started."
Wait. What? You quote my post containing this...
You are correct, you did misunderstand. Repeatedly. The theory of evolution as a biological phenomenon across generations is not the subject of this debate. Therefore no one involved in this conversation has said it lacks evidence.
...and yet you then say this:
Why you keep bringing it up as a point against evolution when evolution is absolutely silent on the matter is beyond me. Perhaps you could explain? Or is it just your inability to distinguish a difference between the origin of life itself and the origin of any one species once life has started?
And nowhere in my post do I make a point against evolution, unless I am mistaken and inadvertantly made a statement I don't recall.
Incidentally, repeatedly saying that there is no evidence for one thing (origin of life) and then switching that to say there is no evidence for something else (origin of man) is not polite. It's disingenuous or ignorant at best and a lie at worst. Neither is polite.
Actually, ever since it was first pointed out to me that you and Kirth considered origin of life and origin of man to be different subjects, I have confined my specific comments to the origin of life. What may be confusing you, is that every time you post and once again say the origin of man is undisputable, I respond by saying the origin of life and the origin of man remain disputable, but have said little as to why I believe the origin of man is disputable. My discussion has been defined several times being related to the origin of life alone, and since you are so dead set on keeping the issues separate, I am surprised you seem unwilling to drop the origin of man topic. That would be my opinion versus your science and opinion, and I have mostly tried to refrain from making opinions since this all started when I made an observation that was intended to be directed towards the theories of life's origin.
As mentioned before this is a discussion of those parts of any origin of life theory which require an assumption to be made. So I suppose I am confused why you think the scientific method would be germane to that topic.
You've been nothing but polite, for which I'm willing to extend great courtesy. I intend this post, which may come across as a bit brusque, as friendly advice. The summary is that becoming informed on a topic before discussing it makes one's discussion on it far more convincing.
A fundamental understanding of how science works is essential to making informed statments about science, scientific thinking, or any specific scientific hypothesis. There's no way around that. It's equally annoying to me when people who have never read the Bible start trying to poke holes in it, or when people with $100K in credit card debt start telling me about financial management.
Making bold claims about scientific hypotheses that one not only doesn't understand, but also has no frame of reference to understand -- and then going so far as to make claims about scientific thinking, while simultaneously and paradoxically claiming that the scientific method is irrelevant -- is a good way to make better-informed laypersons (e.g., Sebastian) quickly annoyed. Professionals (e.g., Paul, myself) might have a bit more patience, but it, too, eventually runs out... especially when a large number of the talking points closely mirror those from the (thoroughly debunked) "Answers in Genesis" Creationism site. I'm not in any way implying that you yourself took them from there, by the way; only that the thread of the argument, and many of the specific points, have long since become "old hat" to people who pay attention to this kind of stuff.
Making bold claims about scientific hypotheses that one not only doesn't understand, but also has no frame of reference to understand -- and then going so far as to make claims about scientific thinking, while simultaneously and paradoxically claiming that the scientific method is irrelevant -- is a good way to make better-informed laypersons (e.g., Sebastian) quickly annoyed. Professionals (e.g., Paul, myself) might have a bit more patience, but it, too, eventually runs out... especially when a large number of the talking points are apparently quoted verbatim from the (thoroughly debunked) "Answers in Genesis" Creationism site.
Eh? You believe that the scientific method applies to something for which there is no evidence with which to use the scientific method upon?
Maybe I am misunderstanding what Sebastian and you are trying to say. If a thing doesn't exist, or rather doesn't exist in any verifiable way...how does one scientifically test that? My comment was not disputing the need for scientific testing of evidence that exists, but I was supposing it was clear we were discussing the nature of things for which is evidence does not exist.
Eh? You believe that the scientific method applies to something for which there is no evidence with which to use the scientific method upon?
"No evidence" is a somewhat incorrect claim. Most of the necessary individual steps have been reproduced. Almost all of the others have been shown to be chemically viable. Subsequent research into the nature of the early earth has suggested that the chemical conditions ca. 4 Ga would be far more conducive to those reactions than the conditions today.
None of that is to say that God didn't create the Earth with the correct conditions, and then spark the reaction that created life Himself. Alternatively, one could make the argument that it all happened without a creator. The "why" of it is indeed nothing more than an opinion call on the part of each person, to which the scientific method does not apply, as you point out. The "how" of it is susceptible to scientific study, and so the method becomes quite germane to that. Keeping these ideas clear is the trick, instead of muddying them together into an indistinct stew.
I was supposing it was clear we were discussing the nature of things for which is evidence does not exist.
That may be the source of the miscommunication. Your posts make it clear that you don't really have a firm grasp as to what evidence exists or does not, and that in many cases your tentative ideas as to the state of the evidence are decades out of date. Which is why so many posts in response can be summarized as "get informed first, then discuss."
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I just wanted to let everyone know that my responses in this thread thus far have not been typed, but, instead, have been made using magic fairy dust sprinkled on an albino chipmunk as I chant what I want to appear. No one has any evidence that this isn't how I post and inferring that I post using a computer and electricity like everyone else is completely unfounded. Really, it's an act of faith to assume everyone uses a computer instead of magic fairy dust.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I apparently need to catch a child and hug it. They keep fleeing from me screaming, so it's a lot harder than you might think.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I apparently need to catch a child and hug it. They keep fleeing from me screaming, so it's a lot harder than you might think.
It's the Aura of Awesome possessed by a superior being. Children are particularly vulnerable to it's effects.
I just wanted to let everyone know that my responses in this thread thus far have not been typed, but, instead, have been made using magic fairy dust sprinkled on an albino chipmunk as I chant what I want to appear.
So THAT's my problem. I've been using a normally-pigmented chipmunk on other forums, and my background keeps appearing blotched instead of white. Thanks!
So...mmm...what exactly is Pin's point? Cause the goal posts have been moving so fast i have kind of gotten dizy trying to keep up?
It started out with him appearing to argue against the existance of evolution at all.(i read that he said man, but i assumed he ment evolution as a whole. Cause well...i have never come across some one who accepts evolution, but not the evolution of man.)
Then he seemed to be say there was no evidence 'man' evolved.
Then he seemed to accept that man evolved, but not that life originated thanks to naturalistic processes.
Add to that, creationistic levels of mixed metaphore and misunderstanding and i really cant say which set of goal posts i am ment to be shooting for.
Not sure he even realised that these are seperate issues in some cases.
Is anyone willing/able to clarify his position for me?
...magic fairy dust...
Bah! Everyone knows the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) never created fairies and, therefore, they do not exists. Why are you so willfully ignorant? Your own pride makes you unwilling to embrace his noodley goodness.
Making bold claims about scientific hypotheses that one not only doesn't understand, but also has no frame of reference to understand -- and then going so far as to make claims about scientific thinking, while simultaneously and paradoxically claiming that the scientific method is irrelevant -- is a good way to make better-informed laypersons (e.g., Sebastian) quickly annoyed. Professionals (e.g., Paul, myself) might have a bit more patience, but it, too, eventually runs out... especially when a large number of the talking points are apparently quoted verbatim from the (thoroughly debunked) "Answers in Genesis" Creationism site.Eh? You believe that the scientific method applies to something for which there is no evidence with which to use the scientific method upon?
Maybe I am misunderstanding what Sebastian and you are trying to say. If a thing doesn't exist, or rather doesn't exist in any verifiable way...how does one scientifically test that? My comment was not disputing the need for scientific testing of evidence that exists, but I was supposing it was clear we were discussing the nature of things for which is evidence does not exist.
Your mistake lies in thinking that all kinds of assumptions are equally valid. In truth, some assumptions can follow logically from analytical thinking, while others are based completely upon speculation. What you are missing is that the naturalistic explanation/assumption for a phenomenon is the rational default explanation/assumption. 'There can't possibly be a naturalistic explanation for phenomenon x' only establishes your inability to conceive of what can occur naturalistically, and the limit of our current understanding. It doesn't positively establish the existence of a creator. Since we have no reason to jump outside the box by assuming agency (the existence and intervention of a creator), the most reasonable working assumption about the ultimate origin of life is that it was naturalistic. That is the starting point, the default, and unless you can produce something to show that we should believe in agency, we have no reason to abandon it.
|
Sigh poking holes in the Bible is pretty easy. The Bible is an incomplete series of texts put together in a single book translated from several different languages into a single language and then translated into many more languages. This Book has had revisions and edits based on political decisions about what a true gospel is or is not. Remember the big deal that was made about finding a semi intact copy of the Gospel of Judas?
The question remains is the Gospel of Judas actually a true Gospel that was excluded from the Bible as part of a political move to invalidate the message it contains or is it false? If it is true how much of the bible has been lost due to political decisions having very little to do with actual faith in God?
Its also amazing what so many people do in God's name which has nothing to do with the actual Christian faith.
Your mistake lies in thinking that all kinds of assumptions are equally valid. In truth, some assumptions can follow logically from analytical thinking, while others are based completely upon speculation. What you are missing is that the naturalistic explanation/assumption for a phenomenon is the rational default explanation/assumption. 'There can't possibly be a naturalistic explanation for phenomenon x' only establishes your inability to conceive of what can occur naturalistically, and the limit of our current understanding. It doesn't positively establish the existence of a creator. Since we have no reason to jump outside the box by assuming agency (the existence and intervention of a creator), the most reasonable working assumption about the ultimate origin of life is that it was naturalistic. That...Making bold claims about scientific hypotheses that one not only doesn't understand, but also has no frame of reference to understand -- and then going so far as to make claims about scientific thinking, while simultaneously and paradoxically claiming that the scientific method is irrelevant -- is a good way to make better-informed laypersons (e.g., Sebastian) quickly annoyed. Professionals (e.g., Paul, myself) might have a bit more patience, but it, too, eventually runs out... especially when a large number of the talking points are apparently quoted verbatim from the (thoroughly debunked) "Answers in Genesis" Creationism site.Eh? You believe that the scientific method applies to something for which there is no evidence with which to use the scientific method upon?
Maybe I am misunderstanding what Sebastian and you are trying to say. If a thing doesn't exist, or rather doesn't exist in any verifiable way...how does one scientifically test that? My comment was not disputing the need for scientific testing of evidence that exists, but I was supposing it was clear we were discussing the nature of things for which is evidence does not exist.
Very well put.
Sigh poking holes in the Bible is pretty easy.
Poking holes in it without being at all familiar with it, was the issue in point. If a person wants to debate a specific issue, for example Christ being "handed over" to Pilate, it helps if they've at least read Matthew and Luke, for starters. Likewise, debating evolution without understanding the theory is a recipe for ridicule. And don't get me started about people with absolutely zero knowledge of climate science spouting off that "they know for sure" that global warming is a hoax, or is true, or is because of El Nino, or whatver other random, baseless opinions they come up with.
|
|
You don't have to read the Bible to point out the facts that I just pointed out. Which pokes holes in the validity of the text. How ever I do agree that it usually helps to actually have read the texts of a Religion before you comment on it. Although South Park does an excellent job of summarizing the Book of Mormon....
You don't have to read the Bible to point out the facts that I just pointed out.
No, and you don't have to have read Origin of Species to have a reasonable grasp of natural selection, either. The main point is that is pays to know something about what you're discussing, whatever the source (assuming it's at least slightly reliable).
Would those South Park episodes have been half as funny if Matt and Trey hadn't read their Joseph Smith?
|
|
You don't have to read the Bible to point out the facts that I just pointed out.No, and you don't have to have read Origin of Species to have a reasonable grasp of natural selection, either. The main point is that is pays to know something about what you're discussing, whatever the source (assuming it's at least slightly reliable).
Would those South Park episodes have been half as funny if Matt and Trey hadn't read their Joseph Smith?
Given that half of zero is zero? I'd say it was a possibility.
Damn, a lengthy reply post eaten by the interweb. *sigh*
In a nut shell...ah screw it, none of you are willing to admit the common ground shared by all ideas of life's origin, so I guess it doesn't matter how I point out how nothing any of you have said refutes my intial observation. Sure, I have learned that science has moved on since I was in school, but that isn't really very surprising all things considered. And just because I chose not to study rocks and compounds in my educational path, you are not necessarily more educated than me. The lack of comprehension of my initial observation almost makes me wonder if perhaps while you may know the physical evidence your careers may provide, you lack the philosophical training to grasp the concepts I have given.
Let's just call this particular discussion over. I concede I don't know all the specific science behind your evidence, but ultimately is irrelavent to my position. If you are unable to see how that is not an attack on the science and theory of evolution then, I regret to say, it is your own paranoia or desire to rabidly defend against the incomprehensible views of fundametal theists that prevents you.
The lack of comprehension of my initial observation almost makes me wonder if perhaps while you may know the physical evidence your careers may provide, you lack the philosophical training to grasp the concepts I have given.
Or, just possibly, you lack the knowledge to realize the extent to which your lack of knowledge is muddying up your attempted philosophy?