Science and Bible proves man made of the dust of the ground.

[Kevinb]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

18 hours ago, Tristen said:

In addition, we have only ever observed life to come from life (i.e. the natural law of Biogenesis). Therefore we conclude that life had an initial source beyond abiotic nature – which is also consistent with the Biblical model.

@Kevinb, you and I tend to agree with our views of science, but I'd like to follow up on Tristen's great post from earlier. The origin of the first life forms may seem like a "God of the gaps" argument, but there has been astonishingly little advance in the scientific explanation of abiogenesis since Miller and Urey, 60-70 years ago. Understanding of molecular biology has grown by leaps and bounds, but a reasonable explanation of the development of the first cells is completely lacking. Nobel Laureate Jack Szostak has been working on abiogenesis research for about a decade, with very little to show for it. He published a paper in 2016 that was considered another important piece of the puzzle, but recently had to make a retraction, after a critical experiment was determined to not be reproducible (yes, the peer review process does work!). At some point, a giant gap that just won't close may really be a physical gap.

In my opinion, the incredible complexity of the simplest of cells is strong evidence for the existence of God, the Creator. The scientific evidence I see suggests that God set the amazing process of evolution in motion, but started with single cells, "dust of the eart

Hi there one. 

Yep tristens post looks a good one.. and a big one. I'll try get to reply. On 2 threads at the mo.. as about the only current non believer .. I'm getting much to reply to. 

Thanks for book offer btw.

For sure.. we agree on the scientific. 

Abiogenesis is massively difficult for sure. We have got as far as building blocks or some could come about naturally but not sufficiently to a self replicating molecule. Not sure I get a significance of time spent so much.... other than its a difficult hurdle..how long from evolution of humans to darwin?

We'd agree on evolution..as an non believer I'd say I've no proof of a god doing anything... injecting that it hasn't helped us anywhere else that's been demonstrated so I'll not do it now.

Can I ask.. pre darwin wouldn't you have just said God created life as per genesis account though in terms as an explanation for diversity? The default of any position has to be don't believe a claim till evidential warrant and demonstration? So pre darwin a default should be I don't have an explanation for diversity. Faith explanations... belief in a position without evidence shouldn't be compelling. Besides if we say we don't know something therefore God... therefore a particular God...how is that not an argument from ignorance fallacy? Should still give evidence for another claim too. Default being we don't know. If we don't know that's the answer rather than don't know therefore this. 

This is why it kinda feels like a God of the gaps if you accept evolution. Pre darwin God did it.. now we know about evolution so don't need God there but now God has lept into abiogenisis? Plus we've got that arguement from ignorance fallacy. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Kevinb

[Enoch2021]

1 hour ago, Kevinb said:

Abiogenesis is massively difficult for sure.

Try IMPOSSIBLE .

 

Quote

We have got as far as building blocks or some could come about naturally but not sufficiently to a self replicating molecule.

I'd say there's a better chance of Liberace being resurrected sporting a purple tutu and jumping on a chartreuse hobbled unicorn and riding around the Sombrero Galaxy.

"We" meaning "YOU" ??  "You" have trouble PARROTING 'wiki'.

1.  List the "Building Blocks" that come about "Naturally"...?

2.  Even if I give you ALL the "Building Blocks", it's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE for them to Polymerize.  If you had a Junior High Intro to General Chemistry Acumen you'd already know this. 

 

Quote

For sure.. we agree on the scientific. 

You (and one.opinion) wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your heads, spun around, and whistled dixie, for goodness sakes!!  oy vey

 

regards

[Steve_S]

Enoch removed from topic.

[HAZARD]

7 hours ago, Kevinb said:

 began? Not sure what you mean. I'll address everything i believe is faith. 

I'd define faith as the belief in a position without evidence. Or Hebrews 11 defines faith as the confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. Does this sound like a good pathway to what's true? Do you honestly think that's the same as scientific understanding? 

Faith as defined is what you need when you don't have good evidence. Faith gets us to 100s of gods and religions.

I've a level of confidence that's proportional to evidence. 

My wife and I have faith in God through Jesus Christ. Forgiveness and healing are one and the same. This is why we have faith in God.

My father in law had several serious heart attacks at age 55. The last attack we were told would be the end of him. We were told he only had hours to live because more than half of his heart muscle was dead. My wife and I prayed in tears together asking God not to allow him to die so young. He recovered completely over the next few  days. Since then, heart specialists, whom dad in-law visits for annual check up's have repeated, even in front of me. "Mr. W******E, I cannot believe it, you have the heart of a 20 year old. He is now 89 years old and fit as a fiddle.

One of my children lay dying in hospital, 12 years old, doctors told us she only a few days left. My wife again prayed asking God to heal her. She is fully healed and now has several children and a grandchild.

I pray every day asking God to protect me and my family. I have worked in coal mines all my life, several of my work mates were killed on the job, I always walked away totally unharmed, without even a scratch.

By FAITH without seeing I believe, and in FAITH we live. If we keep our promises to God according to His Word written in the Bible, and live according to His will for the best good of all, He always keeps His promises.

Hebrews 11:3, Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

[enoob57]

7 hours ago, Kevinb said:

began? Not sure what you mean. I'll address everything i believe is faith. 

I'd define faith as the belief in a position without evidence. Or Hebrews 11 defines faith as the confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. Does this sound like a good pathway to what's true? Do you honestly think that's the same as scientific understanding? 

Faith as defined is what you need when you don't have good evidence. Faith gets us to 100s of gods and religions.

I've a level of confidence that's proportional to evidence. 

Because creation is not observable nor can it be tested it is out of the scientific method... thus everything is faith based.
The one thing I find in evolutions frailty is that everything within the module is one of change yet when present laws apply they are considered unchanging all the way to begin...

[Tristen]

On 14/12/2017 at 6:45 AM, Steve_S said:

Enoch removed from topic.

That's disappointing.

I know Enoch can be irritating, but I haven't seen anything in this thread that I haven't seen from Enoch [INSERT LARGE RANDOM NUMBER HERE] times before.

[Tristen]

On 12/14/2017 at 2:19 AM, Kevinb said:

Hi there one. 

Yep tristens post looks a good one.. and a big one. I'll try get to reply. On 2 threads at the mo.. as about the only current non believer .. I'm getting much to reply to. 

Thanks for book offer btw.

For sure.. we agree on the scientific. 

Abiogenesis is massively difficult for sure. We have got as far as building blocks or some could come about naturally but not sufficiently to a self replicating molecule. Not sure I get a significance of time spent so much.... other than its a difficult hurdle..how long from evolution of humans to darwin?

We'd agree on evolution..as an non believer I'd say I've no proof of a god doing anything... injecting that it hasn't helped us anywhere else that's been demonstrated so I'll not do it now.

Can I ask.. pre darwin wouldn't you have just said God created life as per genesis account though in terms as an explanation for diversity? The default of any position has to be don't believe a claim till evidential warrant and demonstration? So pre darwin a default should be I don't have an explanation for diversity. Faith explanations... belief in a position without evidence shouldn't be compelling. Besides if we say we don't know something therefore God... therefore a particular God...how is that not an argument from ignorance fallacy? Should still give evidence for another claim too. Default being we don't know. If we don't know that's the answer rather than don't know therefore this. 

This is why it kinda feels like a God of the gaps if you accept evolution. Pre darwin God did it.. now we know about evolution so don't need God there but now God has lept into abiogenisis? Plus we've got that arguement from ignorance fallacy. 

Hey Kevin,

You said, “I'd define faith as the belief in a position without evidence.”

That is not an accurate definition of “faith”. The term “evidence” means facts which have been interpreted to support a particular conclusion (i.e. as ‘evidence’ of that conclusion). Pretty much every fact in the known universe can be interpreted to support, or at least be consistent with, the existence of God.

Some claims about reality cannot be observed (i.e. past claims or supernatural claims). Confidence in such claims is therefore not derived from the facts, but interpreted into the facts. Any confidence in a claim which cannot be observed is faith.

It’s only when the facts are completely disregarded that faith is blind. But the term “faith” does not itself speak to the presence or absence of “evidence”. Only that the claim is not, itself, a fact.

 

“Hebrews 11 defines faith as the confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see”

Right. Faith is “confidence” in what cannot be naturally observed (e.g. historical and supernatural claims).

 

“Does this sound like a good pathway to what's true?”

When something cannot be naturally observed, we cannot pursue its truth through natural observation (i.e. by strict adherence to the Scientific Method). To examine such claims, we are forced to depart from the logical robustness of the Scientific Method.

 

“Do you honestly think that's the same as scientific understanding?”

That depends what you are referring to as “scientific understanding”. All claims about the past (or supernatural) use exactly the same methodology.

For example; consider the fact that life on earth is highly diverse, yet all possesses the same, highly complex, information system. It is incredulous, even to most secularists, that such a complex biological system could ‘chemically evolve’ (i.e. from non-life) more than once in the given time frame. If you start from the premise that reality is absent of supernatural involvement, you can make up a story that all life possesses the same information system because they inherited it from a common ancestor. But Common Ancestry itself was never observed, nor was the process of evolution from a common ancestor observed. We have current facts, and we make up a story to account for those facts; given the premise. Therefore, any confidence in this story requires faith to fill the logical gaps not derived from the empirical observations.

If you claim empirical or ‘scientific’ confidence in these claims, you commit the logic fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. i.e.

If our story is true, we would expect to observe certain outcomes

Since we observe these outcomes, our story must be true

That is,

If Common Ancestry is true, we would expect to find the same information system in diverse life

We find the same information system in diverse life, therefore Common Ancestry is true.

But this requires assuming a cause that hasn’t been observed, as well as dismissing the logical possibility that the same outcome may have more than one cause. Therefore the reasoning is logically flawed. You can legitimately claim to have faith in such an assertion, but not ‘scientific’ confidence.

 

“Faith as defined is what you need when you don't have good evidence”

Whether or not a particular interpretation of the facts is “good” is subjective. Faith is properly “defined” as “what you need when you don’t have” access to direct observations of the claim.

 

“I've a level of confidence that's proportional to evidence.”

That is only true if you have a fact that can only be interpreted to be consistent with your conclusion. Otherwise, your “evidence” (interpretation of the facts) is as heavily influenced by faith presupposition any anyone else’s.

 

 

“Abiogenesis is massively difficult for sure. We have got as far as building blocks or some could come about naturally but not sufficiently to a self replicating molecule.”

This exaggerates what the Miller-Urey experiment accomplished. It’s like saying we discovered sand, so we are well on our way to being able to construct a modern skyscraper. They generated a really small amount of some “building blocks” of the “building blocks” in an intricately designed experiment.

The Miller-Urey experiment has done more to dispel the plausibility of ‘chemical evolution’ than it has to support it. A super-high energy, highly reducing, proteo-toxic environment produces a stupendously small (i.e. biologically unusable) concentration of a handful of the 20 aminos required to construct almost every functional protein, and in chiral proportions that would be toxic to most cells.

So to say it’s “not sufficient” to justify a naturally occurring “self replicating molecule” is an astonishing degree of understatement.

 

“as an non believer I'd say I've no proof of a god doing anything”

The term “proof” is absolutist, and therefore an impossible scientific standard. There is no such thing as “proof” in the sense of absolute, unequivocal verification. Proof is a mathematical concept often misused to exaggerate confidence in certain claims, or to illegitimately undermine arguments through its absence.

The Scientific Method encourages critical reasoning; i.e. only accepting confidence in a claim to the degree to which it has been observed. Such confidence is probabilistic. There always remains some possibility that we are wrong in what we think we know; i.e. that our experiment didn’t account for every pertinent variable. So we can never legitimately claim proof of any scientific claim. Requiring that standard for any claim is therefore irrational; even more-so for claims that cannot be observed.

We have evidence for God’s existence (i.e. facts interpreted to support God’s existence), in the same way that secularists have evidence for the Big Bang, Cosmological Inflation and Common Ancestry. But evidence incorporates interpretation, which is subjective (influenced by the presupposition of the interpreter). Therefore, evidence is questionable, equivocal. Evidence therefore obligates no one to a conclusion. You are always free to choose a different interpretation, or simply arbitrarily reject an interpretation. But that choice doesn’t justify a claim that the opposing position has no evidence.

 

“The default of any position has to be don't believe a claim till evidential warrant and demonstration?”

Philosophical naturalism is as much an unverifiable faith paradigm about the nature of reality as theism. You are not assuming nothing, you are assuming that the material universe encompasses all of reality (or else you are assuming a multiverse). There is no observation justifying one faith assumption over the other. Naturalism is not the natural default, it is simply an alternative faith perspective.

In both paradigms, these faith assumptions represent the premise, not the argument. They are not being injected after the fact, but form the foundation of the position. Neither can claim logically superior legitimacy. And since both are claims about what exists beyond the natural universe (if anything), requiring natural observation before consideration (as a standard) is irrational.

 

“So pre darwin a default should be I don't have an explanation for diversity”

Incorrect. There is no objective “default”. Both positions require presuppositions about the nature of reality. The objective position is to consider all logically possible claims – i.e. “pre darwin”, one could objectively claim, if the God of the Bible is true, then diversity stems from His design, but we don’t yet have an explanation for the observed diversity if reality is purely naturalistic. But after Darwin, we now also have an explanation for life’s diversity; given the faith premise that no God has been involved.

We all have a faith premise through which we view the facts. No faith premise is objectively better, or a legitimate “default”. Both are unobserved and unverifiable assumptions. There is no reason, beyond faith bias, to see either as fundamentally superior.

 

“Faith explanations... belief in a position without evidence shouldn't be compelling”

“Faith explanations” are not necessarily “without evidence”.

“Faith explanations” are all we have for past and supernatural claims. Whether or not they are “compelling” is an issue of faith. Secularists seem to find the billions-of-years-old universe story “compelling”, along with the Standard Cosmology story and Common Ancestry story. But they are just stories about what might have happened in the past to give us the facts we have today; given the premise of a naturalistic reality. The Bible accounts for the same facts with a different story based on a different premise.

 

“Besides if we say we don't know something therefore God... therefore a particular God...how is that not an argument from ignorance fallacy?”

Arguments from Ignorance claim something is true, based entirely on the possibility of it being true (abiogenesis is a common example).  What you have described in your above question is hypothesising (which commonly incorporates speculation).

Nevertheless, even that doesn’t represent the logical process of Christians. Like everyone else, we start with a faith premise (Theistic reality). We are given a basic model describing that premise (the Bible). Then we consider the facts to see if and how they can be interpreted to support the model. Secularists also start with a faith premise (naturalistic reality). They formulate models around that premise (namely Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry). Then they consider the facts to see if and how they can be interpreted to support the model. There is no difference in methodology or inherent legitimacy.

 

“Default being we don't know. If we don't know that's the answer rather than don't know therefore this.”

I think Christians would readily acknowledge the role faith plays in our conclusions. I would suggest that secularists are far more likely to claim their faith as fact, than Christians (though I have heard it from both, on occasion).

 

“This is why it kinda feels like a God of the gaps”

We all fill the gaps in knowledge with stories that fit our model. For Christians, the story may be natural or supernatural (since theism makes logical provision for supernatural involvement). Secularists use evolution, mutations, and a raft of other ‘just-so’ stories to fill in their gaps.

 

 

[HAZARD]

On ‎14‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 3:19 AM, Kevinb said:

Hi there one. 

Yep tristens post looks a good one.. and a big one. I'll try get to reply. On 2 threads at the mo.. as about the only current non believer .. I'm getting much to reply to. 

Thanks for book offer btw.

For sure.. we agree on the scientific. 

Abiogenesis is massively difficult for sure. We have got as far as building blocks or some could come about naturally but not sufficiently to a self replicating molecule. Not sure I get a significance of time spent so much.... other than its a difficult hurdle..how long from evolution of humans to darwin?

We'd agree on evolution..as an non believer I'd say I've no proof of a god doing anything... injecting that it hasn't helped us anywhere else that's been demonstrated so I'll not do it now.

Can I ask.. pre darwin wouldn't you have just said God created life as per genesis account though in terms as an explanation for diversity? The default of any position has to be don't believe a claim till evidential warrant and demonstration? So pre darwin a default should be I don't have an explanation for diversity. Faith explanations... belief in a position without evidence shouldn't be compelling. Besides if we say we don't know something therefore God... therefore a particular God...how is that not an argument from ignorance fallacy? Should still give evidence for another claim too. Default being we don't know. If we don't know that's the answer rather than don't know therefore this. 

This is why it kinda feels like a God of the gaps if you accept evolution. Pre darwin God did it.. now we know about evolution so don't need God there but now God has lept into abiogenisis? Plus we've got that arguement from ignorance fallacy. 

 

[one.opinion]

Let me point out two quick reasons why this figure does not make a good argument.

1. It completely misrepresents what evolutionary biologists claim. The claim is that existing species of primates share a common ancestor. There never was a claim that humans evolved from chimps, and that certainly isn’t the claim today.

2. There is no need for “millions” of representatives of each transitional species from the most recent common ancestor to modern humans. The existence of any verified transitional species would be sufficient evidence for evolution.

[Bonky]

 

On 12/14/2017 at 7:43 PM, Tristen said:

Nevertheless, even that doesn’t represent the logical process of Christians. Like everyone else, we start with a faith premise (Theistic reality). We are given a basic model describing that premise (the Bible). Then we consider the facts to see if and how they can be interpreted to support the model. Secularists also start with a faith premise (naturalistic reality). They formulate models around that premise (namely Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry). Then they consider the facts to see if and how they can be interpreted to support the model. There is no difference in methodology or inherent legitimacy.

Ok so the difference here is that the Christian STARTS with a theistic reality, that is a reality above and beyond the natural one.   Not only that I would argue theism implies a personal creator God who wishes to interact with the created.  If inerrancy is a part of the theistic/Bible model then that would be another key difference.  

I don't think from this we can determine who is right about reality [in the end] but I certainly don't see how they are the same in methodology or inherent legitimacy [at least basic presuppositions].

Edited December 18, 2017 by Bonky