Chance, I would like to take a comment you made of another post and use it to begin a discussion of abiogenesis, which I think sits at the heart of the evolution fallacy.



So if you were a witness to the parting of the Red Sea you would perhaps look for a naturalistic explanation and rationalize away the fact that it was the power of God that caused it. Even though you saw Moses command the Sea to divide, you would look for some other naturalistic cause, because God “cannot be tested.” There are innumerable examples in nature of phenomena that we observe but cannot explain how. We accept that someday we will understand. Yet at the moment, we do not have the tools or the understanding to explain the how and why. So why is it that you categorically exclude an external source of intelligence as a possibility? You cannot use the excuse that you cannot measure it or test it, because you cannot measure or test the cause of a lot of things. You deduce that something exists based on the evidence. You observe that birth occurs but you cannot explain what is directing a zygote to differentiate into three germinal layers. It just happens, and you assume that laws are operational that account for what you observe. Why does some mesoderm differentiate into skeletal muscle and some into a heart? What is telling the quadriceps to form? You can say it’s in the DNA, but you cannot explain how and why a nucleic acid sequence causes such a miraculous thing? If I say it is the power of God you will categorically exclude that possibility because it “cannot be tested.” Yet you will entertain any other naturalistic explanation even though you cannot test any of them.
You assume that abiogenesis occurred through naturalistic means and exclude the possibility of ID because it’s “not testable”. Yet you will entertain any non-testable naturalistic hypothesis as long as it doesn’t evoke divine intelligence. It’s amusing to me that evolutionistists are always praising science as this great tool, yet they don’t use any science whatsoever in explaining the origin of life.

Why is abiogenesis untestable?

If you can set up an experiment to prove something happened 3.5 billion years ago, by all means do so.

If you think you can prove abiogenesis is possible, then show me the experiment. All attempts to demonstrate this have failed.

Please tell me how you can use science to defend abiogenesis.

You can't set up an experiment to "prove" anything. I believe we've covered that several times.



And yet you confirm that, in principle, such experiments exist. If one of them threw up a self-replicating molecule, would you just cry "fluke"? If one threw up DNA, would you do likewise?

No, my response would be that science has no explanation for the observed event, this is quite an acceptable position for science to take.




because no theory has been put forward to test for ID, as I keep reminding you ID is not the default state when some aspect is unknown.



You are correct that there is much science has yet to explain, but what it can explain and eventually test will be limited to the natural world. If you present some naturalistic method for testing for ID or God, then that would become a part of science, currently these things have no method thus they are beyond the scope of science, its that simple.




What you are overlooking is that it would at some future date be possible to test abiogenesis (assuming it could be simplified to a recipe), because there is no non naturalistic mechanisms proposed. If you want to include supernatural explanation for any aspect of life you must show us how such a thing could be tested using science, now or in the future.

It is up to you to demonstrate how we can test for ID or Devine influence, if you can’t propose a way to test for this, what is science to do?

I'm not against "science" examining the world and presenting the evidence. What I am against is the evidence as interpreted by naturalists being presented as an intellectual way to deny God and the Bible. I had someone ask me, "Show me God" years ago.

What I am also seeing is a faith in science that it will eventually have all of the answers and an attempt, by some, to put God away. Pope Benedict, the head of the one billion plus member Catholic Church, has said that those "fooled by atheism" cannot see God's hand in Creation. And miracles still occur. The Church is in the process of granting sainthood to more than a few people.

Life cannot come from nonlife, it's as simple as that.


Al

Indeed Science (by it’s very nature) cannot investigate the supernatural, any conclusions drawn by an individual about God, must, by definition, be a philosophy. The exception to this of course is if one ‘believes’ they have experienced/witnessed a vision/apparition, in which case that person believes they have experience a material phenomena produced by a supernatural origin.





I don’t think that is possible, science may be able to say certain historical aspects of the bible do not conform to naturalistic explanations of geological processes, but if you want to take that further, then it becomes a philosophic argument. the classic argument I think you are referring to a ‘slippery slope argument, i.e:

Science – “The Noachian flood is impossible, The bible must be wrong on this, if the bible is wrong on this, it might be wrong on other aspects”, and so on…. Until one leaps upon “if the bible is wrong about one thing it must be wrong about all things” Clearly this view cannot be supported by logic nor is it testable by science.






Unfortunately the catholic church does no scientifically test for miracles (I assume) it investigates claims, “hear say evidence”.

Is that a statement of belief, or can this be proven with science?

I recently read about a particular candidate for sainthood, the miracle attributed to her and the Church's thorough investigation. It involved the doctors that were about to operate on a man and do a lens transplant. Things did not look good. After saying a prayer to the saint candidate, asking for any help, and that it would be greatly appreciated, the doctors examined him the following day and his eye no longer needed the surgery, having gone from a swollen, damaged state to a healed one.

Life cannot be created by science. I am aware of the properties of some molecules to bind a certain way, and to form certain shapes under certain conditions. I submit that it is not possible for them to acquire the information and internal machinery necessary to become functioning cells.

I also know that miracles do occur and that God interacts with His people. This is not to say people cannot believe what they want, but everyone has some type of belief system. Faith is a free gift from God.


God bless you,
Al

At least for myself, it was science that led me to God and away from evolution. Searching evidence to confirm the validity of ToE proved itself an amazing eye opener. Especially since no evidence existed. Truly Amazing! In essence, I found God in Biology

There were plenty of speculative arguments to be sure, stories really, but no evidence to support them. There were plenty of claims how so and so became such and such but no evidence to support such claims. There were plenty of microevolutionary examples that attempted to extrapolate the known mechanisms for micro into macro but that was as far as it can go. Science was left with the only solution they had available which is to extrapolate the mechanism because evidence to support macro events were unfounded. There was plenty of evidence to show that DNA uses a code but no evidence to support the idea that such a complex language could have been the result of natural means. etc. etc. etc. Not only can't scientific experiments test for the reality of God, it can't even support it's own claims with evidence for evolution.

(my bold)

This is what I mean, it’s a story you read, there’s no way to determine if the story was reported accurately, or the author or editor did a bit of ‘creative editing’, is there?

Also the problem fixed its self, without knowing precisely the complaint, it could be a case of misdiagnosis.

If this was to be tested scientifically, there should be video cameras, impartial observers, and a ‘control’, and follow up experiments. In addition if one were to be doing this investigation to gage the “power of prayer” the type of case that should be examined is one that cannot possibly attributed misdiagnosis, or any other form of ambiguity, like badly broken bones. If prayer did work the bones would heal (presumably within 24 hrs), this would eliminate anomalous findings.



(my bold)

currently this is true, but just because current technology is lacking, it does not lend weight to a claim of impossibility, does it?



how do you know for certain that they occur? I submit to you that this could only be determined scientifically, else you are relying on faith, yes?

Thanks to forums like these, I have learned more about God and how He works. My faith is in God, not science. With God, all things are possible.

When I worked in a hospital, I asked the chaplain if he knew of miracles. He said yes.

The miracles reported in the Bible happened and are still happening today. That they have been relabeled "things science can't explain yet" does not make them less real.

I have read many times that science does not deal with the supernatural. Of course it does. There have been experiments to investigate prayer, remote viewing, the soul and other aspects of the supernatural.

There is no possible way for a primitive cell to create itself, to develop sensory apparatus, structures for movement and structures to absorb energy/chemicals/food, much less obtain the necessary information to reproduce.



God bless,
Al

Your suggestion that evolution explains the world by naturalism and ID by supernaturalism is an artifical, false perspective. You are suggesting that God does not work by natural means. There is no such thing as "supernatural". That is a made-up term which only confuses the issue. God does not use magic. He understands and uses natural laws. Faith is a real power that can work miracles. We may not be able to explain the mechanism, but that doesn't mean we can't observe its effects. There are all kinds of things in science that are "miraculous" in the sense that we don't understand the mechanism. Can you explain how and why a baby develops from a zygote, or what human consciousness actually is? These things surpass all human understanding. The only reason they're not generally considered "miraculous" is because we know that they occur.

In the case of abiogenesis, you're invoking "supernatural" forces in the sense that you suppose that somehow DNA can self-organize and overcome all known laws of probability. I'm sure you'll admit that whatever forces of nature were in effect that caused single cell life to form, those forces are presently beyond human understanding. Agree?

Why, then, do you make an artificial distinction between the power of God (you call it supernatural because you don't understand it) and unseen powers of nature which you equally do not understand?

If we're going to be intellectually honest, then we must admit that man knows only a tiny fraction of what would be necessary to know to understand life. That said, over 99% of the forces of nature are "supernatural" in the sense that we don't understand them.

But this opinion you have is not based on science is it, it is one of faith, yes? It may be possible that they are/were real, but science stops at 'can’t explain yet', after that point all explanations have some other mechanism.



Not the same thing, a claim was made that the power of prayer was measurable and the statistics backed up this claim, that’s now a material question that can be investigated by science. What can’t be examined are claims where no evidence is available, e.g. Person X claims God spoke to him, or that he prayed for a relative and they got better. You have to cross the evidence boundary, e.g. a Noachian flood is a good example (currently being discussed elsewhere) this can be examined because if we presume that God does not interfere with basic things like sedimentation, radioactive decay, deliberate misinformation, then the evidence should be found to support the Noachian flood. If however we presume that God did deliberately hide his handiwork, then “no” this aspect is not able to be investigated by science.




Again, how can you know this for certain, if science has not yet found a satisfactory mechanism for abiogenesis, how can you state such a thing is an impossibility, it is you that is concluding the answer before all the facts are in.

Excuse me, But Again the onus of proof is yours.Nobody has to prove that abiogenesis is possible.It´s impossible until somebody proves the contrary.

I think I am somewhat justified in this opinion. Evolution has the evidences we are all familiar with and debate about. ID has yet to claim anything more that, “X is too complex to have a natural origin” plus various attack on evolution (more or less along the same lines as those used by YEC), there is no scientific theory of ID. The possibilities of who or what the source of ID is limited to Aliens, time travellers, and God. The first two don’t really solve anything as then the problem is just taken back one step to how the aliens or time travellers came about (presuming there very complex as well), this only leave God as a viable option.





I don’t use the term supernatural to mean “hocus-pocus”, I use it to mean some miracles event that could not possible have occurred without manipulating the natural laws. One might like to use the term “super science” in your case as you seem certain God uses natural laws, but somewhere in that mix is a manipulation of energy that is beyond regular science to investigate because it leaves no trace of it’s passing.




Not sure I can explain them to anyone’s satisfaction, but as they can be investigated they fall under the umbrella of science. I would maintain that because these things are material they can eventually be explained.



Abiogenesis, must produce a naturalistic explanation, if and when it’s figured out, I would expect, A + B + C, simmer for X time in a moderate oven = life.

No I do not agree that such things a beyond human understanding, they may be difficult to “retro engineer” because evidence of the history is not understood or is missing.



Totally agree re we understand a tiny fraction.

What we don’t understand is not supernatural by definition, however I do see the possibility of some aspect that was once classified as supernatural, being reclassified as natural, it happed all the time when science began, but less often now to the point of nil (I can’t think of a recent example).

Sorry but you are quite wrong on this:

Al650 quoted in part, , in which case anyone can justifiably ask “how one can be so certain” of this statement.

For abiogenesis, the current state is “process unknown” (implying that it may or may not be possible) this does not imply it is impossible.

So , prove me that God does not exist.

No, the onus of proof is on you to prove that a man can be made from mud. Can it be done?

How you imply that I need to prove the existence or non existence of God from my posts I cant imagine. From experience in other forums the general consensus is that, God can neither be proved nor disproved, the reasoning is that, ‘proof’ implies some science, and as science is bound to materialism, thus God is beyond detection.

What I have been attempting to show is that Evolution is science, ID is not science, and when claims of “This or that is impossible” then the burden of proof is upon that person to make good the claim, and not reverse the question with a request to prove a negative.

Extract from the wiki

As you can see, proving a negative is equally impossible for me to disprove as it is for you to prove.

I once thought, purely out of respect for authority, that amino acids, the "building blocks of life" and water would equal life. Not true. Having faith in a naturalistic explanation is unjustified. Therefore, having faith in evolution is unjustified.

Right now, the theory of evolution is being taught as a fact. No need to bring up semantics or that abiogenesis is separate from evolution. In my view, these sorts of debates are artificial. I've seen them on other Christian forums. The goal appears to be to create doubt, confusion and conflict. Among Christians, we all know that God created all things and nothing was created without Him. It's unfortunate that the Theory of Evolution is being used as a tool in an attempt to change hearts, minds and beliefs.

God bless you,
Al

That's not semantics. The Theory of Evolution talks about changes in already extant living things. It doesn't have an explanation for how the original building blocks came about. It would make no difference to the evidence for [the mechanism of] evolution itself if they *had* been hand-waved into existence.

Re, respect for authority – The science does the talking, authority might be interpreted as the status quo (it does not imply that certain ideas are set in concrete).

Re, building blocks + water - Is a hugely over simplistic description of abiogenesis.

Re, faith in “building blocks + water” - Being found false is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, just revaluate your position as the current science explains things. Do not allow previous misconception to cloud your judgement.



Re ToE is a fact - insomuch as any scientific theory is tentative.
As the scientific evidence supports the ToE (by mainstream science) it is thus allowable to be taught in schools (because schools teach mainstream science). There is nothing wrong with this situation.

Re, Semantics - You have stated correctly there is no ambiguity between the two separate concepts.


(my bold)

re, God created. But when you say “we know” (the royal we), that is a knowledge sourced from faith. Science made no discoveries to shake that faith until the mid 1700’s, and it began to investigate geology!

re, Doubt. IMO doubt is justified if claims are made about the natural world that are not supported by science, it’s only logical to pose a question along the lines of:

‘X’ states things happened in ‘Y’ sequence (held as a belief), yet science has found that things happened in ‘Z’ sequence.

The ‘problem’ (i.e. evolution is a tool that diminishes faith) is one of your own making, because you (literalism) have stated that your belief has material evidence! Because of this rigid position you have created a dilemma and effectively painted yourself into a corner where it is an absolute requirement to find material evidence that supports your faith, or discredit evidence that supports old earth or evolution. Indeed the dilemma can be so apparent that institutions like AiG state that any science not supportive of the literal genesis is flat out wrong! The consequence of such a position is most apparent with the geological strata, science has no problem with explaining any strata found, all findings are consistent whit vast time periods, yet a young earth model cannot explain geologic features found.

My position and that of any atheist is far simpler, because no dilemma is ever created when science changes it’s position on any aspect i.e. I have no immutable position.

I just want to state that I don't need AiG or ICR or any other similar group to make up my mind and guide my beliefs. I am willfully ignoring the current interpretation of the evidence. I also do not believe in the political version of Intelligent Design.

Like I said, the Theory of Evolution is being used as a tool to attempt to effect a change. I've been to many other sites where this is the clear goal. I've also been to atheist sites. I find it odd that college level information is being pushed so heavily. I could get a free semester out of some of these sites. To me, science takes a back seat to this goal.

Besides, this is all nothing new. Which makes the obvious effort to "educate" even more suspect. Sunday schools and other religious institutions have been teaching that God created for a very long time, and will continue to do so. And I don't think anyone in public schools should be forced to learn Creation if they don't want to.



God bless you,
Al

In the same way it´s impossible to disprove abiogenesis because you can always say that there is an unknown mechanism that will prove it. And you confirm what I said , the burden of proof is upon that person to make the good claim.So , unless you prove abiogenesis is possible , it ´s nothing more than the evolutionist´s god.

I´d like to know if you consider the existence of Nero beyond detection.

God can do anything. It´s an Axiom

Yes, but. You need to see this for what it is, in the historical context.

a. In the beginning, the west believed the bible to be more or less a record of history.
b. Around mid 1700’s, science begins to place doubt about the accuracy of the biblical (Usher) timeline.
c. Around mid 1800’s science discovers evolution (various mechanisms proposed).

At no point in this is science actually being used a direct proof against the existence of God. What is happening however, is the ‘logical fallout’ where the material dogma of a biblical timeline does not fit with the scientific one.

This fallout is the cause of the current ‘political’ debate, i.e. the clash between the biblical dogma and science. Ask yourself this, would there be such a clash (well such a big one) if the Bible stated that the earth and life were created 4.6 billion years ago? The whole problem stems from the fact that dogma is making material claims.

These claims of Evolution is being used as a tool to attempt to effect a change are ‘backlash’, or fighting back as YEC or ID attempt to discredit valid science. If YEC were not politically trying to circumvent academic ‘chain of command’ or attempting to influence science classed by ‘voting on what science is’, you would not have half the angst there is between the to ideological positions as there is now.





yes, but, they don’t call that science!

This probably deserves a whole other thread, but lets assume that God can do anything. Could he correct our imperfections? Could he make everything perfect again if he wanted?

But you could disprove abiogenesis, if and when a mechanism is proposed, yes? could you make the same claim for God?




All in good time (currently undoing active investigation) The current situation is where science is in the investigation phase, it has good reason to suspect abiogenesis is correct and so it is attempting to unravel the mystery.


Nero or any character in history is considered to be ‘real’ depending on the evidence (multiple sources is preferred) and a judgement on the bias (in the case of text) of the author of the texts.

No , we can only disprove the mechanism.Atheist can wait forever for an unknown mechanism that will prove abiogenesis.



Science has no reason to suspect abiogenesis is correct.Atheist assumes it´s correct because the other option would be God and it ´s unacceptable.



But I doubt any historian affirms that Nero didn´t exist, and it´s funny how this certainty is based on the same kind of evidences that proves the existence of God.

Of course

Good, it seems as if we have consensus on that point.


(my paragraphing)

Re 1. Science should have reason to suspect abiogenesis is the culprit, because by definition science must have naturalistic explanation, and the possible candidates are limited to:

a. created - non naturalistic, but since there is no proposed method of distinguishing between created or evolved, it a dead end.
b. planted - this doesn’t provide fruitful either because even if life was planted by aliens the origin of that extraterrestrial life must ultimately be reduced to either created or abiogenesis on it own world.
c. abiogenesis – is all that remains
d. have I missed any?

Re 2. An atheist might accept abiogenesis as a default position even without reason, but he will need to resort to science if he wants his suspicions grounded on more than personal philosophy. Remember that this is not a problem for us atheist who maintain the natural world is all there is, there is no fear of accidentally proving God exists via science as we both agree that this is not possible. IMO the only feasible way for an atheist to ‘change sides’ is via personal revelation.


(my paragraphing)

re 1. I suspect you are correct, no one would claim Nero is a fictional character.

re 2. I disagree, Nero (or any roman emperor, for that matter) is supported by material evidence in the form of statues, coins, and the correlation of historical events with multiple textual sources, from unbiased sources. (and by unbiased I mean things like mundane documents of an administrative nature where a conspiracy to fabricate an emperor would be a ludicrous position to take)

The type of evidence is quite different for textual evidence of God, i.e:

a. Not every person believes in the same God. Indeed I would suspect there is textual documents describing the ancient Greek or Roman gods that is just as good as Christian, and as the text evidence does not support each other it positively contradicts one another. One can confidently claim that the God or Gods that people believe in is a function of geography!

b. physical evidence – some Gods are represented by statues, but again these are varied and do not support one another.

c. the mere concept of polytheistic and monotheistic is contradictory at a fundamental level.

It looks like there is a 'backlash' against nothing since many people have pointed out on other forums that there is no science behind ID. And about these School Boards, what do the YEC/IDists say to them?

"Hi. We're from YEC/ID and we want you to teach our theory."

SB: "Great. What's the science behind it?"

"We got nuthin."

SB: "So what will be in the textbooks?"

"We got nuthin."


The dogma versus science argument as you put it has been going on for a very long time. (Yes, I've read the Wedge document; the 'conspiracy' is out in the open.) Meanwhile, secularhumanism.org is calling for a Second Enlightenment.

I have never been contacted by AiG or ICR or anybody else from that list and asked for money or anything else. I don't know these people.

And, on all the other Christian forums I go to where creation-evolution is discussed, about 7 out of 10 people are selling a package deal: evolution + atheism. I know I'm not going to find a scientific paper that mentions God but the people promoting evolution on these sites mention God and the Bible all the time, usually in the context of a "book of fairy tales", or fables or mythology, and using their sig lines to quote a scientist or celebrity that belief in an "invisible man in the sky" is irrational or about "letting go of God" and how good that is.

If this is about politics, then the courts will decide. No one will be asking me. I don't believe in forcing my beliefs on anyone, and if someone wants to tell me I'm irrational for believing in, in their view, the equivalent of Santa Claus, that's fine. But don't tell me that a worldview, an anti-God worldview, is not being sold along with an interpretation of the evidence for the Theory of Evolution.

And back to secularhumanism.org. Sam Harris has a dim view of scientists who believe in God and work as scientists. Comparing them to beings hatched from pods like in the movie, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, he rankles at any mention of the "alien hiss" of religion at the last science conference he attended. So, did some people just wake up one morning and say, "Things have changed abot the evolution v religion debate?" Nothing's changed. And politics? The courts' job, not mine.



God bless,
Al

So what is Judges 1:19?

Seems the conversation is from an evolutionist POV, because the YEC or ID community, most certainly don’t present the argument the way yo have posed it. If it was that simple it would be over in a trice, no science no teaching in science classes.




As a philosophy?



what list?
What contacted?



Well this is a good distinction, science cant prove or disprove God. But do you see the point I was making about this type of opposition being “logical fallout” which is distinct from direct proof, for or against?

However, people giving their opinions on the implications can and do infer from the evidence. But I will maintain that the root cause can be traced to materialistic claims on the part of religion, not on scientific claims against the supernatural.



you are confusing what the sciences states, with what people do with that information regarding there person philosophies. I can certainly see how one can step from evolution, to atheism, but don’t for a minute think that one ‘proves’ the other. One could just as easily make a claim of one religion disproving another (pre-emptive reply – no I’m not claiming evolution is religion).
Science can only be used to falsify some material aspect, like the geological strata is between 6000 and 10000 years old. You have to use philosophy after that point to get to, “if the bible is wrong in this, then it can be wrong on that”.



Well some people are more outspoken than others (what can you do?),
I read the article in question - Beyond the Believers). His remark is IMO, a reflection of his own personal incredulity regarding scientific persons not of atheistic persuasion.

Your definitions are quite clear, but people don't think that way. When people write disparaging things about religion along with their scientific information about evolution, most people see that as a connection, not "the evidence says this," and philosophically speaking, "get rid of your favorite book of fables and realize there is nothing out there. No invisible man in the sky." or "Evolution is a fact. Get over it."



God bless,
Al

If we have consensus on that point then abiogenesis is a matter of faith like God.



No, Because you can´t define what is naturalistic and what is not.



Human being creates all the time and it´s very naturalistic.Creativity is a natural condition of intelligence.



I don´t agree that we can´t prove the existence of God via science.I agree that like abiogenesis, the existence of God was not proved by direct science yet.But we can accept the existence of God by indirect evidences like we accept the existence of Nero.




You don´t know the persons who wrote this documents, you can only have faith that the sources are unbiased. God has multiple sources too, and the physical evidence of his existence is life.



But all agree that life was created by God or gods.



But they don´t disagree that life was created.

thankyou, and yes I agree, people (a lot) don’t think that way.




Agreed.

Emotive arguments are powerful, so are skilful deceptive argumentative techniques, this does not make them valid arguments however.

Correct argument technique is employed IMO when logical fallacies avoided http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies

Avoiding fallacies IMO may not come naturally (or be avoided deliberately if your opponent knows he has a weak argument).

Is some forums that I have participated in there is a high degree of conforming to correct argument techniques, and deviation is leapt upon, much to the surprise of newbees, they call it “learn or burn”.

No, I was referring to …….




Sure you can, to be observed with the senses, or indirectly with tools.




My point ‘a’ is with reference to discovering the possible scenarios of the origin of life, created, placed, abiogenesis. Please try again.




Then we will have to agree to disagree on this point. I await a scientific theory that will show how certain evidences support the existence of God or ID.





Re Nero - But it’s not just text is it, there statues and coins.

Re faith in unbiased text – but it’s far from blind faith, its partly a subjective call for sure, but I remind you to keep in mind the nature of the text, and just how difficult it would be to fabricate an emperor. You can’t just say “you weren’t there, so you cant believe in anything you read”, you must take one consideration with another, and slowly a picture will be built up if more evidence is found. I’ll give you an example:

In contrast to the Romans who were good at administration, the Ancient Egyptians who were prone to a bit of “revisionist history” as evidence shows they would (sometimes) over write an dead pharaoh’s cartouche with there own. And because of that, you cant have the same degree of ‘faith’ in Egyptian hieroglyphics, the process of figuring out who’s who, becomes far more difficult.

Enter the professional historian.




Does that make it true, or lead to a path of valid scientific investigation? Created is a very broad term can be anything from ex-nilo, to hatching the universe from an egg laid by a lizard god. Do any of mans “faiths” promote active discovery, and describe how that process is to be carried out? As far I I’m aware, only science does this, while faiths just say it happened this way.

IMO mutually exclusive faiths lend weight to them being fabrications, exaggerations, or just the best one can up with given the limited amount of knowledge at the time. I don’t see similarities between them as supportive of anything other than people having the same ‘human centric’ notions or cross cultural influences.

In your opinion we know everything about nature to determine what is naturalistic ? There is no natural phenomenon that our senses and our tools can´t detect ?



My point is everything that does not have a natural explanation, is created by default.



Life is the obvious evidence.



Why does statues and coins worth more than text ?



You can believe in what you want, but it will never be strictly science, it always be based on subjective evidences because it is impossible to prove the existence of a person of the past with direct science.God is a person not a thing, you can prove his existence through his work : "life".



Excuse me but philosophical digressions will not help the abiogenesis case.

In your opinion we know everything about nature to determine what is naturalistic ? There is no natural phenomenon that our senses and our tools can´t detect ?



My point is everything that does not have a natural explanation, is created by default.



Life is the obvious evidence.



Why do statues and coins worth more than text ?



You can believe in what you want, but it will never be strictly science, it will always be based on subjective evidences because it is impossible to prove the existence of a person of the past with direct science.God is a person not a thing, you can prove his existence through his work : "life".



Excuse me but philosophical digressions will not help the abiogenesis case.

In your opinion we know everything about nature to determine what is naturalistic ? There is no natural phenomenon that our senses and our tools can´t detect ?



My point is everything that does not have a natural explanation, is created by default.



Life is the obvious evidence.



Why does statues and coins worth more than text ?



You can believe in what you want, but it will never be strictly science, it always be based on subjective evidences because it is impossible to prove the existence of a person of the past with direct science.God is a person not a thing, you can prove his existence through his work : "life".



Excuse me but philosophical digressions will not help the abiogenesis case.

In your opinion we know everything about nature to determine what is naturalistic ? There is no natural phenomenon that our senses and our tools can´t detect ?



My point is everything that does not have a natural explanation, is created by default.



Life is the obvious evidence.



Why does statues and coins worth more than text ?



You can believe in what you want, but it will never be strictly science, it always be based on subjective evidences because it is impossible to prove the existence of a person of the past with direct science.God is a person not a thing, you can prove his existence through his work : "life".



Excuse me but philosophical digressions will not help the abiogenesis case.

My experience on internet forums has largely been dealing with people who mix science with philosophy. But back to abiogenesis. Someone on another forum provided me with a link to all of the current theories. None of them hold up and amount to a faith position.

As far as I can tell, most of the people who argue for a particular interpretation of the Theory of Evolution include quotes or statements clearly showing their atheist orientation. Since many people post challenges to Christian beliefs about Creation daily on Christian forums, this, to me, amounts to a form of advertising.

Once again, nothing has changed in terms of the points being made and debated. However, it is clear that some on the pro-Evolution side are trying to effect a change in the beliefs on the anti-Evolution side. That's all it is. Nothing new.



God bless,
Al

Lets assume for the moment there is naturalistic undetectable or unobservable phenomena, my question to you is could science detect or could the phenomena be observed now?

You must start somewhere, if there is no observation or inference you cant make a start!




The logic is faulty in a practical sense, because history has shown that science is discovering how things work and providing explanations all the time. If we took your position we would be continually revising which thing are created and which are natural, yes? Simply put your method is not reliable, it’s far better to say “I don’t know” in place of a default creation position.




No, life is a observation, awaiting an explanations as to it’s origin. It is only becomes ‘obvious’ if you use faulty logic like: If Not ‘X’, Then, ‘Y’ (I have show the practical false position such logic takes in the response above).




More? The worth I would think is not one of good, better, best, more evidence is better than a little, and corroborating evidence is what historians try to find.


(my paragraphing)

re 1: Subjectivity is a part of history, especially ancient history, it’s unavoidable as I have stated. Science does have it’s place in amongst the deciphering of ancient texts, e.g. reconstructing artefacts, dating, X-rays, DNA, chemical analysis, etc.

re 2: If you believe you can prove the existence of God, IMO you will be the first to do so. But I would wager your argument is one of incredulity, (i.e. I can’t believe it could be natural, therefore God is the cause), and therefore not a sound method of deduction.




Perhaps we have got a little sidetracked, and this thread has taken on aspects of “what science, philosophy, and faith are”. But it is essential to understand the aspects of science philosophy, and faith, to see each for what they are and what ultimately each can make claim to.

You are possibly using ‘faith’ in the wrong context. If science is pursuing investigations in abiogenesis, the reasoning behind the conviction that it must be a scientific possibility is one derived at by logical reasoning (I explained this in post #31), and not one of religious faith. Obviously at this point in time all abiogenesis hypothesise are flawed or at a “overview’ level because it is not understood.




But I would think this is only ‘valid’ to Christians those who proclaim young earth, or deny evolution happens, remember that not all Christians come under this umbrella.



I would think a change of belief would be inevitable if one is a YEC, and was then convinced of the correctness of evolution. This situation will arise because YEC make specific claims about the natural world that are in direct contrast to the findings of science.

What I meant is that we don´t know nature completely, then there are things that we haven´t discovered yet.Imagine we telling Newton that time is not constant ?
He simply would think we are crazy.We can´t assume that science will never prove the existence of God.It does not exist natural or super natural, what it exists is the reality, therefore if God exists then He is part of reality and science one day will prove his existence.



You are wrong.If one day man goes to mars and there he finds a pyramid, his position will not be "I don´t know".He will think that pyramids can´t be explained by natural processes so that pyramid probably was built by someone.



It´s obvious because life´s origin resists to natural explanation.



It´s impossible to prove the existence of any person as a phenomenon.You can´t reproduce the existence of a person to prove that he scientifically exists.You can only prove the existence of a person through the things he did.

Agreed that we have not discovered everything (far from it).

I suppose that if you presume God is real in a physical sense (inhabits 3 dimensional space and time), then I see no reason to presume that he could not be detected. For something like this to happen I would think a scenario like the second coming of Jesus would be required, giving interviews and demonstrations on TV, that is something science could test. Got to have something to get hands on. But until some physical manifestation become apparent, God is un-testable and has to be categorised as ‘I don’t know’ and not a presumption of existence.




You are making my argument for me, all you have to do is add the factor of time (Then and Now) to your own example and you get this:

Now: Do pyramids (in the Egyptian style, ‘man made’) exist on Mars? Currently science states “non have been detected in sizes greater than the resolution of the current arbiters”. There is no default position of yes or no.
However if we are talking about Mars, most would extrapolate what they know about Mars and say such is an impossibility because of the low temperature, lack of liquid water, lack of Oxygen, etc, etc. (a better example would have been to ask if pyramids exist in South America and set the question in the 1400’s, this would eliminate inconvenient aspects about Martian habitats).

Future: Pyramid discovered. Science says pyramids exist on Mars.

You see it always boils down to an observation, something observable, else we are dealing in hypotheticals.




It’s obvious to yourself because you assume a default position of creation, and you will get this same answer whenever you encounter a difficult question/observation when no adequate explanation is forthcoming. If you add the factor of time into your way of thinking it can be shown that you are forever placing observations from ‘created’ and into ‘not created’ with each scientific explanation.
The result of your method being exposed to time is that it is demonstrated as unreliable, because with the benefit of hindsight the things that were categorised as created, should have been classified as unknown.




Your not exactly replying to my point are you. Point two is about you proving the existence of God, and you reply with a challenge about proving the existence of a person. But regarding that I think we both agree that proving historical persons exist is somewhat subjective. If by things he did I presume you mean things like bridges with a dedication plate, coins, monuments and that sort of thing, yes?

You have concluded that unless God is proven to you in your predetermined way you will not believe.

Getting back to the topic at hand, what sort of "hands on" evidence do you have for abiogenesis. Why do you not require the same "proof" for evolution that you do for the existence of God?

I would think some criteria needs to be fulfilled yes (but this is not the same thing as science being able to detect).



Currently the evidence is IMO:

a. An Occam's razor type logic, where all other mechanism are eliminated (as I previously explained in post # 31.
b. A second type of logical observation, where the fossil evidence peters out the further back in time one goes, where the only type of life being found is simple.
c. Plenty of time for abiogenesis, (a huge percentage of earths history)
d. Chemicals required for life are found naturally.
e. More complex chemicals required for life can be created e.g. Miller-Urey experiment.
f. Replicating molecules can be created.

Granted there not much there to formulate a theory upon and there is considerable distance to go if you want ‘proof’ (assuming the idea is correct), but if you don’t experiment one thing is certain, you will never know. It could be said that science knows very little regarding abiogenesis, but it is important to realise this does not imply nothing is known.



Well I actually would require the same ‘proof’, material proof (I prefer the term evidence). Some material evidence that a theory can explain and is not a result of the erroneous logical premise: (If Not, ‘X’ Then, ‘Y’). I