13 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyYou really have no clue.
Then you are being logically incoherent.
If the same 'logic' that you try and use against our understanding of science is applied to your religious beliefs then the conclusion must be your religious beliefs are totally irrational. You cannot have it both ways.
You do not apply it to your own beliefs, but if you attempt to force it on others or ridicule those who disagree.
The belief in abiogenesis is on par with belief in God. Neither can be observed and are beliesf based on faith.
In the end my belief in God does not make God exist. In the end your belief in abiogenesis does not mean it exists.
13 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarHere is one BIG difference: Science improves its findings month by month year by year. Your religious views are the same a thousand years ago, today and a thousand years from now.
You really have no clue.
You do not apply it to your own beliefs, but if you attempt to force it on others or ridicule those who disagree.
The belief in abiogenesis is on par with belief in God. Neither can be observed and are beliesf based on faith.
In the end my belief in God does not make God exist. In the end your belief in abiogenesis does not mean it exists.
You will only get to say we view abiogenesis on faith for so long and then when it is proven there will be no further talk of faith.
Maybe it takes 100 years, mabye 20 maybe 200. Doesn't matter, there will be a time when you will not be able to say we take it on faith.
13 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyIt is not properly said that "if G-d exists then the very life to ever exist came from non-life", for in this case the specific lifeless, necessary building blocks of life must have been created and arranged for that purpose too solely thanks to the provision, power and will of the intelligence of an unborn yet living entity.
NO, abiogenesis, does NOT reject god.
Why cannot a god made abiogenesis happen?
Why is it that you reject that logical possibility? (and I both assert and think that IS a logical possibility)
As for deducing abiogenesis as a fact;
There is NO logical contradiction between there being a god and abiogenesis happened.
if a god exists then the very first ...[text shortened]... ife is, by definition, what we call abiogenesis. That is the deduction of abiogenesis as a fact.
In such a case, the causal field that envelops both non-living blocks of life and life must be rooted strictly on life alone (on the life and the provision of the entity who triggered this process), therefore you end up ever trapped in the blind belief of Intelligent Design. I discard this blind belief as a non-tenable theory of reality.
On the contrary, proven in practice abiogenesis does not require supernatural phenomena and untenable theories like Intelligent Design.
Methinks you fail to understand the concept of quantum uncertainty;
Once disappeared, where the sun of our solar system will go? Before its appearance, where the sun of our solar system were? What exactly takes place in the context of Form, where exactly Form is grounded and into what exactly Form is transformed when fades away in the quantum uncertainty, humy?
😵
13 Oct 17
3 edits
Originally posted by @humyWell, this is off-forum here, but what I would argue is that a literalist (i.e., biological) interpretation of the virgin birth is untenable for the obvious reason that such a thing is impossible. A zygote conceived of woman only would have lacked half the necessary chromosomes to be viable.
I didn't know that.
So, to believe in the CORRECT translation of the ORIGINAL Christian religion, even if you are to take every word of it totally literally, you would NOT believe in the miracle of Mary being a virgin and yet still gave birth but rather believe, as consistent with known scientific fact, sex was first necessary before possible to give birth. ...[text shortened]... sts that insist that you must believe in the virgin Mary are anti-Christian for doing so.
The virgin birth is a metaphor for what Evangelicals refer to as being reborn in Christ, a spiritual birth. In the case of Jesus, it occurred during or immediately after his 40-day sojourn in the desert when he awakened to his mission, backdated in the Gospels to his biological birth for dramatic effect. Of course, Christian Fundamentalists won't like this interpretation; they tend to take the Bible in the crudest, material sense.
13 Oct 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYou are saying people who lived in 1812 witnessed abiogenesis?
How many experiments did we conduct to recreate Napoleon?
13 Oct 17
Originally posted by @black-beetleEvidence is in the eye of the beholder.
Because there is not the slightest evidence for the existence of a supernatural entity and because a supernatural intervention is not necessary😵
We have no evidense of abiogenesis either. If it was a natural process it would be happening today.
14 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarThat pretty much sums up the difference between you and the rest of the posters here. Everything you believe in, including your views on what you imagine to be science, is faith-based and therefore in the eye of the beholder.
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. ...
Laws of thermodynamics are not in the eye of the beholder, much as you might like to think that they are. If you doubt that, try running through a brick wall and then tell us your broken nose is merely 'in the eye of the beholder.'
14 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarI'm saying abiogenesis is a historical event for which we have strong evidence that it occurred.
You are saying people who lived in 1812 witnessed abiogenesis?
@eladar
Summary of the discussion so far:
When I walk barefoot in the mud, I leave imprints. I know what caused the imprints because I was there when it happened.
When I see human foot imprints in stone, I say, "Some human walked in the mud here a long time ago. I know that because human feet do not leave imprints in solid rock, so it must have been softer when it happened, and I know it was a long time ago because it takes a long time for mud to fossilize."
You say, "You don't know that. You don't know that a human left those imprints because you weren't there when it happened. You don't know it was mud then because you weren't there. You don't know that mud turned to stone because you didn't observe it the whole time. No one sees mud turning to stone nowadays, so it's just your opinion that it ever happened before. You don't know it was a long time ago. You're making false assumptions. You can't prove God did not make it that way."
Do you have any idea how looney that is?
If everyone believed what you believe, we would still be in the Dark Ages. People would still believe the Earth to be an immovable pancake at the center of the universe; physicians would still be bleeding and purging the sick; the Inquisition would still be torturing and murdering witches. We are well rid of the mind-set you espouse.
14 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseWho cares about the differences based on your point of view?
Here is one BIG difference: Science improves its findings month by month year by year. Your religious views are the same a thousand years ago, today and a thousand years from now.
You will only get to say we view abiogenesis on faith for so long and then when it is proven there will be no further talk of faith.
Maybe it takes 100 years, mabye 20 ma ...[text shortened]... 200. Doesn't matter, there will be a time when you will not be able to say we take it on faith.
Believe as you wish, I couldn't cate less what you believe. I am not your master and you are not mine.
14 Oct 17
Originally posted by @moonbusYou seem to know much about assumptions.
@eladar
Summary of the discussion so far:
When I walk barefoot in the mud, I leave imprints. I know what caused the imprints because I was there when it happened.
When I see human foot imprints in stone, I say, "Some human walked in the mud here a long time ago. I know that because human feet do not leave imprints in solid rock, so it must have bee ...[text shortened]... ion would still be torturing and murdering witches. We are well rid of the mind-set you espouse.
But as I just wrote, I am not your master and you are not mine. What is this great need of yours to try to validate your point of view and invalidate mine?
We are not talking about points of view, but claims of truth. We are talking about consistentcy.
If we are to do that, we must have common ground. Do you not believe that science obseves some things directly? Do you not believe that science explains natural laws? Do you not believe that we use acience to create electronics, build cars and build rockets? Do we use science to cure diseases and improve agriculture?
These and other things that we can use and manipulate are science upon which we agree.
Science which requires assumptions that can't be directly tested in such ways are not science to me. They are theories based on science, but bot hard science. Anyone is free to believe those things are science, just as Mormons are allowed to believe that they are Christians. But to try to pish conformity is trying to enslave beliefs just as European royalty of old tried to force their beliefs on others.