Originally posted by @eladarOf course God could have created trees in the Garden of Eden with 50 years worth of rings even though there weren't any 50 prior years. But that claim is not consistent with any trees we ever saw or do see now.
Those rings point to a past which is consistent with the world God was creating.
You assume that the rings must point to a past. This is your assumption, not God's. It is all a point of view. God has told you that your assumption about an earlier time is incorrect.
This assumes of course there is a God which then wraps itself up into a bunch of circul ...[text shortened]... . If you question the assumptions they just throw stones and name call trying to get conformity.
Of course God could have created star light with a red shift indicative of a very old universe, on the order of billions of years, even though the universe is really only 6,000 years old. Yes, God could do that. But that claim is not consistent with the evidence we see now.
It is not God's capabilities I doubt, it is your proffered 'explanation' of what we observe in the universe and your implicit belief that your proffered 'explanation' is on a level with the scientific one, that science is merely an "alternative belief" to the Creation myth. It is not.
Your hypothesis isn't consistent with the world we actually see.
a) the hypothesis that all we see now is really only 6,000 years old is not consistent with massively coherent evidence that the universe is very very old.
b) the hypothesis that God just made it look that way, whether by one big miracle or zillions of on-going ones to keep it all consistent, is totally incoherent as an explanation. You might as well deny that there are any laws of nature at all and say that God made everything last Thursday, including your illusory memories of last Wednesday. That's like saying that there aren't any rules of chess; players just jerk pieces around and sometimes God makes checkmate happen by a miracle. Pfui!
c) Of course science has limits. No sensible person denies this. One of them is this: science answers only "how" questions, not "why" questions. If you want to know why humans exist at all, you're in the realm of theology/spirituality; if you want to know how h. saps got here, it's a scientific issue (paleobiology).
It is a peculiarly Judeo-Christian belief that mankind's why and wherefore have anything to do with his origins. It is not merely a belief that how h. saps came to be is through an evolutionary process, requiring deep time, from simpler life forms; it is something which is supported by massively coherent evidence.
In Buddhism, for example, the origin of the universe (and by implication, of humanity, too) is undefined. It does not matter how the universe got started, or whether it even had any 'start'; in Buddhism, man's wherefore is unrelated to his origin. Now that is an "alternative belief," on a level with the Christian creation myth. Take that to the SF. This is the science forum and we expect evidence, not belief, here.
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @moonbusSo you go on about how your assumptions prove my assumptions wrong.
Of course God could have created trees in the Garden of Eden with 50 years worth of rings even though there weren't any 50 prior years. But that claim is not consistent with any trees we ever saw or do see now.
Of course God could have created star light with a red shift indicative of a very old universe, on the order of billions of years, ...[text shortened]... Take that to the SF. This is the science forum and we expect evidence, not belief, here.
10 Oct 17
Do you know who you sound like, Eladar? You sound exactly like those who resisted Galileo tooth and nail when he observed that the Earth moves. You sound exactly like those who resisted Copernicus when he observed that the Earth is not the centre of the universe. Do you suppose that no one really knows that the sun is the centre of our solar system because no one ever stood on the sun itself? Do you suppose that no one really knows that the Earth moves because no one ever went into space and watched it moving??
Reality check! Science is not merely an assumption which one is at liberty to dismiss without any embarrassing consequences.
The mainstream Christian churches have abandoned the young Earth hypothesis, just as they have accepted that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the universe. The only people who still hold to a literalist interpretation of Genesis are a few peculiar Protestant factions in the American Bible belt.
10 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarThe ol' tree falls in the forest and kills a squirrel but no one saw it so the squirrel didn't die hypothesis.
I am saying Science is unable to know what it hasn't seen. It can come up with an explanation based on what is there but wasn't observed, but to call it anything other than an explanation goes to far.
To try to force people to believe an explanation is a form of religious indoctrination.
I believe it is important for people to be taught the limits of ...[text shortened]... around and try to say creation has been proven wrong by my unproven hypothesis, that's not fine.
You seem to be the one putting science and religion into the same basket here. But as you framed the argument, there's nothing in Genesis that would count as a testable hypothesis. Therefore, it isn't science at all. You're believing in a few stanzas of an ancient text, while disparate fields of science have collectively demonstrated empirical evidence of evolutionary mechanisms. Genesis isn't worth discussing unless you have an actual argument to make.
10 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarWho am I pretending doesn't exist?
Of course you do, you are one of them. You are one that wildgrass wants to pretend doesn't exist and is simply something I am making up.
I have heard/seen people try to fit a literal interpretation of Genesis into the framework of what we know about science. It's ludicrous. Trees appear full-grown with rings. Homo sapiens saddling up dinosaurs and trekking across Pangea. It's not worthy of rational scientific discussion.
Genesis is a metaphor. Get over it.
10 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarMy beliefs are fluid and I, like humy, am happy to concede to a Christian god as soon as there is evidence of one. In Hinduism (and in Christanity ) I prefer to focus on the conduct of people in the stories.
You are welcome to your beliefs.
Do you believe scientific explanations of the origins of life are any more than a natural explanation?
Getting right your view of creation is basically irrelevant . So what if the Christian god is the creator? It doesn't change anything . We still have the same problems.
If there is a creator god or gods , their creation is certainly seemless. And the creator(
S) dont play dice with their creation . Furthemore any sel respecting god would try to give all life a win/win scenario if possible. Atheists included
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassBut scientists need to hypothesise too. They form a belief on a feasible outcome that would scientifically prove their hypothesis .
Spiritual I guess? I still think you're inappropriately conflating these. Belief is the realm of religion.
Many scientists are held back in their thinking by their beliefs.
For example :Until Einstein scientists thought all phenomena was Newtonian and three dimensional
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarCome now._. These fine scientific people have been indulging your every post with a minimum of negativity and no down thumbs.
Those rings point to a past which is consistent with the world God was creating.
You assume that the rings must point to a past. This is your assumption, not God's. It is all a point of view. God has told you that your assumption about an earlier time is incorrect.
This assumes of course there is a God which then wraps itself up into a bunch of circul ...[text shortened]... . If you question the assumptions they just throw stones and name call trying to get conformity.
After all you are in science and so far have offered nothing in the way of evidence
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassNot at all, you presuppose that the tree fell and killed the squirrel.
The ol' tree falls in the forest and kills a squirrel but no one saw it so the squirrel didn't die hypothesis.
You seem to be the one putting science and religion into the same basket here. But as you framed the argument, there's nothing in Genesis that would count as a testable hypothesis. Therefore, it isn't science at all. You're believing in a few ...[text shortened]... lutionary mechanisms. Genesis isn't worth discussing unless you have an actual argument to make.
A more accurate description would be you found a dead squirrel under the tree, you assume the tree killed the squirrel, but the tree may have simply fallen on the already dead squirrel.
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @moonbusI'm sure I sound that way to you.
Do you know who you sound like, Eladar? You sound exactly like those who resisted Galileo tooth and nail when he observed that the Earth moves. You sound exactly like those who resisted Copernicus when he observed that the Earth is not the centre of the universe. Do you suppose that no one really knows that the sun is the centre of our solar system because ...[text shortened]... ist interpretation of Genesis are a few peculiar Protestant factions in the American Bible belt.
But I am all for actual observation, so I don't know why you would come to that conclusion.
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarThe point is you can figure out the likely cause of death using the scientific method.... even though you didn't see it happen.
Not at all, you presuppose that the tree fell and killed the squirrel.
A more accurate description would be you found a dead squirrel under the tree, you assume the tree killed the squirrel, but the tree may have simply fallen on the already dead squirrel.
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassThe point is that both groups accept something by faith, but one group denies it.
The point is you can figure out the likely cause of death using the scientific method.... even though you didn't see it happen.
Your group accepts abiogenesis as a matter of truth based on faith. How else is life supposed to come into existence?
Those who simply want to put their head in the sand claim that we don't know, nor do we need to know how life began. They just have faith that it did assuming only a natural evolutuon of the universe.
11 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarLet's take the case of the squashed squirrel under the fallen tree. Yes, a tree might fall on an already dead squirrel. If you stop at "down tree, squashed squirrel," there is no basis for assuming any causal relationship between the two. This does not mean, however, that no causal relationship can be found, or that one speculation about causes is as plausible as any other (just a matter of 'faith' ).
The point is that both groups accept something by faith, but one group denies it.
Your group accepts abiogenesis as a matter of truth based on faith. How else is life supposed to come into existence?
Those who simply want to put their head in the sand claim that we don't know, nor do we need to know how life began. They just have faith that it did assuming only a natural evolutuon of the universe.
An autopsy could be performed on the squirrel to determine the cause of death. If it were found to have had some fatal disease which would account for its death, that would be evidence that the falling tree was not the cause of death, only the cause of the squashing post mortem. An autopsy can also reveal the time of death, at least roughly. If it were found to have been dead quite some time before the tree fell (assuming we had other evidence for when the tree fell), that too could be evidence that the impact was not what killed the squirrel. The time of death can be pretty accurately estimated by looking at the state of decay of the squirrel's tissues. The time of the tree's falling could be estimated by examining the type and amount of humus under the fallen tree compared to the type and amount of humus next to the tree, and so on. Think like Sherlock Holmes, pay attention to details and put them into a coherent picture, don't just stop at the obvious ("down tree, dead squirrel" ). That is how science works. No faith involved. The key is to keep on gathering evidence and not stop at the obvious or accept facile conclusions.
As wildgrass said, we can figure out past causes by reasoning based on present evidence; we need not always see a cause with our own eyes to know that it must have occurred. That is how we figured out that the Earth is not the centre of the universe and that it moves. Not because we directly see these things with our own eyes, but because it logically follows from many other things we do see. No faith involved. It is invariably the preponderance of evidence which matters (not any one single bit of evidence), together with a testable explanation which fuses the preponderance of evidence into a coherent picture.
Eladar: "Your group accepts abiogenesis as a matter of truth based on faith. How else is life supposed to come into existence?"
Suppose you tell us first, in your own words, what you think the word "abiogenesis" means. Then I will be happy to discuss the matter with you. It is not, as you claim, a matter of faith. It is a matter of drawing conclusions from evidence.
I would like to point out that evolution does not explain how life got going in the first place. The branch of science which deals with how life got going in the first place is something else, paleobiology. Just so we are on the same page, objections to evolution theory are not refutations of any scientific or naturalistic hypothesis of how life got going in the first place. They are two separate issues, and objections against the one are irrelevant to the other.
Like the case of the squashed squirrel under the fallen tree, we can propose hypotheses which can be tested and draw conclusions about causes in the past, even if no one was present to witness the causes with his own eyes. Moreover, we can sometimes rule out some causes as definitely non-operable in given cases (e.g. we can know that the squirrel was not killed by an owl if there are no marks of owl claws on the body). If you think that we cannot really know things unless we witness them with our own eyes, then I ask you again to consider whether you know that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the universe. If you seriously doubt those two propositions, then what are you doing here at the science forum? If you do accept those two propositions, then you accept that knowledge about things we cannot directly witness is possible. So it is also possible in regard to how life got going, even though no one was present at that time.
If you wish to weigh in here on the issue of how life got going, then I suggest you do some reading in paleobiology and molecular biology and find out what the current state of knowledge about it is. We can have a sensible discussion on that basis. However, if you're just going to keep repeating that you have one kind of faith and 'we' have another, then just drop it.