Creationist have problems with evolution because evolution makes sense.

[AV1611VET]

No I have no proof other than my eyes and my brain, the things I read on this forum leads me to believe that religion damages the brain ...

So you believe there's a psychosomatic link between religion and brain damage?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh, so we aren't talking about the word "theory" as scientists do. OK.

But remember, to a scientist there is a huge difference between the word "theory" and "hypothesis". You are apaprently using theory as the "common" term, not technically.

Sorry. I'm a scientist so when people abuse the term in a science discussion I am prone to err on the side of the actual scientific definition.

ok.

Correct. The point being that it is more likely than an explanation that includes unverifiable supernatural beings.

That's all it says. It doesn't say "god doesn't exist", it doesn't say anything other than:

1. You have all this evidence
2. Using this evidence how did this likely come about without including unevidenced factors.

There are unevidenced factors in the explanation and whether or not you feel God is less likely than natural explanations both have their "unknowns".

Would you prefer that when discussed in classes the issue mention unevidenced items as well? That will lead to many unpleasant ramifications regardless. It will open the doors to include anything and everything (including the unevidence role of leprechuans and unicorns).

I am not promoting teaching creation, but if you are saying that abiogenesis is being "discussed" then the Christian creation narrative has as much to offer in a discussion as the natural. The Christian creation narrative is a set up in such a way as to provide information of the stages of life.

I don't say that to be flippant or rude about religion. The fact is, religion must prove the validity of their hypothesized factor (GOD) within some degree of certainty before he can be invoked in the mechanism. OR at the very least provide sufficient evidence that the model will work better with this "God Factor" than without.

I am not talking religion as a whole. I am talking about the Christian God and the Christian creation narrative. It stands on it own. In the case of leprechauns and unicorns, neither have any claims in creation.

That's it! It doesn't say anything about God's existence or lack thereof.

Think of it like a sporting event or a game. In soccer as a player on the field I cannot use my hands. That does not mean that my hands disappear, it merely means that the rules make the game work by establishing a common baseline. If you want to play soccer as field player and use your hands you are no longer playing soccer.

When you exclude anything of supernatural in an area that prohibits anything other than "natural" as its foundation you are not just establishing rules you are excluding possibility. It is that simple. It maybe what we have to do to make it all work, but it provides a blind spot in our understanding that can color our findings.

If you want to play chess and have the knight be able to fly over the board and land wherever he wants to, then you are no longer playing chess.

These are the rules. They are not, as many may wish to think, arbitrary and "anti-god". They are merely that you are limited to working within a framework of liklihood. If you have reason to believe that there are "other factors" you don't know about, you cannot just then "make up" what those factors are and expect them to be accepted without an exceptional reason for doing so. It is far better to provide some evidence for those factors and how the inclusion of those unseen factors works better than the model without them.

Oh but we "make up" factors all the time. That is what the beginning of science hypothesis is based on. We make up how something happened and go about researching it to find out if we are correct. Having God as a Creator makes sense in many ways. Do I think that "God did it" is sufficient..no. I feel science is important and I think it works well working within the specified mechanics. That is all well and good but when science then tells us that a better explanation of the beginning of life is such and such and God is prohibited as an explanation, then science is crossing the line.

There are cases in science where the model just lacks somethign to make it work. There are cases where things have to be done that don't make a lot of sense, but make the numbers work better. In the present case if you feel that abiogenesis has some significant lack you may hypothesize "god" but your mere incredulity around the chemistry is insufficient to make that hypothesis compelling to others.

I don't know the current statistics but a majority of people in the world believe that God did create the universe. So making it compelling to others is not really necessary.

In the current case, since abiogenesis is, technically speaking, NOT a theory, it is still a suite of hypotheses being tested. So it is really not possible at this time to make the claim that the model with God is superior than the model without God.

The model with God has to be tested as well. Unfortunately the testing against the evidence is a moving and changing thing. The evidence keeps changing.

I've run out of time. I'll have to come back at some other time to finish this and the other posts. Sorry. I am coloring the text orange so I can come back where I left off.

If you include God you are then will likely have to further "model" God. In order to be useful to science that model must help us explain why God does what he does and perhaps even how. It might even provide some predictive capacity (cf "Prayer studies").



Well, there does appear to be some evidence for the factors known. The Miller-Urey experiments and others are pointing up the wholly abiogenic formation of the building blocks of life. The missing piece right now is the building blocks --> life aspect. That is under investigation.

It is OK to discuss this in colleges. It is not presented as hard known fact yet --to my knowledge-- (unless the teacher is incompetent). Science tends to be very careful about teaching information. That is why it is important to know the difference between words like hypothesis and theory.



Well, to be fair, the discussion and inclusion of God has been ongoing since time immemorial. To that end to my knowledge the concept of God is as "fractured" across human knowledge as anything I can think of. If there is a God it is incumbent upon the believers to make a case for a single conception of God that can be made compelling to the "unbeliever".



I don't see that. Which God? Yahweh? Aharu Mazda? Al'lah? Krishna? What mechanism? But most importantly: what is missing from the hypothesized model that would necessitate God's role?



I am unaware of non-natural processes. If you could point me in the direction of proven supernatural or non-natural processes I would be most interested.



Indeed. However I have yet to see a preferable "non-natural" hypothesis that explains the points with more compelling rationale than the natural hypothesis.



Well, again, I have provided (as have other posters on here) all the evidence we currently have. The fact remains that there are mechanisms by which these building blocks can be abiogenically formed, even to the point of primative proto cell-walls. There are numerous catalytic surfaces in nature and even "energy economies" within chemistry that could act as proto-biological systems.

The jump from non-living to living may be much shorter of a leap than we expect. Considering that all life is made up of non-living elements.

To my knowledge there is no "divine spark" in life that is necessary to explain life. Unless you wish to point to the difference between "life" in bacteria and "life" in humans and how there is some quantum difference in the "ineffible" factor of "life".

Again, it is incumbent upon you to provide reason for the inclusion of an extra factor.

I've got all my factors together and they are verifiable. The question comes in what is the last step?

Your inclusion of the God factor means you have to tell me why this inclusion makes the model better rather than just a hand-waiving exercise to wipe away the last set of questions.[/quote]

 

[Chalnoth]

I am not talking religion as a whole. I am talking about the Christian God and the Christian creation narrative. It stands on it own. In the case of leprechauns and unicorns, neither have any claims in creation.

Why? Why is your god somehow more likely to exist than leprechauns or unicorns? Or a god of any other religion?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why? Why is your god somehow more likely to exist than leprechauns or unicorns? Or a god of any other religion?

Then we would look like them.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

 

[tanzanos]

Then we would look like them.

Just like the 12 Gods of Olympus. Way to go Zeus!!!!

 

[Cabal]

Technically leprechauns look like small humans.

And Irish people do exist. *ahem*

I think I might be on to something here. Brb, just gonna franchise me a cult.

 

[AV1611VET]

Technically leprechauns look like small humans.

Where's their documentation?

 

[tanzanos]

Technically leprechauns look like small humans.

And Irish people do exist. *ahem*

I think I might be on to something here. Brb, just gonna franchise me a cult.

Well they do say you have to be Irish to be Irish. So that excludes the rest of humanity. Therefore non leprechaun looking people (anyone taller than a pencil) and not of having Gaelic descent; are excluded from the deity club!

 

[tanzanos]

Where's their documentation?

The leprechauns did it case closed

 

[Cabal]

Where's their documentation?

Well, it's more of an oral tradition really...

 

[AV1611VET]

The leprechauns did it case closed

Well, it's more of an oral tradition really...

Kiss that theory goodbye, then ---

 

[atomweaver]

I highlighted the part in which I am interested, please provide where in the resources provided by the University that it states this.

The online resources don't state this either way. My experience with the curriculum comes from those people I know who actually attended the course. Don't take my word for it, though; get evidence. You could easily send an email to one of the CGS life sciences teachers for verification or a more detailed course syllabus. Note, though, that the curriculum summary also doesn't state what you originally asserted, that abiogenesis is taught as fact. The summary merely informs us that the topic is discussed.

If I am wrong about the content having no part reserved for abiogenesis then by all means please provide that as well.

Abiogenesis is discussed, but it is explained clearly as being in the early, exploratory stages of hypothesis development. Again, don't take my word for it, contact the school.

The fact that students who have under-performed (but show Potential) but have had a horrible quality of high school education are being "brought up to speed" about the origin of life is not something that really supports your argument, now does it?

My only "point" was that you are making erroneous assumptions about what is discussed in this class. You saw "origins of life" on a summary, and automatically assumed that whatever is being taught inthe class is being asserted as scientific fact. This is an incorrect assumption, as college courses can include discussions of exploratory areas of research which lack fully grounded scientific theories, but they'll be clearly mentioned as such.

 

[Jester4kicks]

No I have no proof other than my eyes and my brain, the things I read on this forum leads me to
believe that religion damages the brain, if I told you I could fly by waving my arms would you think
I was just a little bit kooky? and why would you think that? because you know it's not possible,
the same thing applies here, the things they believe are not possible, however much they believe them,
which leads me to believe something has damaged their brains, and what do they all have in common?
Religion.

Correlation is not causation.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I am not promoting teaching creation, but if you are saying that abiogenesis is being "discussed" then the Christian creation narrative has as much to offer in a discussion as the natural. The Christian creation narrative is a set up in such a way as to provide information of the stages of life.

Except that the Genesis account doesn't match up with the evidence from the fossil record.

The Christian creation account provides a nice "story" and allegory for something. Presumably something of value for spiritual topics or some simpler pre-scientific society's attempt to explain how they got there (just like countless other creation myths across the globe). As science goes it provides no information and when it attempts to explain the "origin of life" it doesn't even fit the physical evidence very well.

I am not talking religion as a whole. I am talking about the Christian God and the Christian creation narrative. It stands on it own. In the case of leprechauns and unicorns, neither have any claims in creation.

But are you capable of seeing the point? If it is unevidenced for most people then what stops others from introducing their unevidenced material? That's the whole point.

It's all or nothing if you will. At least as far as science goes.

When you exclude anything of supernatural in an area that prohibits anything other than "natural" as its foundation you are not just establishing rules you are excluding possibility.

Unfortunately for those who wish to introduce the supernatural the onus is on them to provide proof of supernatural events. That's all it says. It doesn't exclude anything.

If you can better model the system using some other factor, it becomes incumbent upon you to provide motivation for others to accept those factors.

It is that simple. It maybe what we have to do to make it all work, but it provides a blind spot in our understanding that can color our findings.

Do you have a "blind spot" for the role of Brahma the Hindu Creator god? Are you likewise "excluding" something when you deny Brahma?

No, I suspect you'll fiercely defend your religious conviction over others. And that's fine. It's called religion. This has nothing to do whatsoever with science.

If you wish to propose Yahweh as having a role in biological processes, please provide me with some explanation as to why all the other gods are not likewise as valid.

Oh but we "make up" factors all the time. That is what the beginning of science hypothesis is based on.

But then those factors are tested.

Look, I do statistical design of experiment as a common part of my job. I have to design experiments to test factors that I think will be in play in a given experiment.

I am not allowed to keep factors that make me feel good, I have to have a compelling reason to keep extraneous factors. If they do NOT make the model more robust then they have no role. I cannot just keep them.

We make up how something happened and go about researching it to find out if we are correct. Having God as a Creator makes sense in many ways. Do I think that "God did it" is sufficient..no. I feel science is important and I think it works well working within the specified mechanics. That is all well and good but when science then tells us that a better explanation of the beginning of life is such and such and God is prohibited as an explanation, then science is crossing the line.

Science isn't "crossing the line" in not accepting unevidenced factors. As I've said ad nauseam now, if you have some compelling evidence that the model works better with God than without, please present said evidence.

I don't know the current statistics but a majority of people in the world believe that God did create the universe. So making it compelling to others is not really necessary.

I'll assume you've never heard of argumentum ad populum. It isn't a "compelling evidence". A large number of people believe they can make money if they simply provide the nice lady on the e-mail who is the daughter of Robert Mbeke some funds to get some giant stash of gold out of sub-Saharan Africa.

I am not saying religion is a "scam", I'm merely saying that simply "finding a lot of folks who believe a point" doesn't, in any way, make it compelling.

The model with God has to be tested as well. Unfortunately the testing against the evidence is a moving and changing thing. The evidence keeps changing.

Until that time the model with God provides no better explanation. It does, however, provide many additional questions and complications:

1. Which God?
2. What does God want?
3. Does it mean this holy book or that holy book is correct?
4. What does it say about anything else we do in life? Is science dead because a "miracle" could interfere with any given process?

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that the Genesis account doesn't match up with the evidence from the fossil record.

You mean the fossil record doesn't match the Genesis account?

 

[Jester4kicks]

You mean the fossil record doesn't match the Genesis account?

 

[SiderealExalt]

You know. It's times like these why I understand why so many other first world countries laugh at our education system.

 

[Jester4kicks]

You know. It's times like these why I understand why so many other first world countries laugh at our education system.

QFT +rep!

 

[tanzanos]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Scientifically --- I don't think the Flood would have been possible.
​

QFT +rep! The first step is always the hardest.

Yep! he's getting there; albeit excruciatingly slowly, but hey! He IS getting there.

I have to prepare a welcome to the evolutionists speech. I'm sure AV will be moved to tears!

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep! he's getting there; albeit excruciatingly slowly, but hey! He IS getting there.

Methinks someone is way behind the times.

Let me bring you up to speed --- nature is hostile [yet obedient] to God.

This means that if God wants something done, and nature "gets in the way", God simply commands nature to stand aside --- and voila --- a miracle occurs.

If Jesus wanted to walk on water, for example, nature would not permit it; yet not only did Jesus walk on water, but He arranged it so Peter could also.

If the Red Sea said NO WAY to Moses, it said WAY to God.

In the case of Jesus healing others, whether it was direct physical contact, or action-at-a-distance, it got done.

And whether it took a "suitcase full of miracles", as in the Flood, or just a single miracle, as in turning the water into wine, it got done.

And whether it left a bunch of scientists behind scratching their heads, or left a bunch of scientists ahead scratching their behinds --- so be it.