• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Only Debate Worth Having About Science And The Past

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
From that same blog you cited:

"Creationists are no doubt thrilled that origin-of-life research has reached such an impasse (see for example the screed "Darwinism Refuted," which cites my 1991 article), but they shouldn't be. Their explanations suffer from the same flaw: What created the divine Creator? And at least scientists are making an honest effort to solve life's mystery instead of blaming it all on God."
Oh I know he didn't have any love for creationist when I posted that. Scientists trying to explain away their own existence is like a dog chasing their own tail. Of course the dog thinks it's getting somewhere when it just going around in circles.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The whole point of abiogenesis is to demonstrate that life could possibly come about by natural means. That is to say, that given a set of starting conditions akin to those on an early earth, the chemical processes to produce simple single-celled organisms could happen without outside intervention.
The only way that set of starting conditions can be recreated without outside intervention is by the outside intervention of intelligent humans.

Intelligent design.
As a result, experiments in the field are done to mimick nature
The experiments are done by intelligent humans.

Intelligent design.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
. Their explanations suffer from the same flaw: What created the divine Creator?
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. This explains how God became Man, He changed forms.
And at least scientists are making an honest effort to solve life's mystery instead of blaming it all on God."
Scientists already discovered God. They just don't know it yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smidlee
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Here is the question you need to ask yourself. Can you be 100% positive that natural forces and ONLY natural forces caused the universe to create itself?


One can only be as certain as the evidence allows.
The word "only" in your question, however, hides the negativity of the statement.

What is implied is: "can you be sure that NO unnatural force was involved".
So it's asking for evidence / certainty about something NOT happening.

This is ridiculous. One requires positive evidence for positive claims.
There's no reason at all to go out of your way to prove/support things that are "not".

We observe natural phenomena and identify natural mechanisms responsible for the phenomena. The day we find evidence for, or identify, unnatural phenomena is the day we'll include it in the mechanism.

Until that day, we don't require any evidence that unnatural forces are "not" part of the mechanism.

Just like we don't need to have evidence that supernatural graviton fairies are "not" part of the mechanism of gravity in order to not include them in gravitation theory.

In short: don't shift the burden of proof.
If you wish to see unnatural forces included in a certain scientific theory - then come up with evidence to support those forces and demonstrate WHY they should be included. Just saying "well, you can't prove that they aren't part of the mechanism..." will not suffice. And I shouldn't have to explain why.



If you're wrong and there is a God you've been disrespecting all these years the consequence is a serious negative.

Pascal's Wager is not a proper reason to include supernatural shenannigans in biology either....

And threats of (imaginary) torment are even less of a reason to believe something.

If you believe in science enough to trust its laws which preclude the auto-generation of matter/energy, then you know that some external force is responsible for our existence.

The laws of science are human descriptions of commonly observed phenomena.
There is no law that states where matter comes from.

There is only a law that states that within the confines of the space-time continuum energy/matter can't be created or destroyed.

Outside of the universe.. that is unkown. The only honest answer there is "we don't know".

Unless you fancy arguments from ignorance, that is....
Personally, I prefer not to engage in logical fallacies. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Goonie
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What is implied is: "can you be sure that NO unnatural force was involved". So it's asking for evidence / certainty about something NOT happening.

No, I'm asking about the authority of natural law to violate itself and create something from nothingness.
The problem you have is that this is not possible. Only a stronger external force can violate natural law. If you claim that you only accept natural explanations and there is none, than your demanding an explanation that cannot be rooted in truth.

We observe natural phenomena and identify natural mechanisms responsible for the phenomena.
Wrong. You see effects and formulate logical natural causes. This is because science is the study of the natural world. That's fine; other than we don't live in a strictly natural world. In reality, our world is replete with supernatural entities and filled with supernatural encounters. Do deny this is to deny reality, and denying reality isn't very good science.

As humans, we seek answer on many levels including the spiritual level. You might think that all answers can eventually found through science, but if there was a supernatural cause than you have no hope of finding the right answer.
Pascal's Wager is not a proper reason to include supernatural shenannigans in biology either....

That is more a matter of philosophy. You can't prove that natural law is the dominant force in the universe. I can't prove to you that God exists.
There is no law that states where matter comes from.
Conservation of matter states that it can't come from anywhere; that in a closed system (the universe) the amount remains the same. Start with zero, end with zero. Want an external force? We call Him Lord.
Personally, I prefer not to engage in logical fallacies.
And yet you continue to believe in a natural origination that cannot happen scientifically. Logical fallacies? That takes the cake!
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Oh I know he didn't have any love for creationist when I posted that. Scientists trying to explain away their own existence is like a dog chasing their own tail. Of course the dog thinks it's getting somewhere when it just going around in circles.
I could say the same about creationists.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The only way that set of starting conditions can be recreated without outside intervention is by the outside intervention of intelligent humans.

Intelligent design.
The experiments are done by intelligent humans.

Intelligent design.
So, after you guys repeatedly ask for experiments to "prove" evolution, when we show them to you they are dismissed as "intelligent design." Nice merry-go-round you have there.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
You could but it doesn't apply since we accept by faith that God is much greater than man. We don't try to explain away our own existence with our intellect.

No scientist is trying to explain away their existence.

Also, accusing scientists of using their brains is a rather poor argument.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So, after you guys repeatedly ask for experiments to "prove" evolution, when we show them to you they are dismissed as "intelligent design." Nice merry-go-round you have there.
That was a discussion about abiogenesis, not evolution.

Abiogenesis can only prove intelligent design since any experiments would require intelligent human input on some level.

And if I recall correctly, you don't see any connection between abiogenesis and evolution.

Or maybe you are just pretending you don't.
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
The only way that set of starting conditions can be recreated without outside intervention is by the outside intervention of intelligent humans.

Intelligent design.
The experiments are done by intelligent humans.

Intelligent design.

Do you understand the point of setting up something like the Miller-Urey experiment? If yes, please describe it.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
No, I'm asking about the authority of natural law to violate itself and create something from nothingness.


Please be a bit more specific...
What "create something from nothingness"-claim exactly are you talking about and which natural law exactly is violated by it?


The problem you have is that this is not possible.

It's only a problem for me if you strawman my position. In reality, I make no such claims nore do I feel like there is something I accept which requires the violations of natural law.

Only a stronger external force can violate natural law.

Please give a specific example of this to demonstrate the truth of that claim.

If you claim that you only accept natural explanations and there is none, than your demanding an explanation that cannot be rooted in truth.

I make no such claims. You are merely pretending that I make such claims.

I accept the explanations that are actually supported by evidence. Regardless of wheter they are "natural" or "unnatural" explanations.
The only one here who seems to find it important if it's natural or unnatural, is YOU.

I just follow the evidence. You.... you follow your a priori beliefs.


Wrong. You see effects and formulate logical natural causes.


....and then test those explanations against actual reality. That's kind of a big point.

This is because science is the study of the natural world. That's fine; other than we don't live in a strictly natural world.

Yet another bare assertion.
Please demonstrate that we don't live in a "strictly natural world".


In reality, our world is replete with supernatural entities and filled with supernatural encounters. Do deny this is to deny reality, and denying reality isn't very good science.

Please demonstrate these claims.
How do I objectively test for the presence of "supernatural entities"?


As humans, we seek answer on many levels including the spiritual level. You might think that all answers can eventually found through science, but if there was a supernatural cause than you have no hope of finding the right answer.


You're jumping all over the place now.
The subject is science and the study of physical reality. More specifically, the topic is about science's ability to study events.

We aren't talking about philosophy or "deep human thought" or anything like that.
We are talking about science and the study of physical reality. We are not talking about "all the answers". We are talking about science and scientific answers.

That is more a matter of philosophy.


No. That is a matter of rather silly argumentation.
I can take your pascal's wager argument word for word and throw it back at you in the context of any other religion.

As far as the "consequences for not believing the correct supernatural nonsense", you are in the exact same position as me for thousands upon thousands of gods. I merely disbelieve in one more god then you do.

This is why Pascal's wager is ridiculous.


You can't prove that natural law is the dominant force in the universe.

I can certainly support it by pointing out that everyting, like literally everything, is ruled by natural law. I can point to any random rock, creature, mountain, planet, moon, star, atom, molecule, particle, electron, etc etc etc... and I guarantee you that it will be subject to the exact same natural laws as everything else.

You know this.


I can't prove to you that God exists.

You can't even support it. This god only exists between your ears.

Conservation of matter states that it can't come from anywhere; that in a closed system (the universe) the amount remains the same. Start with zero, end with zero. Want an external force? We call Him Lord.


You just agreed to what I said and then repeated your previous statement which is debunked by what I said. This is strange.

You said it yourself: this rule applies within the confines of the universe. As such, it doesn't support your ideas at all. Not even remotely.


We don't know how universes begin. So we also don't know how the "potential" of energy is injected into a universe.

You can make faith-based statements about it all you want, but it won't provide you with a proper answer. You KNOW what will provide you with a proper answer to that question though. You KNOW that the way to properly answer that question is by doing the science required to answer the question. And you KNOW that if science doesn't find out, you'll simply never know. Your priests certainly won't know. Your bronze-age book doesn't know...

To find out what the correct answer is, you'll have to turn to science and do the work.
You know this. You just don't like it because you feel it takes away power and awe from your deity of choice.

And yet you continue to believe in a natural origination that cannot happen scientifically. Logical fallacies? That takes the cake!

Strawmen are not a good way to argue.
It's dishonest and it will never score points.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
That was a discussion about abiogenesis, not evolution.

Abiogenesis can only prove intelligent design since any experiments would require intelligent human input on some level.

And if I recall correctly, you don't see any connection between abiogenesis and evolution.

Or maybe you are just pretending you don't.
A discussion about abiogenesis can only prove intelligent design??? Does that really make sense to you??
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
You could but it doesn't apply since we accept by faith that God is much greater than man. We don't try to explain away our own existence with our intellect.
You don't try and explain your existence by using your intellect?

No comment.....
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
A discussion about abiogenesis can only prove intelligent design??? Does that really make sense to you??
No it doesn't, because that is not what I said.

An experiment to prove abiogenesis will only prove intelligent design.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Do you understand the point of setting up something like the Miller-Urey experiment?
Yes.
If yes, please describe it.
"The Miller–Urey experiment (or Miller experiment) was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions."

Source

To "set up" experiments and "stimulate" conditions require intelligent human input.

Intelligent design.
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes.
"The Miller–Urey experiment (or Miller experiment) was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions."

Source
But that's not the goal. The goal was to determine if any of the steps from essentially primordial sludge to simple self-replicating cells could be achieved in an environment representative of the ancient earth. Or, to put it another way, if it could happen in an experiment set up like this, it could equally happen in nature without any intelligent input. That is the purpose of the experiment.
 
Upvote 0