The Only Debate Worth Having About Science And The Past

Loudmouth · Jun 24, 2015

The Cadet said:
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.

The M-U experiments were also a look back at an old idea called "vitalsim":
"Vitalism is an obsolete scientific doctrine that "living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things".
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=vitalism

What they wanted to know is if the production of amino acids required life, if amino acids were fundamentally different from what abiotic processes could produce. They found that biochemistry can be produced through abiotic means which was one of the first steps in showing how life could emerge in the absence of life.

Loudmouth · Jun 24, 2015

Smidlee said:
Miller-Urey experiment proves you can natural produce random left and right handed amino acids and has nothing to do with life. Amino acids doesn't equal life no more than oil equals a Ferrari.

The old argument was that biomolecules required life, therefore abiogenesis could not occur.

Smidlee · Jun 24, 2015

Loudmouth said:
The old argument was that biomolecules required life, therefore abiogenesis could not occur.

Just because somehow you can explain how oil turns to gas naturally still has nothing to do with a Ferrari.

Loudmouth · Jun 24, 2015

Smidlee said:
Just because somehow you can explain how oil turns to gas naturally still has nothing to do with a Ferrari.

Explaining how the building blocks of life can come about through abiotic means is part of the explanation for abiogenesis.

Smidlee · Jun 24, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Explaining how the building blocks of life can come about through abiotic means is part of the explanation for abiogenesis.

And that the end of the story since a dead cell has the exact amount of building block as a living cell. So amino acid doesn't equal life.

KWCrazy · Jun 24, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
What "create something from nothingness"-claim exactly are you talking about and which natural law exactly is violated by it?

We're talking about the auto-origination of the universe from nothing, which is precluded by the first law of thermodynamics which states that the amount of energy in a closed system (none) remains constant. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet we exist. The origination of that existence requires the violation of the first LoT. All theories of origination run into that little barrier; they are all impossible. Energy/matter cannot be created. Period.

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

That which is not eternal has a beginning and an end. Our universe is not eternal, and yet we exist. Therefore our existence had a beginning. The origination of energy is impossible; so the impossible happened. If you say that no supernatural force caused it, then you must believe a natural force caused it. The origination of energy by natural forces is a violation of natural law, so therefore you have to believe in something precluded by the very laws you espouse.
There's no way around it.

I accept the explanations that are actually supported by evidence. Regardless of wheter they are "natural" or "unnatural" explanations.

Wrong. There are no natural explanations of origination, and yet you claim that everything came about by natural forces. This means that you believe in something for which there is no proof. All of the vaunted theories of how the universe came about share the same commonality; they all require a violation of natural law.

The only one here who seems to find it important if it's natural or unnatural, is YOU.

Thank you.

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

There is no evidence whatever of something originating from nothingness, and yet you believe it.

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

You mean your definition of reality.

Please demonstrate that we don't live in a "strictly natural world".

We exist.
Without forces outside of natural law, nothing that exists would have ever come into existence. Natural law precludes the origination of anything.
Beyond that, supernatural experiences have been recorded since the dawn of man. Many have been posted on this website.

How do I objectively test for the presence of "supernatural entities"?

I've answered this many times.
Find a clergyman with at least two decades of experience.
Sit down with him and have him tell you his experiences with the supernatural.
First hand experience is very powerful if you have any ability to tell the truth from fabrication.
You could also delve into the supernatural through other means, but the Bible instructs us not to contact spirits lest we be defiled by them.

The subject is science and the study of physical reality.

I've said over 100 times that science was the study of the physical world.
I've also said that science is not a synonym for truth. Things can have a scientific explanation without that explanation being even close to what happened. The fact is that there is more to existence than the physical existence. Science can neither prove nor disprove it. Attempting to disprove the supernatural with science is about as useless as trying to PROVE the supernatural with science.

We are not talking about "all the answers". We are talking about science and scientific answers.

On the subject of origination the truth is that science cannot account for it.

I can certainly support it by pointing out that everyting, like literally everything, is ruled by natural law.

Correct. That's why we do not exist. We could never come into existence because the energy which made us could never be created or destroyed. We could never initiate original thought because the existence of the human spirit is contrary to natural law. The miracles that 25% of Americans report experiencing are all lies because nothing can violate natural law. The apparitions recorded on film are all fake because no such entity could exist. Orbs of light could never be seen because there is no logical explanation for them. Near death experiences are all lies.

Either that or you're wrong.
Personally, I've seen the supernatural, so I know first hand that you are as wrong as can be.

This god only exists between your ears.

Why are you here, specifically?
I've never seen you. I have seen spirits. That tells me that they are more real than you are.
Natural law is the regulating force of the universe, but it is not supreme.
The Lord is supreme.
The Lord can, and has, frozen time.
There are 333 recorded violations of natural law in the Bible. We call them miracles.
We know how the universe began. God spoke. It happened.

You KNOW that the way to properly answer that question is by doing the science required to answer the question.

Attempting to use natural law to prove or disprove the supernatural is a logical fallacy.

joshua 1 9 · Jun 24, 2015

Gracchus said:
In the first place, life is chemistry. It is not a substance.

The average person has enough actual substance to fill a tea spoon. It you were to walk through a wall there is very little chance that any of your substance would collide with anything in the wall. Even two atoms would pass right through each other. There is very little chance anything would collide. Life is mostly energy and pretty much an illusion. For example, we do not actually see an object. We see the light that is not absorbed and is reflected or refracted by the object.

SkyWriting · Jun 24, 2015

The Cadet said:
Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic,

More undigested mutton...as Scrooge would say.

DogmaHunter · Jun 25, 2015

rider99 said:
We're talking about the auto-origination of the universe from nothing

So.... we're talking about speculation and, at best, a couple of neat ideas of cosmologists?

Last time I checked, the origins of the universe are pretty much unkown. So excuse me if I don't entertain your strawman.

, which is precluded by the first law of thermodynamics which states that the amount of energy in a closed system (none) remains constant.

Yes. That closed system being the universe, yes. Which means that those laws apply WITHIN the confines of the universe, yes.

Whatever originated the universe however, was not the universe nore did it happen within the confines of the universe - since the universe didn't exist.

It seems to me to be kind of irrational to use laws that apply IN the universe to make a point about a context where the universe doesn't exist...

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet we exist. The origination of that existence requires the violation of the first LoT.

Wait, are you saying that the existence of life somehow violates thermodynamics? How so?

All theories of origination run into that little barrier; they are all impossible. Energy/matter cannot be created. Period.

...within the confines of the universe, yes.
But if you were talking about the origin of living things above..... no energy or matter gets created for living things. Merely rearranged.

The matter and energy that makes up your body is not "new".

That which is not eternal has a beginning and an end.

Yeah, I meant like a real example...
You made a statement wich implied a kind of high level of certainty. I assumed you actually had a real example to support your assertion. I guess you don't then.

Our universe is not eternal, and yet we exist. Therefore our existence had a beginning. The origination of energy is impossible; so the impossible happened.

No matter or energy needs to be created or destroyed for life to originate.

If you say that no supernatural force caused it, then you must believe a natural force caused it.

There's nothing about the nature of living systems that requires "unnatural" forces.
Our bodies are build from the most common elements in the universe and our biology follows the normal rules of chemistry.

There's nothing about life as we know it that requires unnatural forces.

The origination of energy by natural forces is a violation of natural law, so therefore you have to believe in something precluded by the very laws you espouse.
There's no way around it.

No, I don't. I don't HAVE to believe anything.
When it comes to the origins of our universe, I take the honest road by saying that I don't know. You should try it sometime.

Wrong.

I think I know better how my mind works then you do...

Again: I accept whatever explanation that can be properly supported. I have no emotional preference for a specific outcome (unlike theists, evidently).

I have never seen a properly supported supernatural explanation for anything.

There are no natural explanations of origination, and yet you claim that everything came about by natural forces.

I never claimed that. You are just saying I claimed that, but I'll challenge you to quote me where I supposedly have said that.

When it comes to the origin of the universe, we have no explanation - full stop.
WE DO NOT KNOW. How many times must it be repeated?

There is no evidence whatever of something originating from nothingness, and yet you believe it.

This is the last time that I will repeat this.
I'll be extra clear, so you'll have no excuse to next time you try to put words in my mouth:

I believe nothing in particular concerning the origin of the universe.
The origins of the universe are UNKNOWN at this point.
When asked what the origin is, I will reply with I DON'T KNOW.

You mean your definition of reality.

Errr... no.... just commonly observable reality.

We exist.
Without forces outside of natural law, nothing that exists would have ever come into existence.

Please demonstrate / support this claim.

Beyond that, supernatural experiences have been recorded since the dawn of man. Many have been posted on this website

Yes, we know the human mind is very prone to hallucination, optical illusions, false positive cognition errors, superstition,...

I've answered this many times.

Find a clergyman with at least two decades of experience.
Sit down with him and have him tell you his experiences with the supernatural.
First hand experience is very powerful if you have any ability to tell the truth from fabrication.

Errr....
This makes no sense. I asked you for a method to test for supernatural presence, because I can't just take people's word for it.

Your response? Well, talk to such or such a person and take their word for it.
Well... no.

The fact is that there is more to existence than the physical existence.

How do you know?

Science can neither prove nor disprove it. Attempting to disprove the supernatural with science is about as useless as trying to PROVE the supernatural with science.

Hmmm. I tend to disagree. Science most certainly is in the business of disproving things.

As for supernatural things, specific claims can surely be tested. When there is, for example, a claim saying that a supernatural event flooded the entire planet - then that's testable to some degree. Because physical floods leave physical traces.
We can't test for the supernatural cause of said flood, that is correct.
But we can verify if a flood on such a scale has ever taken place. And when the evidence shows that it didn't, we can consider the specific claim about said supernatural flood to be disproven.

On the subject of origination the truth is that science cannot account for it.

......yet.
There was a time when science couldn't account for the motion of the planets.
There was a time when science couldn't account for the diversity of life.
There was a time when science couldn't account for lightning.

As a result, people were attributing those unexplained things to gods. Exactly like you are doing now.
It's nothing but an argument from ignorance.

Correct. That's why we do not exist. We could never come into existence because the energy which made us could never be created or destroyed.

No energy needs to be created or destroyed for living things to exist dude.
You're making less and less sense as we go on....

You are not made from matter or energy that didn't exist before you did.
The atoms that make up your physical body are older then the solar system. And before those atoms existed, it was energy.
Nothing was created to make you. Matter was merely rearranged. And the energy that you use for living, isn't "created" on the spot. It comes from sources like food, the sun, etc. It's all pre-existing energy and matter.

We could never initiate original thought because the existence of the human spirit is contrary to natural law. The miracles that 25% of Americans report experiencing are all lies because nothing can violate natural law. The apparitions recorded on film are all fake because no such entity could exist. Orbs of light could never be seen because there is no logical explanation for them. Near death experiences are all lies.

Either that or you're wrong.

Or option number three: you have no clue what you are talking about.
Once more: no energy or matter needs to be created for living things to exist. It's all pre-existing matter and pre-existing energy.

Personally, I've seen the supernatural, so I know first hand that you are as wrong as can be.

And other people have seen Elvis alive and well at Burger King.

Why are you here, specifically?
I've never seen you. I have seen spirits. That tells me that they are more real than you are.

How do you know that you weren't hallucinating or simply mistaken about what you think you saw?

Natural law is the regulating force of the universe, but it is not supreme.
The Lord is supreme.
The Lord can, and has, frozen time.
There are 333 recorded violations of natural law in the Bible.

There are natural law violations in just about every religious scripture.
The thing is, that these violations only exists in those books.

We call them miracles.

Except when they are mentioned in the "wrong" books, I bet.
Like the "recording" in the quran of Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse and splitting the moon in two.
I bet you don't agree that that "recording" is accurate, correct?
Why not?

We know how the universe began. God spoke. It happened.

No, that's what you believe. Belief is not the same as knowledge.
You don't know. Nobody knows. It's unkown.

Attempting to use natural law to prove or disprove the supernatural is a logical fallacy.

I can't disprove the supernatural, because it is by definition not falsifiable.
And unfalsifiable claims are infinite in number. Making them utterly worthless and meaningless.

Long post... sorry. But there was a lot of nonsense to reply to...

KWCrazy · Jun 25, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Last time I checked, the origins of the universe are pretty much unkown.

Unknown to you but known to God, who wrote about it in His book.
The laws of science are known, though, and anyone who pretends that energy can originate from no energy doesn't understand basic science. That isn't a straw man, that's natural law. Pretending it doesn't exist is not science.

Whatever originated the universe however, was not the universe nore did it happen within the confines of the universe - since the universe didn't exist.

Ah, a point of agreement.

It seems to me to be kind of irrational to use laws that apply IN the universe to make a point about a context where the universe doesn't exist...

Only because it destroys your argument of natural origination. It seems to me perfectly logical to point out that scientifically nothing that exists could have been brought into existence without outside influence, which confirms the need for a Creator and affirms that without an external Creator that the universe could not exist.

Wait, are you saying that the existence of life somehow violates thermodynamics?

No. Origination is impossible and yet we exist, so provably the impossible happened. That's a miracle, not science.

But if you were talking about the origin of living things above.....

No, I said we exist. No universe, no us.

You made a statement wich implied a kind of high level of certainty.

What's so uncertain about saying that things which are not eternal have a beginning and an end? The opposite of infinite is finite.

There's nothing about the nature of living systems that requires "unnatural" forces.
Our bodies are build from the most common elements in the universe and our biology follows the normal rules of chemistry.

Where did those elements originate?
Who wrote the rules of biology?
How did life originate? The origination of life is equally as impossible as the origination of energy.
Life doesn't need unnatural forces to continue, but it couldn't auto-originate. Increasing complexity has never been demonstrated.

When it comes to the origins of our universe, I take the honest road by saying that I don't know. You should try it sometime.

More honest than some, I'll admit. However I DO know the origins of the universe, and I know the originator of the universe. Talk about friends in high places!

I have never seen a properly supported supernatural explanation for anything.

Supported by what, natural law? A supernatural event with a provable natural cause? Seriously?
God doesn't provide physical proof. The closest you can get is personal testimony unless you somehow experience a miracle. It could happen.

I never claimed that.

Okay, here's you chance to clarify. The universe came about by:
Natural forces
Supernatural forces.
Choose only one.

When it comes to the origin of the universe, we have no explanation - full stop.

And yet, this forum is replete with people claiming that their version of origination is true and the Biblical version is false. How can you say how something did not happen if you don't know how it did?

Errr... no.... just commonly observable reality.

Not all reality is observable.
Germs are reality but man can only see them through a microscope. Before that nobody knew they existed.
God is reality but He can't be observed with human eyes either.
The afterlife is reality as well, but there is no way to physically observe and record it.

Please demonstrate / support this claim.

I already did. You agreed that no inside force could have created the universe, therefor an outside force created it. Natural law precludes origination. Origination had to come from outside of natural law.

Yes, we know the human mind is very prone to hallucination, optical illusions, false positive cognition errors, superstition,...

Quite true, but those don't usually happen when one is awake, they aren't witnessed by anyone else, they can't impart knowledge that a person could not otherwise have (ex seeing a surgery from another view while unconscious) and they can't account for the life changing experience that so many NDE's represent.

This makes no sense. I asked you for a method to test for supernatural presence, because I can't just take people's word for it.

Who asked you too?
I didn't ask you to get a written statement, I asked you to talk to them.
Watch their eyes, their posture, their respiration. You can tell when people are lying. Do they look up and right or up and left when they pause; are they making it up or remembering? What we're looking for is eyewitness testimony, and it's so frequent I don't even have to suggest a few specific ministers. Miracles aren't all that rare, they're just impossible to prove.

How do you know?

Personal experience.

As for supernatural things, specific claims can surely be tested. When there is, for example, a claim saying that a supernatural event flooded the entire planet - then that's testable to some degree.

However, lacking eyewitness testimony all you can do is to interpret the evidence using the facts as you believe them to be. If I tell you that a block of ice melts in 20 minutes and you find that block 50% melted, you can assume that it's been out for 10 minutes. However, if it actually melts in 8 minutes it's been out for only 4 minutes. The basis of the analysis has to be right for the conclusion to be right.
We would expect to find fossils everywhere in a global flood. We do; even on mountains.
For every piece of evidence there are different interpretations of what that evidence means.
And no, we can't necessarily prove that a flood has taken place. If anything, we can "prove" it did not. Why? Because God expects us to have faith, not proof. If Jesus came to you today you would have proof. If you came to Him you would have faith.

There was a time when science couldn't account for the motion of the planets.
There was a time when science couldn't account for the diversity of life.
There was a time when science couldn't account for lightning.

And yet we could see that planets and stars were moving, that life was diverse and that lightning flashed in the sky. We never saw anything suddenly pop into existence from nothing.
Sooner or later, someone will come up with a crackpot theory about the instability of matter causing fluctuations in nothing to positive nothing and negative nothing, creating matter and anti-matter and forming the universe from nothing all its own. People will proclaim it to be the truth and will say that they have solved the greatest mystery of all. They will be wrong, but they will have a scientific answer.
The true argument from ignorance is the denial of the Lord, because the most profound ignorance is to not know the Lord. Science my have AN answer, but not THE answer. They answer is that God actually did do it.

You are not made from matter or energy that didn't exist before you did.

Not individually, but collectively yes. I never claimed to be specially made by God; although in a sense we all were. What I said was "the energy which made us could never be created or destroyed." Before we could originate, it did.

Once more: no energy or matter needs to be created for living things to exist. It's all pre-existing matter and pre-existing energy.

Pre-existing energy had an origination, and without that origination we would not exist.
Is this too hard a concept for you? I can simplify it more. You don't have to get insulting and say "you have no clue what you are talking about" when clearly I've made an irrefutable point.

And other people have seen Elvis alive and well at Burger King.

The difference is that thousands of people dress up like Elvis. They aren't 4 foot high shadows that walk through walls.

Like the "recording" in the quran of Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse and splitting the moon in two.

Nothing Mohammed ever said had any truth to it. Islam is a false religion created by the father of lies. Beyond that, not a single miracle was ever attributed to Mohammed. He was merely another false prophet.
Long post... sorry. But there was a lot of nonsense to reply to.

The Cadet · Jun 25, 2015

rider99 said:
Unknown to you but known to God, who wrote about it in His book.

You know, I feel the need to point this out, if you know the person you're conversing with doesn't believe this, saying something like this as a preface to a scientific argument is preachy, condescending, and really annoying.

Mr Strawberry · Jun 25, 2015

The Cadet said:
You know, I feel the need to point this out, if you know the person you're conversing with doesn't believe this, saying something like this as a preface to a scientific argument is preachy, condescending, and really annoying.

I know what you mean, but I have to say that my immediate reaction to that sentence was to laugh because there is no way of saying that sentence out loud without sounding peeved.

KWCrazy · Jun 25, 2015

The Cadet said:
You know, I feel the need to point this out, if you know the person you're conversing with doesn't believe this, saying something like this as a preface to a scientific argument is preachy, condescending, and really annoying.

I was correcting an error. He said that something which has been known to millions of people for thousands of year, was unknown. That's like saying that the winner of last night's ball game is unknown just because you hadn't heard about it yet.

The Cadet · Jun 25, 2015

rider99 said:
I was correcting an error. He said that something which has been known to millions of people for thousands of year, was unknown. That's like saying that the winner of last night's ball game is unknown just because you hadn't heard about it yet.

But it hasn't been known, that's the problem. There's been no reasonable justification to make the claim. "It's in a book"? So what? This book has not been established to be the truth in any meaningful way.

DogmaHunter · Jun 25, 2015

rider99 said:
Unknown to you but known to God, who wrote about it in His book.

So you claim and believe on faith.

The laws of science are known, though,

No, they aren't. At least, I don't feel like you are justified in that statement. You imply that we know everything, but we certainly don't.

Laws are discovered by us and I'm not willing to say that we have no more laws to discover. In fact, if anything, I'ld say it's almost certain that there are still laws to discover. Unlike you, I don't pretend like science has discovered everything there is to discover. Neither do scientists... which is why we still train scientists. Because there's more things to be done.

and anyone who pretends that energy can originate from no energy doesn't understand basic science. That isn't a straw man, that's natural law. Pretending it doesn't exist is not science.

You should read my post with more attention.
I agreed that matter can't be created or destroyed, but only in context of the known universe. This is a law that applies IN the universe.

You seem to be pretending that the laws of the universe also apply when there is no universe. And you are using that to say "therefor god". Amirite?

Only because it destroys your argument of natural origination.

I didn't present you with any argument of natural origination.
What I did tell you about the origin of the universe is.... let me emphase it extra hard this time.... that I don't know.

It seems to me perfectly logical to point out that scientifically nothing that exists could have been brought into existence without outside influence, which confirms the need for a Creator and affirms that without an external Creator that the universe could not exist.

Why?

Why couldn't this outside force be just another natural phenomena?
How have you determined that it must be a personal entity?

I submit that you didn't. You merely already believed that dogmatically on faith, and abuse the ignorance of science on a subject to posit your particular deity of choice.

No. Origination is impossible and yet we exist, so provably the impossible happened. That's a miracle, not science.

Please demonstrate that origination is impossible. Also please mention the origination of what you are talking about, because it's not clear to me at all. The origin of life? The universe? What?
Nevertheless... evidence of this assertion please.

What's so uncertain about saying that things which are not eternal have a beginning and an end? The opposite of infinite is finite.

Don't go obfuscating the subject here....
The statement I was talking about, of which I stated that you implied a high degree of certainty, was this: "Only a stronger external force can violate natural law"
I then asked you for an example of exactly that, to demonstrate the truth of that statement.

I'm still waiting.

Where did those elements originate?

In the core of stars and during super novae.
And then you'll ask "where did the stars originate" and then "where did that originate" and so on, until we reach the first micro-moment of the universe. Then you'll ask "what about before that?", at which point I'll say "I don't know".

This will be the moment you jump 5 feet in the air screaming "GOD DUN IT".
Amirite?

Who wrote the rules of biology?

Why do you hit your wife?

How did life originate? The origination of life is equally as impossible as the origination of energy.

Evidence of this claim?

Life doesn't need unnatural forces to continue, but it couldn't auto-originate.

Evidence of this claim?

Increasing complexity has never been demonstrated.

You started as a single cell and turned out as a human consisting of trillions of cells.
If that isn't an increase in complexity, then I don't know what is.

More honest than some, I'll admit. However I DO know the origins of the niverse,

and I know the originator of the universe.

No. That's what you believe.

Supported by what, natural law?

Evidence... what else?

A supernatural event with a provable natural cause? Seriously?

No. Just evidence. Is the concept of "supporting claims" really so foreign to you?

God doesn't provide physical proof. The closest you can get is personal testimony unless you somehow experience a miracle. It could happen.

How do you differentiate between an accurate and an inaccurate "personal testimony", if not by evidence?

Also, how do you verify if what you believe to have witnessed was actually what you have witnessed? For example, how can you know that you weren't just hallucinating? Or just plain mistaken?

Okay, here's you chance to clarify. The universe came about by:
Natural forces
Supernatural forces.
Choose only one.

I...don't....know.....

Seriously... how many times must it be repeated?

I expect (note: expect, not believe) that the universe has a natural cause.
For the simple reason that for every phenomena of reality that we have studied and explained, it always turned out to have a natural explanation.

The supernatural has never been shown to exist.
The natural is known to exist.

Right out of the gate, it makes a natural explanation more likely.

And yet, this forum is replete with people claiming that their version of origination is true and the Biblical version is false. How can you say how something did not happen if you don't know how it did?

Perhaps you should ask them that question.... I can only speak for myself.

Not all reality is observable.
Germs are reality but man can only see them through a microscope. Before that nobody knew they existed.

In other words: germs are observable..... :-/

God is reality but He can't be observed with human eyes either.

How do you know?

The afterlife is reality as well, but there is no way to physically observe and record it.

How do you know?

I already did. You agreed that no inside force could have created the universe, therefor an outside force created it.

Okay. Seems like stating the obvious. There are no forces of the universe of the universe doesn't exist. Derp.

But I think you were also including "life" itself in that statement, right?
If yes, please demonstrate the claim that the origination of life requires forces not present in the universe.

Natural law precludes origination. Origination had to come from outside of natural law.

You are playing with words now....
If by "natural law", you mean "the laws of the universe", then I agree.
If by "natural law", you also include potential natural laws outside of our universe, then I most certainly do not agree.

I see no reason to assume that the universe isn't part of some larger natural plain of existance, with potentially its own set of laws and forces - which potentially are capable of producing universes.

But I don't know, so I don't make assumptions.
It just seems to me that you exclude such options without any valid reason - which is my only reason for mentioning it.

Quite true, but those don't usually happen when one is awake

What? The list I provided ("hallucination, optical illusions, false positive cognition errors, superstition") are all done while awake. I didn't mention "dreams".

, they aren't witnessed by anyone else,

That's demonstrably false as well.
PLENTY of people have seen Elvis, bigfoot, lochness monsters, shapeshifting aliens, alien abductions,.......

Not to mention the followers of all the religions that you don't happen to buy into.

they can't impart knowledge that a person could not otherwise have (ex seeing a surgery from another view while unconscious) and they can't account for the life changing experience that so many NDE's represent.

They actually can. Talk to a neurologist.

Who asked you too?

Errr... you?
This entire exchange has been nothing but you implying that your religion should just be believed. I asked for a method to verify it and you told me to go look for even more "testimony".

I didn't ask you to get a written statement, I asked you to talk to them.

Which is the exact same thing. It's believing what people say without evidence. If you had evidence, you could just show me the evidence instead of asking me to talk to priests.

Watch their eyes, their posture, their respiration. You can tell when people are lying.

There's this guy who's convinced that he's the reincarnation of Napoleon and is destined to rule the entire world.

The guy really believes it. Put him on a lie detector and he'll pass without breaking a sweat. He doesn't lie. He really believes it.

When people are convinced to be correct, it's only evidence of them believing that they are correct. It doesn't mean they are actually correct.

I'm done with this post. It's the same nonsense over and over again.

Doveaman · Jun 25, 2015

Loudmouth said:
The conditions being simulated are natural conditions.

The simulation itself isn't natural, it's simulated by intelligent humans.

Intelligent design.

Doveaman · Jun 25, 2015

The Cadet said:
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.

As long as intelligent beings are responsible for creating the environment representative of the ancient earth, it is intelligent design.

What the experiment demonstrates is that intelligent beings are responsible for creating the environment of the ancient earth.

The Cadet · Jun 25, 2015

Doveaman said:
As long as intelligent beings are responsible for creating the environment representative of the ancient earth, it is intelligent design.

What the experiment demonstrates is that intelligent beings are responsible for creating the environment of the ancient earth.

To be exact, if we follow your logic, the experiment demonstrates that human beings are responsible for creating the environment of the ancient earth.

Loudmouth · Jun 25, 2015

Smidlee said:
And that the end of the story since a dead cell has the exact amount of building block as a living cell. So amino acid doesn't equal life.

The MU experiment is just part of the story, and it was always meant to be part of the story.

Smidlee · Jun 25, 2015

Loudmouth said:
The MU experiment is just part of the story, and it was always meant to be part of the story.

MU experiment is nothing but chemistry. The idea that man is a product of chemistry is a religious belief. But living cell isn't just chemistry like a dead cell.

The Only Debate Worth Having About Science And The Past

Contributor

Contributor

Veteran

Contributor

Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

Code Monkey

Newbie

SO COOL

Newbie

Newbie

SO COOL

Code Monkey

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

SO COOL

Contributor

Veteran

Similar threads