How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?

[SelfSim]

I don't see a mention of 'informed belief' earlier in the thread - do you have a link?

Ha! You're right!
I was in error .. thank you for pointing that out (lucky I didn’t accuse you, personally, of saying that!)
(So I withdraw my claim of a misconception).

It may be vaguely related to my description of 'informed opinion' in another thread, except that I made an explicit distinction between 'belief' and 'opinion', and didn't relate it to science...

Most opinions turn out to have a belief basis anyway. What matters is straining out the belief baggage and then the path taken in getting to 'the truth', (and there's a need use language that clearly distinguishes the difference between a path that relies on objective evidence, and a path which expressly favors say, 'faith' (or belief) over evidence).

How ideas form, doesn't matter so much in the end either.

 

[dad]

Do you have an example of to what you are referring?

Do you have an example of your mother? Dad? Either they are real to us or not.

 

[SelfSim]

For clarification, I'm not talking about your own specific philosophical beliefs. I'm speaking of philosophy of science.

So am I .. As with any other type of thinking, scientific thinking is embedded in human philosophy but it also stands distinct from them. Maintaining those distinctions is what makes it useful (and less confusing for those who who choose not to think that way).

I suppose perhaps we should start with this question: Do you think that there is such a thing as philosophy of science? Do you think that science (insofar as a methodology goes) is dependent on any philosophical underpinnings?

The point I'm making is to leave the untestable of baggage which comes from those philosophies at the door. Realism for instance, comes with untestable beliefs such as the existence of some mind independent reality. That particular belief has zero impact on science's produced version of reality .. It just makes for a more efficient process, with fewer misconceptions to check-in philosophical beliefs and leave them outside the door to science. (Note: This differs from how logic takes them in and references them against its so-called 'self evidenced' truths as a check for consistency. Logic is not science).

Do you believe that reality is real?

That question wouldn't matter to someone thinking scientifically. The whole point is to notice how we create the meaning of 'reality'. Scientific thinkers follow science's objective process, and produce science's meaning of its objective 'reality'. That process stands distinct from the other ways of doing it.

Does the universe exist?

Depends on what you (or I) mean by universe' and what we mean by 'exist' (I gave the brief answer above for the latter (reality/existence), above). When I'm thinking scientifically, and I see the word 'universe', I take it as meaning science's testable models of 'universe' (and not something which exists independently from the way that model has come about by following the scientific method. Everything in that model has an operational definition .. that just doesn't happen with religions or beliefs).

At least we seem to agree on that much.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your assertion that a 'first cause did it' is opaque and unsubstantiated - and why the capitalisation? it doesn't make the words any more interesting or important.

I capitalized First Cause to give it a name, not necessarily a position within a rhetorical logic in the sentence. The assertion that a first cause did it is substantiated if it can be shown that cause-and-effect is pervasive in all effects. Even if, as you suggested, it began at the Big Bang. Meanwhile, whether attached to time sequence or not, logicians everywhere, as far as I know, accept its pervasiveness. (Not that appeal to consensus means anything, except that there are more viewpoints than just yours and mine.)

Your comment about mathematicians is a non-sequitur, and I'd be astonished if any mathematician would equate improbability with impossibility.

I'm sorry. It was a reference to the statement concerning precise calculations of probability. I don't know if you made the bridge to the claim or not, that particles "pop in and out of existence" from mere extreme improbability that they are caused. Perhaps I am assuming a line of thinking from those who say such thing, that doesn't exist --I took your statement concerning precision to relate to that.

A brute fact is simply something that has no explanation, that cannot be explained, i.e. it just is. Whether it can be considered a first cause of anything is moot. Again, the capitalisation is inappropriate (as are the scare quotes).

I apologize for coloring the words. I do have a habit of trying to get across a point by how I say a thing --since I have trouble making myself understood by what I say. And I admit that may be because what I am trying to say simply doesn't make sense. I constantly struggle to find words to get meaning to what I am feeling, and "think" I mean.

Meanwhile, I find you saying brute fact is just what is. But there's my problem. How does a thing just is? If by brute fact you are simply referring to a thing's ontology, it has become a rhetorical or logical point alone --not a statement of its independence from cause. I guess I don't know if that is what you were doing, by saying "brute fact".

I asked you if God exists, not an unspecified first cause. But if there was a first cause, it seems parsimonious to suppose it was the state at the big bang itself, because the big bang started the macro-scale arrow of time in this universe.

As I already described there are plenty of models for the origin of the universe, both temporally finite and temporally infinite that do not involve a beginning of time - in some of which our observable universe is a 'bubble' or 'pocket' universe, so the choice of a 'first cause' depends on the scope you're considering, i.e. there may be multiple arrows of time in the greater universe (multiverse), each of which has a first cause. If you restrict the scope to the arrow of time of our observable universe, the big bang, or whatever caused it, would seem to be it.

My predilection is for a state that is unbounded in time (i.e. temporally infinite) from which our universe emerged, with its own arrow of time - as, possibly, have countless others - but that's just an amusing speculation. What might be considered to be a first cause seems arbitrary in such a model.

I'm not sure what "unspecified first cause" can mean. I'm not sure how "God" specifies first cause, since to me there can be only one first cause. Meanwhile I cannot admit to a God who is not absolute first cause. That would include any number of universes and supposed first causes; what I call God, or (sorry, but), First Cause, would be "above" them all and cause them all, itself uncaused.

I could be wrong, but to me the "temporally infinite" description, at least as relates to origin and existence itself, smacks of infinite regression.

The fact you see time as being necessary concerning the fact of cause-and-effect still bothers me. I wish I could describe well enough what I mean by first cause, perhaps "first principle" would do better. You describe these perhaps valid models of origins that don't involve a beginning of time. Is cause-and-effect of no value there? Are there not governing principles there, in spite of not involving time?

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.

Your assertion that a 'first cause did it' is opaque and unsubstantiated - and why the capitalisation? it doesn't make the words any more interesting or important.

I've already said that cause and effect appears to be an emergent macro-scale phenomenon, dependent on an arrow of time, which is itself an emergent macro-scale phenomenon.

Your comment about mathematicians is a non-sequitur, and I'd be astonished if any mathematician would equate improbability with impossibility.

A brute fact is simply something that has no explanation, that cannot be explained, i.e. it just is. Whether it can be considered a first cause of anything is moot. Again, the capitalisation is inappropriate (as are the scare quotes).

I don't know what you're saying here. I also find it ridiculous to say that something 'is only cause in and of itself', because it doesn't seem to make sense - and in what way do you think knowledge or ignorance of quantum physics may be relevant?

I asked you if God exists, not an unspecified first cause. But if there was a first cause, it seems parsimonious to suppose it was the state at the big bang itself, because the big bang started the macro-scale arrow of time in this universe.

As I already described there are plenty of models for the origin of the universe, both temporally finite and temporally infinite that do not involve a beginning of time - in some of which our observable universe is a 'bubble' or 'pocket' universe, so the choice of a 'first cause' depends on the scope you're considering, i.e. there may be multiple arrows of time in the greater universe (multiverse), each of which has a first cause. If you restrict the scope to the arrow of time of our observable universe, the big bang, or whatever caused it, would seem to be it.

My predilection is for a state that is unbounded in time (i.e. temporally infinite) from which our universe emerged, with its own arrow of time - as, possibly, have countless others - but that's just an amusing speculation. What might be considered to be a first cause seems arbitrary in such a model.

You admitted to much ignorance of quantum physics, but said nothing about it, and I haven't said anything about it (beyond that we don't claim to have a physical explanation for it), so I have no reason to invoke it, and nothing substantial to invoke it on.

Sure, I read it and enjoyed it as much as the sperm whale above Magrathea.

I don't think we're making progress in this discussion - I'm seeing unsubstantiated assertions, arguments from incredulity, claims of logic without explanation, a lot of apparent word-salad with unexplained capitalisation, you also seem to think I've said things I haven't, and I've asked a few simple questions and received no coherent response. You may have a clear idea of what you're trying to say, but it's not coming across in a form I can make sense of, so I'll stop here.

Fair enough, and I'm sorry I can't do better. I find myself bludgeoned by my own words and concepts, sometimes. What I think has to be so has remained, but how to explain, prove, or even describe it escapes me. I may have even strayed past intent into careless use of words and semi-concept just to say something, hoping it made sense to you, hoping you could present it back to me improved or better stated, perhaps --I hope to get past that habit.

I like to say to Christians that we have no honest questions for God; we assume validity to our concepts and definitions, when we are very ignorant of the truth, not to mention self-important in our worldview. I reference what CS Lewis says about the ability of a person to express whatever is central to their thinking and searching, from 'Til We Have Faces (a fable retold) in which the protagonist of the story finally gets the (so she thought) opportunity to present her complaint to the gods, and finds herself saying things she had not planned to say. He (she) then comments: “When the time comes to you at which you will be forced at last to utter the speech which has lain at the center of your soul for years, which you have, all that time, idiot-like, been saying over and over, you'll not talk about the joy of words. I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?”

Anyhow, thank you again for your time and patience, and clear-minded presentation of thoughts.

 

[Michael]

Ha! You're right!
I was in error .. thank you for pointing that out (lucky I didn’t accuse you, personally, of saying that!)
(So I withdraw my claim of a misconception).

Most opinions turn out to have a belief basis anyway. What matters is straining out the belief baggage and then the path taken in getting to 'the truth', (and there's a need use language that clearly distinguishes the difference between a path that relies on objective evidence, and a path which expressly favors say, 'faith' (or belief) over evidence).

How ideas form, doesn't matter so much in the end either.

The distinction between faith and what you're calling "objective evidence" is murky at best. For instance, astronomers seem to have "faith" that "space expansion' is an actual cause of redshift in spite of there being no empirical laboratory evidence to support such a form of faith. There is no actual "objective evidence' that space expansion is an actual cause of redshift, it's simply a faith based form of "dogma" which defies laboratory verification/falsification.

Even if we hold faith (place value) in the scientific method, there is no guarantee that any two unique individuals will arrive at the same concept of "truth" because subjectivity creeps into the process along the way.

 

[jamesbond007]

The best evidence is you. Or it's right in front of your nose. We see God's breath or life spirit that each of us has. Sure, our parents sexually reproduced us, but they did not create the life spirit. It had to exist already inside our cells. No one has been able to bring back the life spirit once it dies for good.

Dr. Louis Pasteur also showed us experimentally that only life begats life. There was no spontaneious generation. Today's secular or atheist scientists believe in a newer form of spontaneous generation in abiogenesis, but life cannot be produced outside the cell. They believe that water is necessary for life which it is, but water is an universal solvent, so it works against forming amino acids; it dissolves them. Miller-Urey has been debunked; see youtube below.

We also have the fine tuning theory which atheist scientists discovered, but now hide as it prevents life on other planets, so no panspermia.

 

[SelfSim]

Off topic .. but some updates may assist:

Dr. Louis Pasteur also showed us experimentally that only life begats life. There was no spontaneious generation. Today's secular or atheist scientists believe in a newer form of spontaneous generation in abiogenesis, but life cannot be produced outside the cell. They believe that water is necessary for life which it is, but water is an universal solvent, so it works against forming amino acids; it dissolves them.

A missing pathway from inorganic to pre-biotic discovered. (Paper here):
Summary:

Peptides, one of the fundamental building blocks of life, can be formed from the primitive precursors of amino acids under conditions similar to those expected on the primordial Earth, finds a new study.

From the press release: Origin of life insight: Peptides can form without amino acids, Nature, July 10, 2019:

Many researchers have sought to understand how peptides first formed to help life develop, but almost all of the research has focused on amino acids, so the reactivity of their precursors was overlooked," said Dr Powner.

The precursors, aminonitriles, require harsh conditions, typically strongly acidic or alkaline, to form amino acids. And then amino acids must be recharged with energy to make peptides. The researchers found a way to bypass both of these steps, making peptides directly from energy-rich aminonitriles.

They found that aminonitriles have the innate reactivity to achieve peptide bond formation in water with greater ease than amino acids. The team identified a sequence of simple reactions, combining hydrogen sulfide with aminonitriles and another chemical substrate ferricyanide, to yield peptides.

"Controlled synthesis, in response to environmental or internal stimuli, is an essential element of metabolic regulation, so we think that peptide synthesis could have been part of a natural cycle that took place in the very early evolution of life," said Pierre Canavelli, the first author of the study who completed it while at UCL.

...

.. Miller-Urey has been debunked ...

We now have Artificial DNA (Hachimoji DNA). (Stephen Benner etal strike again!):

Hachimoji DNA doubles the genetic code:

Researchers in the US have built an “alien” DNA system from eight building block letters, so expanding the genetic code from four and doubling its information density. The new system meets all of the requirements for Darwinian evolution and can also be transcribed to RNA. It will be important for future synthetic biology applications and expands the scope of molecular structures that might be capable of supporting life, both here on Earth and more widely in the universe.

However, (the caveats):

It is wrong to say that hachimoji DNA is alien life though, he <Benner> insists. For that, the system must also be self-sustaining and hachimoji DNA needs a steady supply of the lab-created building blocks and proteins. “As none of these are available outside, hachimoji DNA can go nowhere if it escapes the laboratory.”

Nonetheless, Hachimoji DNA still meets the testable criteria for qualifying as life.

 

[SelfSim]

The distinction between faith and what you're calling "objective evidence" is murky at best.
…
Even if we hold faith (place value) in the scientific method, there is no guarantee that any two unique individuals will arrive as the same concept of "truth" because subjectivity creeps into the process along the way.

So, I think the underpinning of objectivity has much to do with the concept of consistency, but I'd agree that it is far from a simple concept.

For starters, the term 'objective' implies a focus on the 'object', rather than the 'subject', but this doesn't come anywhere close to doing justice to the concept of objectivity. A religious person who says 'God did it', (no names will be mentioned here), as the explanation to everything, is certainly focusing on the 'object' .. they (perhaps) may simply see the 'objects' of their experiences as manifestations of things God did, not things they themselves (the 'subject' of their experience) had anything to do with. So why is that not 'objective' too?

I think one of the main reasons people don't agree on Evolution versus Creationism, for example, is that they don't think in the same way about the concept of consistency. The creationist thinks the evolutionist is being inconsistent, cherry-picking the data they like and ignoring the extreme unlikelihoods they have to brush aside. The evolutionist thinks the creationist is being inconsistent, starting from a point of knowing the required answer and forcing themselves to interpret all information in such a skewed way as to seem consistent with that initial belief.

When we cannot agree on who is being consistent, how can we ever agree on objectivity?

I think the bottom line is, science will, (most likely), always be done by like-minded people, and the consistency scientists seek will be of a particular kind, but it will also, most likely, never be able to be proven to be a universal or absolute form of consistency. If you understand what scientific consistency is, you will be able to be a scientist, and if you do not, you won't, but there's not a whole lot more that can be said without some basic common ground.

One thing is clear to me though .. choosing an unevidenced belief such as 'a mind independent objectivity' as that common ground, renders science as being indistinguishable from being just another religion. Such a 'mind independent objectivity' is evidently just another model created by the mind anyway .. this time, by process of belief generation. That being said, it is also an expedient belief .. convenient for reducing explanatory verbiage (and I, for eg, will continue to use it for that purpose in the 'hard' science model conversations).

Even if we hold faith (place value) in the scientific method, there is no guarantee that any two unique individuals will arrive as the same concept of "truth" because subjectivity creeps into the process along the way.

Yes .. so scientific objectivity is not a simple concept .. it is a way of thinking, and as such, is very much mind dependent. There are many different minds and variations in thinking across that very human population .. that much is heavily evidenced. The alternative is concealing the obvious mind dependency of those scientifically thinking minds however, (ie: in what we think of as being 'objective'), and then denying that evidence .. which just generates suspicions and opens the debate to accusations of hypocrisy and deception.

None of what I have said above, will help you in your quest to accuse mainstream science of the supposed 'mainstream crimes' you claim though .. eg: your use of the lab as empirical science's objectivity 'proving ground' for cosmological scale phenomena, is just scientifically ludicrous, and is an obviously incongruous attempt at simulating a context for anything over those scales. The lab-test studies you point to, are internally inconsistent with the evidence at hand, and are inconsistent (even contradicatory) when compared with eachother.

 

[Michael]

eg: your use of the lab as empirical science's objectivity 'proving ground' for cosmological scale phenomena, is just scientifically ludicrous, and is an obviously incongruous attempt at simulating a context for anything over those scales.

IMO it's very unfortunate that you simply abandon laboratory physics on a whim in the field of astronomy like that. It's very similar to what dad is doing. Plasma physics in the lab scales very nicely actually.

Empirical working (laboratory) physics is the "objective" basis of our modern society. It enables the generation of electricity, facilitates and enables the design of cars, and the manufacturing of computers and the cell phones that we use to communicate here in cyberspace etc. I think we can all agree that these physical things are wonderful examples of "objective" science. It's a pity that you simply "assume" that we must abandon all hope of understanding the universe "objectively", using "objective" laboratory science. Such an attitude simply leads to ideas like Ptolemy and mathematical nonsense IMO.

I do believe that there is such a thing as an "objective reality" that does involve physical "objects" like the Earth, the moon, the Sun, etc. These "physical things" (objects) predate even human existence, and may outlive our entire species as well.

I think we've actually come a long way in terms of our understanding of atoms and electricity, and magnetism, and such, but we clearly still have a long way to go.

I don't think one needs to look much beyond politics to see that many "beliefs" end up being quite subjective, and entirely dependent on the observer. On the other hand, my cell phone "objectively" works, regardless of whether I even understand how or why it works.

 

[coffee4u]

A Christian scientist a few years ago told me that GOD was beyond science so people had to approach HIM based upon faith, like, he is outside of space and time. GOD is an immaterial spirit, right?

Some people have used logic and science, including archaeology and math, to argue away the existence of GOD per say, but not all scientists are atheists. Some of them actually do believe in GOD.

Dad says that complexity of human DNA proves that there is an intelligent creator behind the existence of mankind. He points to that as evidence of GOD and of his faith.

Some of these university professors, who have PHDs and a lot of education under their belt, like to say that GOD does not exist because its not smart or something like that.

Well, I was born pretty smart (for a human) and I still believed anyway. So why does belief in God possibly make me stupid? It does not is what I am saying.

For someone who, unlike me, won't believe on their own and they need, like, science to try and help them find GOD, what should I say to them? Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?

I don't think GOD can actually be found by science. Science deals strictly with the earthly realm, or with what can be seen visibly, so if one is going to find HIM they have to step outside of this world based upon faith.

So GOD is an immaterial spirit, meaning HE is not confined to what can be seen and measured, HE is beyond all of it. Therefore science is unable to either prove or disprove HIS existence. And it probably never will prove HIS existence anyway.

Welcome to CF hon, I would suggest not posting in this area unless you are wanting a debate.
Romans 15:13:
“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.”

 

[SelfSim]

I do believe that there is such a thing as an "objective reality" that does involve physical "objects" like the Earth, the moon, the Sun, etc. These "physical things" (objects) predate even human existence, and may outlive our entire species as well.

'Earth', 'Moon' and 'Sun' are all testable models in science. The notion that they exist independently is not objectively testable. 'Prior to human existence' is another mind model and is therefore, hardly evidence for the mind independence of: 'Earth', 'Moon' and 'Sun'. There is evidence that the meanings of those words certainly involved human minds from our past .. so those meanings were never mind independent either.

I think we've actually come a long way in terms of our understanding of atoms and electricity, and magnetism, and such, but we clearly still have a long way to go.

Every 'thing' you mentioned there, ie: 'atoms', 'electricity' and 'magnetism' are testable models in science (and not independent 'things'). Those were devised by human minds, and humans did the understanding of them.

I don't think one needs to look much beyond politics to see that many "beliefs" end up being quite subjective, and entirely dependent on the observer. On the other hand, my cell phone "objectively" works, regardless of whether I even understand how or why it works.

.. and the distinction of 'subjective' and 'objective' was always quite arbitrary in the first place. 'Objective' never meant 'mind independent', that was always a kind of lie we told ourselves.

What is clear is that many minds don't count as 'objective' (eg: insane, small children, extremely unintelligent and prejudiced minds) - so: How could 'objective' not depend on the mind, if some minds don't get to count as being objective?

 

[Michael]

'Earth', 'Moon' and 'Sun' are all testable models in science. The notion that they exist independently is not objectively testable. 'Prior to human existence' is another mind model and is therefore, hardly evidence for the mind independence of: 'Earth', 'Moon' and 'Sun'. There is evidence that the meanings of those words certainly involved human minds from our past .. so those meanings were never mind independent either.

Every 'thing' you mentioned there, ie: 'atoms', 'electricity' and 'magnetism' are testable models in science (and not independent 'things'). Those were devised by human minds, and humans did the understanding of them.

.. and the distinction of 'subjective' and 'objective' was always quite arbitrary in the first place. 'Objective' never meant 'mind independent', that was always a kind of lie we told ourselves.

What is clear is that many minds don't count as 'objective' (eg: insane, small children, extremely unintelligent and prejudiced minds) - so: How could 'objective' not depend on the mind, if some minds don't get to count as being objective?

If you don't believe that physical objects like the Earth, the moon, the sun, and things like electromagnetism and gravity are even objectively testable, then I don't see how we can agree on anything related to science. They all exist independently of the human mind. A gorilla or giraffe is no more capable of permanently jumping off the surface of the Earth than a human being simply by virtue of holding different beliefs, or possessing a different type of "mind". Even a blind person can feel the heat of the sun on a cyclical and repetitive basis. An alien form of intelligence might give them a different name, but they would experience these things as well.

 

[SelfSim]

If you don't believe that physical objects like the Earth, the moon, the sun, and things like electromagnetism and gravity are even objectively testable,

The Earth, the Moon, the Sun and electromagnetism are all objectively testable models in science. There is no objective evidence that any of them exist independently from human minds. Science never tests the latter .. science only ever tests the models and updates those depending on new evidence. Beliefs are untestable in science - (by definition).

That you choose to believe that they exist independently from a human mind, is your belief and you're welcome to hold that .. because it makes no difference whatsoever to the science.
I'm not expecting you to get this concept .. but it is one of the huge misconceptions motivating your (and others') crusades against science.

.. then I don't see how we can agree on anything related to science. They all exist independently of the human mind.

Then cite the test which specifically excludes the fingerprints of the mind all over it (you will fail in the attempt).
Arm waving your belief into existence won't suffice in this case I'm afraid.

A gorilla or giraffe is no more capable of permanently jumping off the surface of the Earth than a human being simply by virtue of holding different beliefs, or possessing a different type of "mind".

I agree .. that's because beliefs make no difference in testing any of that. If they did make a difference to the science, then we'd measure a difference.
(So just discard the belief - as we already do by ignoring those animal's beliefs .. so why not discard your own, alongside theirs?).

Even a blind person can feel the heat of the sun on a cyclical and repetitive basis.

Blind people sense heat via the model we refer to as sensory touch. Their sensations create perceptions, which their minds then associate with the meaning we hold for 'heat' .. they couldn't do that without also having a mind.
Otherwise: are you saying blind people don't possess a mind? (The cyclical part comes with repetitions of that sensation).
Failed test.

An alien form of intelligence might give them a different name, but they would experience these things as well.

A hypothetical .. (you couldn't come up with one of those without a mind though). Failed test.

 

[Ophiolite]

Any examples of a science that does not label and distinguish things (this is what it reduces personality to)?

This didn't make much sense to me the first five times I read it, but since it would be rude not to reply I'll take a stab at it.

Labelling things and distinguishing things is not, of itself, reductionist. It is a necessary preliminary for scientific investigation, not to mention many (most? all?) instances of meaningful communication.

When we then examine the relationships between those labelled items and explore emergent properties we are assuredly not following a reductionist agenda. Example? Plate tectonics.

 

[jamesbond007]

Off topic .. but some updates may assist:

A missing pathway from inorganic to pre-biotic discovered. (Paper here):
Summary:
From the press release: Origin of life insight: Peptides can form without amino acids, Nature, July 10, 2019:

...
We now have Artificial DNA (Hachimoji DNA). (Stephen Benner etal strike again!):

Hachimoji DNA doubles the genetic code:

However, (the caveats):
Nonetheless, Hachimoji DNA still meets the testable criteria for qualifying as life.

I can't read the papers, but peptides with high content of amino acids will be dissolved in water, too. Thus, you don't want water while they are forming. The paper I read was that now some scientists think amino acids formed in a layer of air and water right above the water -- (Sorry subscription required) In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water–air interface.

We now have Artificial DNA (Hachimoji DNA). (Stephen Benner etal strike again!):

Hachimoji DNA doubles the genetic code:

The following is in regard to monkeys to human evolution. It is estimated that around 98T% of chimp and human DNA are similar. We also know that humans can create new or make great changes at the molecular level, but this is not enough. A great similarity in DNA and small difference in molecules can mean a great difference in the outcome. Thus, what has been discovered does not mean humans evolved from chimps or apes.

Gibbons, Science, Vol. 281. 4 Sep 1998, “Which of Our Genes Make Us Human?” pp. 1432-1434 (Ev)

Fujiyama, Science, Vol. 295, 4 Jan 2002, “Construction and Analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map” pp. 131-134. (Ev)

Science, Vol. 298, 25 October 2002, “Jumbled DNA Separates Chimps and Humans”, pp. 719-720 (Ev)

 

[SelfSim]

I can't read the papers, but peptides with high content of amino acids will be dissolved in water, too. Thus, you don't want water while they are forming.

You don't have to read the papers .. the press release explains:

He and his team have demonstrated that the precursors to amino acids, called aminonitriles, can be easily and selectively turned into peptides in water, taking advantage of their own built-in reactivity with the help of other molecules that were present in primordial environments.
...
"Many researchers have sought to understand how peptides first formed to help life develop, but almost all of the research has focused on amino acids, so the reactivity of their precursors was overlooked," said Dr Powner.

The precursors, aminonitriles, require harsh conditions, typically strongly acidic or alkaline, to form amino acids. And then amino acids must be recharged with energy to make peptides. The researchers found a way to bypass both of these steps, making peptides directly from energy-rich aminonitriles.

They found that aminonitriles have the innate reactivity to achieve peptide bond formation in water with greater ease than amino acids. The team identified a sequence of simple reactions, combining hydrogen sulfide with aminonitriles and another chemical substrate ferricyanide, to yield peptides.
...
"This is the first time that peptides have been convincingly shown to form without using amino acids in water, using relatively gentle conditions likely to be available on the primitive Earth," said co-author Dr Saidul Islam (UCL Chemistry).

The paper I read was that now some scientists think amino acids formed in a layer of air and water right above the water -- (Sorry subscription required) In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water–air interface.

This paper is 8 years old! The research I'm quoting was only published 6 months ago! In it they're saying they don't need aminos in water in order to form peptides.

The following is in regard to monkeys to human evolution. It is estimated that around 98T% of chimp and human DNA are similar. We also know that humans can create new or make great changes at the molecular level, but this is not enough. A great similarity in DNA and small difference in molecules can mean a great difference in the outcome. Thus, what has been discovered does not mean humans evolved from chimps or apes.

Who ever said they did that?

 

[Michael]

The Earth, the Moon, the Sun and electromagnetism are all objectively testable models in science. There is no objective evidence that any of them exist independently from human minds.

You mean *except* for the objective evidence that suggests that they're all older than the human mind?

I'm not really sure how it's possible to agree to anything in science or about science at this point. Evolutionary theory is based on the belief that human minds are relatively "new" additions to a very ancient universe and a set of processes that long preceded the human mind.

 

[SelfSim]

You mean *except* for the objective evidence that suggests that they're all older than the human mind?

Adding time as a dimension, doesn't alter the mind dependence of any model. Time is a fudamental part of how we explain just about anything we perceive (try explaining something without using it .. its even embedded in our language).
Einstein once noticed: 'The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion'. Last time I looked, 'Illusions' sat squarely in the sole domain of human mind constructs.

The model you are referring to is a highly useful way of thinking about the universe and us .. and it takes a mind to do that thinking.
(- Another failed test of mind independent reality).

I'm not really sure how it's possible to agree to anything in science or about science at this point.

Your agreement doesn't really matter so much on this. There is an abundance of evidence supporting Model Dependent Realism and thus far, every test you've come up with supporting mind independent realism, has failed by way of not demonstrating anything independent of some mind or other.

You also have an extensive track record of being accused of unscientific thinking, and I think this point, ie: on how we conceive physical objectivity, is one of your most fundamental misconceptions underlying much of that. (Don't take 'them as fighting words' .. you certainly aren't alone in holding this same misconception. Sometimes this matters in a given discussion, and sometimes it doesn't. You and I also have an extensive history of wrangling on many diverse scientific matters and I can see this as being a consistent underlying theme in those discussions).

Evolutionary theory is based on the belief that human minds are relatively "new" additions to a very ancient universe and a set of processes that long preceded the human mind.

No its not. There is no need for any such initial belief.
Evolution is a very sound scientific theory that produces predictions which test out very well in producing abundant objective evidence, whether anyone chooses to believe that, or not.
Any theory is about making consistent predictions ... no initial beliefs are needed.
Logic requires initial posits .. but until those posits, themselves, test out objectively, logic can only ever 'hope' to reliably uphold consistency with those initial posits, whereas a scientifically tested posit 'empowers' a logical argument giving it both scientific (objective) merit, as well as consistency.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Adding time as a dimension, doesn't alter the mind dependence of any model. Time is a fudamental part of how we explain just about anything we perceive (try explaining something without using it .. its even embedded in our language).
Einstein once noticed: 'The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion'. Last time I looked, 'Illusions' sat squarely in the sole domain of human mind constructs.

The model you are referring to is a highly useful way of thinking about the universe and us .. and it takes a mind to do that thinking.
(- Another failed test of mind independent reality).

Your agreement doesn't really matter so much on this. There is an abundance of evidence supporting Model Dependent Realism and thus far, every test you've come up with supporting mind independent realism, has failed by way of not demonstrating anything independent of some mind or other.

You also have an extensive track record of being accused of unscientific thinking, and I think this point, ie: on how we conceive physical objectivity, is one of your most fundamental misconceptions underlying much of that. (Don't take 'them as fighting words' .. you certainly aren't alone in holding this same misconception. Sometimes this matters in a given discussion, and sometimes it doesn't. You and I also have an extensive history of wrangling on many diverse scientific matters and I can see this as being a consistent underlying theme in those discussions).

No its not. There is no need for any such initial belief.
Evolution is a very sound scientific theory that produces predictions which test out very well in producing abundant objective evidence, whether anyone chooses to believe that, or not.
Any theory is about making consistent predictions ... no initial beliefs are needed.
Logic requires initial posits .. but until those posits, themselves, test out objectively, logic can only ever 'hope' to reliably uphold consistency with those initial posits, whereas a scientifically tested posit 'empowers' a logical argument giving it both scientific (objective) merit, as well as consistency.

I'm coming into your argument a little late, so I don't really know what you are trying to say here, but do you think reality does not exist apart from a person perceiving it?

 

[Michael]

Adding time as a dimension, doesn't alter the mind dependence of any model. Time is a fudamental part of how we explain just about anything we perceive (try explaining something without using it .. its even embedded in our language).
Einstein once noticed: 'The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion'. Last time I looked, 'Illusions' sat squarely in the sole domain of human mind constructs.

The model you are referring to is a highly useful way of thinking about the universe and us .. and it takes a mind to do that thinking.
(- Another failed test of mind independent reality).

You are essentially relegating all of 'science' to pure *subjectivity* that is (apparently) dependent upon purely human perception of "mind". That's rather amusing considering the fact that your cosmology beliefs are dependent upon a series of events that predate the human mind by billions of years.

Your agreement doesn't really matter so much on this. There is an abundance of evidence supporting Model Dependent Realism and thus far, every test you've come up with supporting mind independent realism, has failed by way of not demonstrating anything independent of some mind or other.

By "mind" you imply an "observer"? So nothing "objective" ever happened in the universe prior to life? How is your position any fundamentally different than dad's position?

You also have an extensive track record of being accused of unscientific thinking,

Coming from an individual who's cosmological beliefs have failed every conceivable "test" to date, that's hardly a credible claim.

and I think this point, ie: on how we conceive physical objectivity, is one of your most fundamental misconceptions underlying much of that. (Don't take 'them as fighting words' .. you certainly aren't alone in holding this same misconception. Sometimes this matters in a given discussion, and sometimes it doesn't. You and I also have an extensive history of wrangling on many diverse scientific matters and I can see this as being a consistent underlying theme in those discussions).

Yet your cosmological beliefs (and evolutionary theory and most other branches of science) depend upon their being an 'objective reality" that predates intelligent beings. It's rather odd that you would try to deny the existence of objective reality in the absence of "mind" when the very existence of "mind" (human or otherwise) depends upon numerous previous events that follow predictable "laws" of physics.

No its not. There is no need for any such initial belief.
Evolution is a very sound scientific theory that produces predictions which test out very well in producing abundant objective evidence, whether anyone chooses to believe that, or not.

Yet billions of years of evolution had to follow laws of physics in order for a "mind" (as you call it) to even develop!

Any theory is about making consistent predictions ... no initial beliefs are needed.

Meh. Your belief systems about the universe require a whole host of "beliefs" starting with the "belief" that "space expansion" is an empirical 'cause' of redshift. In the sentence below, you simply replace the term "belief" with "posits".

Logic requires initial posits .. but until those posits, themselves, test out objectively, logic can only ever 'hope' to reliably uphold consistency with those initial posits, whereas a scientifically tested posit 'empowers' a logical argument giving it both scientific (objective) merit, as well as consistency.

Your whole argument is logically inconsistent because it requires a whole series of physical events to occur before "mind" even evolves on a planet, including the formation of suns and planets.