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.
I take it you don't believe in extraterrestrial life.As for a historical demonstration... there was a time when there was no biological life on earth. Now there is. At some point, life came from non-life.
They would be replicating the conditions which brought about the first life form. It wil be a simulation of what happened.
For example, if you want to prove that a royal flush is a possible hand then you could pick out the cards. That seems to be what you think they'd be doing - like they'd have some machine delicately stringing a molecule together. I agree - that would not be acceptable, though it would be progress. But what they're doing is more like shuffling and dealing the cards repeatedly until the hand emerges. And that is the proof of concept.
If it is known it doesn't matter if it is known by faith or by observation. It is still known.The only way you can know it is by faith.
We observe/experiment on earth today that life comes from life. Based on this observation of life from life we can theorize that life on earth emerged from a life-form not of this earth. We can then give that theoretical life-form the name God.In my experience, those who attempt to "prove" God with science usually have a political motive--ranging from the desire of YECs to get fundamentalist Protestant prayer and Bible study into the public schools officially to the totalitarian calvinist theocracy the Discovery Institute dreams of.
Then you agree with the critics here...
1) the God hypo, in origin of life, is unscientific because it cannot be falsified?
2)Therefore need not be considered when seeking a first cause of biolife here?
I don't think so. The fact that nowadays modern chemists would have to synthesise non-living organic compounds and put them together in a suitable environment for them to react to produce a living organism doesn't prove that these organic compounds couldn't have originated non-biologically in space or on the early Earth or that the same suitable environment couldn't have existed on the early Earth. In short, the experiment would show that the presence of intentional living beings was a sufficient condition for abiogenesis but perhaps not a necessary one.
I take it you don't believe in extraterrestrial life.
No, it wouldn´t prove that.While I agree we can't see how life arose back when it did, my point is that even if we replicated the conditions exactly and were able to make life from non-life, this would only prove life arose from an intential conscious effort.
Not really - I am just scrutinizing your argument (which is pretty troublesome, because your point changes all the time, btw.).Besides, you're presupposing life arose from non-life back then, apart from any intentional effort, apart from any intentional effort,
Bummer. Past events cannot be empirically experienced or "demonstrated". Not that revolutionary an insight, I would say.when you know this can't ever be demonstrated to be true.
1. It´s not possible to demonstrate the opposite, either.Its not possible to demonstrate that life came from non-life.
2. Self existent.1. It´s not possible to demonstrate the opposite, either.
2. "Life came from life" wouldn´t explain where life "came from".
Ok, life is self-existent - which makes the question "where did life come from?" obsolete, in the first place.2. Self existent.
No argument there.Ok, life is self-existent - which makes the question "where did life come from?" obsolete, in the first place.
Its not possible to demonstrate that life came from non-life.
Think with me for a second: imagine scientists finally successfully demonstrate how life came from non-life and everyone celebrates the amazing proof for abiogenesis. What they may not realize is, had there not been a living conscious being to perform the demonstration then there'd be no demonstration, therefore the demonstration would actually prove life came from a living being, not non-life.
Now, despite this clear logic, you may still desire to believe life originated from non-life somehow, but you should realize that any demonstration showing life arise from non-life, actually logically requires an intentional living being as the cause.
While I agree we can't see how life arose back when it did, my point is that even if we replicated the conditions exactly and were able to make life from non-life, this would only prove life arose from an intential conscious effort.
The only one presupposing things here, is you.Besides, you're presupposing life arose from non-life back then, apart from any intentional effort, when you know this can't ever be demonstrated to be true. Essentially, this means your belief can never be shown to be true, but it could be shown to be false, if indeed, an intential conscious being(God) is the initial cause of all life.
The first cause of bio life here involves the intervention of a living Being.
Actually, I'm saying if life arose through natural causes and we were able to demonstrate how life came about in that way, then this would prove that life can arise through natural causes only if conscious effort is applied.
Inference to the best explanation given the totality of facts and its alternative hypo as inferior having zero explanatory power or precedent.
Garbage. The whole gogdidit dismissal is sarcastic in the first place and thus unscientific. You don't advance hypos or do science with appeals to sarcasm. You eliminate hypos with superior hypos (not the inferior and contradictory alternative) that jibe with the known facts.
Garbage
It does not have to explain.
It only has to eliminate the alternative hypo to advance
God explains the first cause of bio life and is compatable with all we know about life.
That does not mean it explains nothing.
It explains something unless you consider life nothing. If does no good for science to eliminate valid hypos as unscientific and then refusing to consider them. Its a con job.
Falsifiability means something could be shown to be false. God doesn't fall into that category because God can never be shown to be false. IOW, he's always true.
I wouldn't expect the truth to be falsifiable in the first place, it'd be a contradiction.
Truth is always true, never false, therefore unfalsifiable.
Falsifiability is only for things that we don't yet know the truth about.
Those of us who know God, know he exists and this knowledge comes through faith and belief in Him, which may have included some form of falsifiability /doubts along the way.
Are you saying it's not possible to demonstrate that non-life came from life?1. It´s not possible to demonstrate the opposite, either.Its not possible to demonstrate that life came from non-life.
But it would explain what life came from. Life came from life.2. "Life came from life" wouldn´t explain where life "came from".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?