I don't know if this should go here, because I'm not making a religious point off of this here, but it could possibly clear up some confusion in another thread.
Which of these would you say is the law of conservation of energy? Or how would you tighten the law up more?
(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal
(2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.
Conservation of energy
Moderator: Moderators
- The Tanager
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4977
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 149 times
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm
Post #111
I am talking about the origin of life, PERIOD. I don't care how it evolved once it got here, or how it was distributed throughout the universe once it got here. All of that stuff happened after the fact. I am talking about how it originated.DrNoGods wrote:
Panspermia is not at all the same as abiogenesis. Just read their definitions. The Wikipedia article on panspermia defines it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
and the last sentence of the second paragraph is this (underline mine):
"Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its distribution in the Universe."
Evolution describes how life diversified on this planet once it appeared, but it has no dependence whatsoever on HOW life originated. Abiogenesis is an origin-of-life mechanism, while evolution and panspermia are not.
If life forms were transported to Earth via some mechanism (asteroids, comets, space debris, etc.), and that was the source for the first life forms on Earth, then it would follow that panspermia was an explanation for the origin of life on Earth. But it is not a mechanism for life from nonlife, as abiogenesis is. Panspermia is perfectly consistent with an abiogenesis event on some far away body being the source of a life form.
None of this depends on the presence or absence of any god. If life originated on planet Earth via the act of a god (creation), then evolution could proceed just as it does now. If life were transported to Earth from elsewhere (panspermia), then evolution could proceed just as it does now. If life arose from an abiogenesis event on Earth (or elsewhere, then transported to Earth ... ie. panspermia), then evolution could proceed just as it does now. Your continued insistence that evolution is somehow dependent on HOW life arose is simply wrong ... it is not.
Anything outside of that is red herrings.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6607 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Post #112
[Replying to post 111 by For_The_Kingdom]
You don't know how it originated either. All you have is an ancient text written by unknown people trying to guess where everything came from. They invented a magical being who could do anything and said that he therefore made everything. Not much of a hook to hang your hat, but people have wasted their lives chasing all sorts of rainbows.I am talking about the origin of life, PERIOD. I don't care how it evolved once it got here, or how it was distributed throughout the universe once it got here. All of that stuff happened after the fact. I am talking about how it originated.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:45 pm
Post #113
So, FTK...
Do you have anything for the rest of us that would corroborate your claims that the god you like best is responsible for the universe and everything that occurs within it?
You know, something apart from shaking your head, laughing out loud, sticking your fingers in your ears saying "nuh-uh!" and willfully misinterpreting what's being taught to you?
Why don't you present a positive case for us as to why we should accept your god is the one responsible for these things instead of telling us all the ways science has it wrong.
I'll even help you. I'm convinced. You've done it. Abiogenesis and macroevolution don't make any sense and are therefore wrong to me. The universe must also have a cause. I don't know where to turn now that my naturalism religion failed me.
Convince me your god explains it all.
Do you have anything for the rest of us that would corroborate your claims that the god you like best is responsible for the universe and everything that occurs within it?
You know, something apart from shaking your head, laughing out loud, sticking your fingers in your ears saying "nuh-uh!" and willfully misinterpreting what's being taught to you?
Why don't you present a positive case for us as to why we should accept your god is the one responsible for these things instead of telling us all the ways science has it wrong.
I'll even help you. I'm convinced. You've done it. Abiogenesis and macroevolution don't make any sense and are therefore wrong to me. The universe must also have a cause. I don't know where to turn now that my naturalism religion failed me.
Convince me your god explains it all.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm
Post #114
Bruh, there are only two options...brunumb wrote: You don't know how it originated either.
1. Goddidit
2. Naturedidit
Only TWO. I have reasons to believe that God did it, and I have reasons against nature doing it. It is just as simple as that.
Those ancient people were smart enough to realize that if paintings require painters (intelligent designer), then so does the painter.brunumb wrote: All you have is an ancient text written by unknown people trying to guess where everything came from.
Elementary school logic, adopted by these ancient, unknown people...logic of which these modern, known people don't seem to be using.
Kind of like naturalism, and the idea that nature (mother nature) apparently could/did do anything.brunumb wrote: They invented a magical being who could do anything and said that he therefore made everything.
Not only the rainbow, but the pot of gold under it (eternal life).brunumb wrote: Not much of a hook to hang your hat, but people have wasted their lives chasing all sorts of rainbows.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm
Post #115
Yeah...Inigo Montoya wrote: So, FTK...
Do you have anything for the rest of us that would corroborate your claims that the god you like best is responsible for the universe and everything that occurs within it?
My top 3 arguments for theism...
1. Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. Modal Ontological Argument
3. Argument from Consciousness
Also..
For specifically Christian theism: Argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
You (me) establish theism first, and then you move to even more greener pastures by making case for the Resurrection...and then you have successfully arrived at Christian theism.
Obviously, this isn't something that will happen in a day or two, but as you begin to study and begin to think critically, I think any open-minded, reasonable person can/will get there.
I will stop shaking my head when you (and others) stop saying things that allows me to shake my head.Inigo Montoya wrote: You know, something apart from shaking your head
When I joined this great forum, I didn't know that humor was forbidden and frowned upon.Inigo Montoya wrote: , laughing out loud
"What's being taught to you". Again, the whole "you guys are so smart, and I am so dumb" implication. LOL. Yeah, that was funny. Mannn, pleasse. Are you guys going to take heed to what I am "teaching" you? No? Well, then.Inigo Montoya wrote: , sticking your fingers in your ears saying "nuh-uh!" and willfully misinterpreting what's being taught to you?
I love science. I just accept its limitations...which is more than what most of you can say.Inigo Montoya wrote: Why don't you present a positive case for us as to why we should accept your god is the one responsible for these things instead of telling us all the ways science has it wrong.
PM me...and I will provide you a positive case for Christian theism at the most basic fundamental level.Inigo Montoya wrote: I'll even help you. I'm convinced. You've done it. Abiogenesis and macroevolution don't make any sense and are therefore wrong to me. The universe must also have a cause. I don't know where to turn now that my naturalism religion failed me.
Convince me your god explains it all.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm
Post #116
But if you have aids, you have aids in either Canada or China...so your physical location just doesn't matter as it relates to the internal problem within you.Bust Nak wrote: Incorrect. The logic being used has already been provided: being born and raised Canadian, while in Canada I am a "local," if I go to China, I am a "foreigner."
Same thing with abiogenesis/panspermia...regardless of where the life originates naturally, the problem is still "life cannot originate naturally from nonliving material". And that problem is going where ever you want it to go...whether this universe, multiverse, Pluto, or Mars.
And you don't negate this problem by giving it a different name.
Never mind.Bust Nak wrote: Who has ever questioned anything remotely resembling that?
If you are admitting that the concept hasn't change (same thing, different term)..so why was it being used as this third alternative to my contention that there are only two options...God, or natural abiogenesis?Bust Nak wrote: Right, but when it is on Earth it's called abiogenesis, any where else it's called panspermia. Just like a Canadian in Canada is a local but a Canadian in China is foreign. The guy is still a Canadian, the concept hasn't changed, but there is a different term depending on where he is.
Splitting hairs. Labels are irrelevant in this conversation. I could care less what you call it...can you go in a lab and get the results (sentient life from nonlife). No? Well then..moving along.Bust Nak wrote: No, the point is, you keep using the wrong term and ignoring the corrections.
Well, back to the original point; you can't call evolution a brute fact if you can't prove that life can originate from nonliving material (if God's existence is negated).Bust Nak wrote: Why would that be considered a tight spot?!
That, is an OBVIOUS tight spot for naturalists..because they would like to hold tight to the theory of evolution...because that is all they have at this point (of God's nonexistence).
"I don't care whether you call it HPV or warts, Doc...can you CURE IT, that's all I care about".Bust Nak wrote: Now you are getting it. Use the right name, depending on whether you are talking about China or Brazil.
=
"I don't care whether you call it abiogenesis or panspermia, Mr. Scientist...can you go in a lab and produce it, that's all I care about".
And I am trying to get you to go in a lab and produce naturalistic results for alleged naturalistic theories. But that ain't happening.Bust Nak wrote: No one is trying to change the concept. Just trying to get you to use the correct term.
Good.Bust Nak wrote: No, I don't believe that at all.
It is/was quite clear that you are splitting hairs..trying to turn non-issues into issues. Panspermia was a concept that never should have been brought up, because it does nothing to address anything that I've said regarding the impossibility of inanimate life originating from nonliving material.Bust Nak wrote: Incorrect. It was quite clear you had no idea what the issue was. You thought this was an attempt at changing "the concept."
Does his "alienship" mean anything if he has aids? Wouldn't he still be an alien with aids? SMH.Bust Nak wrote: Yes, and when he is on Mars, he wouldn't be. He would be an alien.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2284
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 1957 times
- Been thanked: 737 times
Post #117
Sorry to jump in on Bust Nak's thread, but I can't help myself
This 'something else' could be:
1) Some entity or entities outside our known universe.
2) Some supernatural entity or entities outside all possible universes.
3) Something we haven't thought of yet.
Your jumping to the conclusion it is a god concept written about in some ancient literature based on no physical evidence is no better than someone claiming speckled pixies did it.
By the way, I have a feeling scientists will be able to show the process of life originating from raw inorganic materials long before you will be able to show us your God. I mean, come on Ftk, present this God for us to observe and you will win the debate immediately.
Scientists at least admit they can't do this yet, but theists keep 'declaring the truth of their God' unabated with even less evidence that science has produced. At least scientists have produced basic building blocks of life in the lab. You got any preliminary evidence of your god in a lab? No? Didn't think so.
....
Nothing? Didn't think so. More strawmen. You must own a hay field.
Actually, there are many options. A natural option (i.e. based on the physical properties of matter that we can observer) or 'something else'. For you to declare 'God' as covering everything else is extremely biased and shows you are not really open minded as you have claimed to be in other replies.For_The_Kingdom wrote:
If you are admitting that the concept hasn't change (same thing, different term)..so why was it being used as this third alternative to my contention that there are only two options...God, or natural abiogenesis?
This 'something else' could be:
1) Some entity or entities outside our known universe.
2) Some supernatural entity or entities outside all possible universes.
3) Something we haven't thought of yet.
Your jumping to the conclusion it is a god concept written about in some ancient literature based on no physical evidence is no better than someone claiming speckled pixies did it.
Bruh (as you like to say), this is the science and religion subforum. Here more than most, we appreciate you using the correct terms. I myself have been corrected in the past and welcome the learning experience. You seem to enjoy ignoring the corrections and prattling on with terms that are not precise and lead the conversation nowhere.For_The_Kingdom wrote: Splitting hairs. Labels are irrelevant in this conversation. I could care less what you call it...can you go in a lab and get the results (sentient life from nonlife). No? Well then..moving along.
By the way, I have a feeling scientists will be able to show the process of life originating from raw inorganic materials long before you will be able to show us your God. I mean, come on Ftk, present this God for us to observe and you will win the debate immediately.
Scientists at least admit they can't do this yet, but theists keep 'declaring the truth of their God' unabated with even less evidence that science has produced. At least scientists have produced basic building blocks of life in the lab. You got any preliminary evidence of your god in a lab? No? Didn't think so.
I'm pretty sure the only person erecting the strawman of calling evolution a 'brute fact' is in fact you and only you. While we can certainly observe the process of evolution happening with our very eyes, scientists are open to discarding the theory for something better if that were to come along based on better data. Got any? No? Didn't think so.For_The_Kingdom wrote: Well, back to the original point; you can't call evolution a brute fact if you can't prove that life can originate from nonliving material (if God's existence is negated).
Please point to the part of the ToE that has anything to do with God not existing. We'll wait....For_The_Kingdom wrote: That, is an OBVIOUS tight spot for naturalists..because they would like to hold tight to the theory of evolution...because that is all they have at this point (of God's nonexistence).
....
Nothing? Didn't think so. More strawmen. You must own a hay field.
"I don't care whether you call it Yahweh, God, Father, Lord... can you go anywhere and produce Him for us, that's all we care about".For_The_Kingdom wrote: "I don't care whether you call it abiogenesis or panspermia, Mr. Scientist...can you go in a lab and produce it, that's all I care about".
For evolution, it is happening, you just can't be bothered to go actually check. For origin of life, it's work in progress. Apparently you need all your answers NOW and have decided to use 'god of the gaps' instead of hard evidence.For_The_Kingdom wrote:
And I am trying to get you to go in a lab and produce naturalistic results for alleged naturalistic theories. But that ain't happening.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Post #118
[Replying to post 116 by For_The_Kingdom]
It is only a tight spot with your custom definition that evolution somehow depends on how life originated. Since it doesn't, the tight spot you've created does not exist.
You've said this so many times that it is hard to see why you hold tight to an obvious error, then try to use it to defend a position. Evolution does not depend on how life arose (god, abiogenesis, other). Therefore, both of the conjectures quoted above are meaningless.
First, you claim that evolution can't be true if a naturalistic mechanism for the origin of life can't be shown. You're (again) tying evolution to an origin-of-life mechanism, and that is flat out wrong. Evolution does not depend on any specific mechanism for the origin of life, whether natural or supernatural.
Second, you implied that evolution somehow suggests that gods don't exist. Evolution says nothing about the existence (or not) of any god.
So there is no "tight spot" other than a fictitious one created by your erroneous linking of evolution to an origin-of-life mechanism.
Well, back to the original point; you can't call evolution a brute fact if you can't prove that life can originate from nonliving material (if God's existence is negated).
That, is an OBVIOUS tight spot for naturalists..because they would like to hold tight to the theory of evolution...because that is all they have at this point (of God's nonexistence).
It is only a tight spot with your custom definition that evolution somehow depends on how life originated. Since it doesn't, the tight spot you've created does not exist.
You've said this so many times that it is hard to see why you hold tight to an obvious error, then try to use it to defend a position. Evolution does not depend on how life arose (god, abiogenesis, other). Therefore, both of the conjectures quoted above are meaningless.
First, you claim that evolution can't be true if a naturalistic mechanism for the origin of life can't be shown. You're (again) tying evolution to an origin-of-life mechanism, and that is flat out wrong. Evolution does not depend on any specific mechanism for the origin of life, whether natural or supernatural.
Second, you implied that evolution somehow suggests that gods don't exist. Evolution says nothing about the existence (or not) of any god.
So there is no "tight spot" other than a fictitious one created by your erroneous linking of evolution to an origin-of-life mechanism.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm
Post #119
There are no options that aren't under the "natural" / "supernatural" umbrellas. None...and there is no point in debating me on this fact.benchwarmer wrote: Actually, there are many options. A natural option (i.e. based on the physical properties of matter that we can observer) or 'something else'.
So either enlighten me on what options are outside of those two, or simply grant my point and lets move along.
What?benchwarmer wrote: For you to declare 'God' as covering everything else is extremely biased and shows you are not really open minded as you have claimed to be in other replies.
Which would be either..benchwarmer wrote: This 'something else' could be:
1) Some entity or entities outside our known universe.
1. More nature outside of our known universe.
or..
2. A supernatural element outside of our known universe.
Again, as I stated; either natural, or supernatural.
The supernatural element was already covered. Next.benchwarmer wrote: 2) Some supernatural entity or entities outside all possible universes.
Well, until you can think of a viable third option..the natural/supernatural is all we have.benchwarmer wrote: 3) Something we haven't thought of yet.
So instead of refuting my point, you've actually made my point for me. None of your options are outside out those two umbrellas (natural, supernatural).
So please stop wasting my time by trying to quibble with me regarding factual statements that I am making. Please.
Genetic fallacy. Where I got my conclusion has nothing to do with the truth value of the conclusion.benchwarmer wrote: Your jumping to the conclusion it is a god concept written about in some ancient literature
My belief system ain't based on physical evidence. Yours is. And you don't even have that much.benchwarmer wrote: based on no physical evidence
First of all, I never used incorrect terms. So spare me the lectures on what you guys "appreciate".benchwarmer wrote: Bruh (as you like to say), this is the science and religion subforum. Here more than most, we appreciate you using the correct terms.
Good for you.benchwarmer wrote: I myself have been corrected in the past and welcome the learning experience.
That is your opinion...and I simply disagree. Moving on..benchwarmer wrote: You seem to enjoy ignoring the corrections and prattling on with terms that are not precise and lead the conversation nowhere.
I disagree.benchwarmer wrote: By the way, I have a feeling scientists will be able to show the process of life originating from raw inorganic materials long before you will be able to show us your God.
I will grab God by the collar and bring it to you, once you go in a lab and get me to see inanimate matter come to life and begin to talk to us.benchwarmer wrote: I mean, come on Ftk, present this God for us to observe and you will win the debate immediately.
You first.
As if they have a choice. LOL.benchwarmer wrote: Scientists at least admit they can't do this yet
The fact that sentient life even exists is evidence for God.benchwarmer wrote: , but theists keep 'declaring the truth of their God' unabated with even less evidence that science has produced.
So you produced the steering wheel of a car. Now, what about the rest of it?benchwarmer wrote: At least scientists have produced basic building blocks of life in the lab.
I got evidence for God that is convincing enough to me to reject any voodoo scientific theory that is being offered.benchwarmer wrote: You got any preliminary evidence of your god in a lab? No? Didn't think so.
Let the record speak for itself: Divine Insight and DrNoGods were passing evolution (macroevolution) off as a brute fact in science and nature...all the while maintaining that God doesn't exist.benchwarmer wrote: I'm pretty sure the only person erecting the strawman of calling evolution a 'brute fact' is in fact you and only you. While we can certainly observe the process of evolution happening with our very eyes, scientists are open to discarding the theory for something better if that were to come along based on better data. Got any? No? Didn't think so.
Again, if I have to go back and give you the exact quotes and post #'s from both of those gentlemen, will you apologize for making me out to be dishonest?
Um..I am talking specifically about those who claim that evolution is a fact WITHOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD..and I've said this over and over and over again.benchwarmer wrote: Please point to the part of the ToE that has anything to do with God not existing. We'll wait....
....
Nothing? Didn't think so. More strawmen. You must own a hay field.
So, you'd like me to use the scientific method to prove the existence of an entity that isn't of nature?benchwarmer wrote: "I don't care whether you call it Yahweh, God, Father, Lord... can you go anywhere and produce Him for us, that's all we care about".
Impossible. Because after all, when I say "produce X", I am saying "go in a lab and actually conduct science".
If it is happening, and you know it is happening (as you are stating), then you are contradicting what you said above, when you said..benchwarmer wrote: For evolution, it is happening, you just can't be bothered to go actually check.
"While we can certainly observe the process of evolution happening with our very eyes, scientists are open to discarding the theory for something better if that were to come along based on better data."
If you know it happens with absolute confidence, then you shouldn't find any counter-theories/observations that will allow you to discard the theory.
Unless the theory aint so factual after all.
While you use "nature of the gaps".benchwarmer wrote: For origin of life, it's work in progress. Apparently you need all your answers NOW and have decided to use 'god of the gaps' instead of hard evidence.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm
Post #120
It does.DrNoGods wrote: It is only a tight spot with your custom definition that evolution somehow depends on how life originated.
If God doesn't exist, and abiogenesis is false, how can life evolve? Simple question.DrNoGods wrote: Since it doesn't, the tight spot you've created does not exist. You've said this so many times that it is hard to see why you hold tight to an obvious error, then try to use it to defend a position. Evolution does not depend on how life arose (god, abiogenesis, other). Therefore, both of the conjectures quoted above are meaningless.
No, I am saying that evolution can't be true if God does not exist and abiogenesis is false. It is a logical deduction based on all things considered.DrNoGods wrote: First, you claim that evolution can't be true if a naturalistic mechanism for the origin of life can't be shown.
Then I will ask again, for the umphteenth time; If God doesn't exist (according to your view), and abiogenesis is false (could be), how can evolution occur?DrNoGods wrote: You're (again) tying evolution to an origin-of-life mechanism, and that is flat out wrong. Evolution does not depend on any specific mechanism for the origin of life, whether natural or supernatural.
The answer is; it can't. So it is apparent that evolution is in fact dependent upon ONE of those things being true.
This is not only FALSE...but it is demonstrably false. How many times have I stated that evolution is possible should God exist and he decided to use it as his method of creation? How many times have I said that on this thread?DrNoGods wrote: Second, you implied that evolution somehow suggests that gods don't exist.
Evolution says nothing about the existence (or not) of any god.
Now, I don't know if you are..
1. just clearly not following along in this discussion
2. having reading comprehension issues
3. or is flat out attacking straw man.
Either way, it is sad.
SMH. Okey dokey.DrNoGods wrote: So there is no "tight spot" other than a fictitious one created by your erroneous linking of evolution to an origin-of-life mechanism.