Conservation of energy

[The Tanager]

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.

[benchwarmer]

Actually, there are many options. A natural option (i.e. based on the physical properties of matter that we can observer) or 'something else'.

There are no options that aren't under the "natural" / "supernatural" umbrellas. None...and there is no point in debating me on this fact.

I just gave you options, you didn't like them.

When I said 'nature', I explained it further with 'based on physical properties of matter that we can observe'. Did you miss that part? Can you observe other universes? Are there other universes? Please enlighten us.

This 'something else' could be:
1) Some entity or entities outside our known universe.

Which would be either..

1. More nature outside of our known universe.

See above. You are assuming 'nature' covers things outside our known universe. We don't even know if they exist never mind what is in them. Thus the distinction.

3) Something we haven't thought of yet.

Well, until you can think of a viable third option..the natural/supernatural is all we have.

It's all you have, sure. I'm willing to explore the possibility we don't know everything. That seems to bother you.

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.

If you feel I'm wasting your time, stop replying. Pretty simple. You make points, I make points, we let the readers decide for themselves what's interesting.

Your jumping to the conclusion it is a god concept written about in some ancient literature

Genetic fallacy. Where I got my conclusion has nothing to do with the truth value of the conclusion.

So you are claiming your conclusion is true based on no physical evidence? Got it.

based on no physical evidence

My belief system ain't based on physical evidence. Yours is. And you don't even have that much.

Some is better than none don't you think?

Bruh (as you like to say), this is the science and religion subforum. Here more than most, we appreciate you using the correct terms.

First of all, I never used incorrect terms. So spare me the lectures on what you guys "appreciate".

You have and continue to do so. Do what you like, but this is a source of misunderstanding. Don't you want readers to understand your points? We are not trying to attack you, we are trying to get you to speak the same language by using terms as they are commonly defined.

If I ran around in the apologetics forum using the term 'resurrection' meaning that Jesus woke up from a deep coma, I'm guessing someone might try to correct me. My trying to win debates based on my misunderstanding would not get very far now would it?

Like I said, keep doing what you are doing if you like. Just trying to explain why you keep getting corrected.

I myself have been corrected in the past and welcome the learning experience.

Good for you.

It is good for me. I've learned a ton on this site from a lot of people obviously much smarter and well versed than I. Upon fact checking, I found out they were right and took the correction in stride and moved on.

I mean, come on Ftk, present this God for us to observe and you will win the debate immediately.

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.

You first.

Ah, so now you are moving the goalposts. The life has to be able to talk to you before you'll bother showing us your god? Can I LOL?

Scientists at least admit they can't do this yet

As if they have a choice. LOL.

Ah, so you can read the future as well. Cool.

, but theists keep 'declaring the truth of their God' unabated with even less evidence that science has produced.

The fact that sentient life even exists is evidence for God.

It's just as much evidence for speckled pixies.

At least scientists have produced basic building blocks of life in the lab.

So you produced the steering wheel of a car. Now, what about the rest of it?

Well, a steering wheel is a long shot better than NO evidence of a god.

You got any preliminary evidence of your god in a lab? No? Didn't think so.

I got evidence for God that is convincing enough to me to reject any voodoo scientific theory that is being offered.

Convincing to you being the operative word. Verifiable by 3rd parties it is not. And science is the voodoo...

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.

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.

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?

Yes, of course I will. You quote DI or DrNoGods using the phrase 'brute fact' and I will retract my statement so fast you will LOL and shake your head so fast it might fall off. I admit my mistakes. I will probably also chide DI and DrNoGods for making such an odd statement.

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.

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.

So you retract your statement then... about the ToE mentioning no gods exist. Cool.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 120 by For_The_Kingdom]

DrNoGods wrote:

It is only a tight spot with your custom definition that evolution somehow depends on how life originated.

It does.

No it doesn't. This is the crux of the point I have been trying to make all along. Evolution needs living things to work from, but it does not depend in any way on how those things came into existence. Your insistence that it does, as you just did again with the "It does" response, is wrong no matter how many times you say it. Tell me this ... why do you keep insisting that "It does" (evolution depends on the mechanism for the origin of life) when every definition and description of evolution says otherwise? Do you just refuse to accept the standard definitions everyone else on earth is using, and don't care?

If God doesn't exist, and abiogenesis is false, how can life evolve? Simple question.

Same simple answer you've been given repeatedly by me and others. Evolution needs life forms to work with, but has no dependence on HOW those life forms came into existence. If your question above was "If God doesn't exist, and abiogenesis is false, how can life have originated", then you'd have a point if your all-encompassing definition of abiogenesis was any naturalistic mechanism for the origin of life. But you ended the question with "... how can life evolve", and evolution only requires life to exist by some means. So the answer to your question as posed is that life can evolve just fine as long as life came into existence via some means ... whether natural or supernatural. It doesn't matter at all whether god exists or not, or whether abiogenesis is true or false, as long as life came into existence via some means ... ANY means ... then it can evolve. It really is mind boggling that you are having such a problem with this simple point.

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.

No ... it is your erroneous insistence that evolution has some dependence on the mechanism for the origin of life that is causing you to come to this conclusion. If you remove any dependence of evolution on a mechanism for the origin of life (the actual case that you refuse to accept for some reason), then you don't come to that conclusion because mechanisms for the origin of life are irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

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?

And I can repeat for the umpteenth time ... evolution can occur as long as life came into existence by SOME means. It makes no difference whatsoever what that mechanism was (a god, abiogenesis, etc.). As long as life came into existence by some means, evolution can then occur.

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?

And no one that I've seen disagrees with this, including me. In fact, I've repeatedly stated that evolution has no dependence on HOW life arose, only that it did, and if a god did it that is fine. Evolution doesn't care. So the quoted statement above is perfectly consistent with everything I have said, which is that evolution has no dependence on HOW life originated, only that it did.

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.

I'm following along just fine, and can only repeat what I've said over and over and over again which is that evolution has no dependence on HOW life originated (god, abiogenesis, or any other mechanism). You keep insisting that it does, which is wrong, and then using that nonexistent connection to make claims that evolution can't be true if abiogenesis is false and god doesn't exist.

Answer this simple question: If evolution has NO dependence on any mechanism for the origin of life, does it matter whether abiogenesis (your definition which includes all naturalistic mechanisms for origin of life) is true or false?

[For_The_Kingdom]

If you feel I'm wasting your time, stop replying. Pretty simple. You make points, I make points, we let the readers decide for themselves what's interesting.

That is actually a good idea. Consider this my last response to you on this here subject. And it will gradually progress from there.

I just gave you options, you didn't like them.

When I said 'nature', I explained it further with 'based on physical properties of matter that we can observe'. Did you miss that part? Can you observe other universes? Are there other universes? Please enlighten us.

*sigh* Physical properties of matter in other universes would still be "natural", therefore, the "natural realm".

SMH.

See above. You are assuming 'nature' covers things outside our known universe. We don't even know if they exist never mind what is in them. Thus the distinction.

Nature outside of our universe would still be "nature"; "but outside of our universe".

SMH.

It's all you have, sure. I'm willing to explore the possibility we don't know everything. That seems to bother you.

Ok. Well, make a public service announcement when you get that third option going.

So you are claiming your conclusion is true based on no physical evidence? Got it.

I don't assume that science is the only way to find truth value. Not only don't I assume it, but I flat out know that it isn't.

Some is better than none don't you think?

Depends..

You have and continue to do so. Do what you like, but this is a source of misunderstanding.

I disagree.

Don't you want readers to understand your points?

If you don't understand, ask questions for clarification.

We are not trying to attack you, we are trying to get you to speak the same language by using terms as they are commonly defined.

And I don't believe that I've done otherwise. If you think I did, then we just simply disagree.

If I ran around in the apologetics forum using the term 'resurrection' meaning that Jesus woke up from a deep coma, I'm guessing someone might try to correct me. My trying to win debates based on my misunderstanding would not get very far now would it?

Nope. But that don't have anything to do with my rejection of those specific naturalistic claims (abiogenesis, macroevolution).

Like I said, keep doing what you are doing if you like.

I will.

Just trying to explain why you keep getting corrected.

No amount of corrections in the world will get me to believe that life came from nonlife and that reptiles evolved into birds.

And I am by no means granting this notion of me being in error and needing to be corrected...but just for arguments sake. LOL.

It is good for me. I've learned a ton on this site from a lot of people obviously much smarter and well versed than I. Upon fact checking, I found out they were right and took the correction in stride and moved on.

Cool.

Ah, so now you are moving the goalposts.

The life has to be able to talk to you before you'll bother showing us your god? Can I LOL?

Did life begin to talk a billion years ago (or however many years ago)? So how am I moving the goalposts for demanding scientific proof of alleged natural phenomena?

Well, a steering wheel is a long shot better than NO evidence of a god.

A steering wheel for an automobile is also evidence for intelligent design, too.

Yes, of course I will. You quote DI or DrNoGods using the phrase 'brute fact' and I will retract my statement so fast you will LOL and shake your head so fast it might fall off. I admit my mistakes. I will probably also chide DI and DrNoGods for making such an odd statement.

I will tell you the SAME THING I told Bust Nak, when he brought up the "brute fact" stuff..

I never said that those guys literally used the words "brute fact"...but when they say or imply that evolution (macro) is absolutely, positively true, that is another way of saying "evolution is a brute fact".

And yes, those guys were saying that evolution is absolutely, positively true...therefore..they are implying that it is a brute fact...which is my CORRECT depiction of their statements and position as it relates to evolution.

So you retract your statement then... about the ToE mentioning no gods exist. Cool.

Again..I never said it, so there is nothing to retract. That being said; this is indeed my last post to you on this subject.

[For_The_Kingdom]

No it doesn't. This is the crux of the point I have been trying to make all along. Evolution needs living things to work from

And if God doesn't exist and abiogenesis is false, then it won't have living things to work from, will it?

, but it does not depend in any way on how those things came into existence.

Since the answer to my question above is an obvious "NO", it follows that evolution is dependent upon either God/abiogenesis being true..and if you keep thinking otherwise, I will keep going back to my question: "If God doesn't exist and evolution is false, then how can evolution get going".

You can't rebuttal the truth, amigo.

Your insistence that it does, as you just did again with the "It does" response, is wrong no matter how many times you say it. Tell me this ... why do you keep insisting that "It does" (evolution depends on the mechanism for the origin of life) when every definition and description of evolution says otherwise? Do you just refuse to accept the standard definitions everyone else on earth is using, and don't care?

Because, as I stated to you before; you can't have life evolving if you don't have life originating (abiogenesis)...and if abiogenesis is false, and evolution is true, then that would be the end of naturalism.

Look, there aren't many options out there..so it is an easy process of elimination.

If God doesn't exist, and abiogenesis is false, how can life evolve? Simple question.

Same simple answer you've been given repeatedly by me and others. Evolution needs life forms to work with, but has no dependence on HOW those life forms came into existence.

Notice the question isn't being answered. Ok, we got it, you say that evolution doesn't depend on how life originated...got it...but that is COMPLETELY irrelevant to my question..I will ask again..

If God doesn't exist, and if abiogenesis is false, how...can...life...evolve?

If your question above was "If God doesn't exist, and abiogenesis is false, how can life have originated", then you'd have a point if your all-encompassing definition of abiogenesis was any naturalistic mechanism for the origin of life.

Ok, so now I will ask the same question, but in the a different way; can life evolve, without having originated first? Now, this is a simple yes/no question. It requires no further explanation besides yes/no.

Can life evolve, without having originated first? Yes or no.

But you ended the question with "... how can life evolve", and evolution only requires life to exist by some means. So the answer to your question as posed is that life can evolve just fine as long as life came into existence via some means ... whether natural or supernatural.

Ok, I see what is going on here. In the above statement, you say "whether natural or supernatural", which is speaking in a hypothetical sense. But earlier in our discussions, you and Divine Insight were not speaking hypothetically, but rather explicitly taking God out of the equation...and once you do that, abiogenesis wins by default (law of excluded middle).

And my only point was; well wait a minute, abiogenesis COULD be false. And as long as abiogenesis could be false, you can't rule out God...and if you decide to rule out God, then you are basing your belief in evolution on a theory that could be naturally impossible (abiogenesis)...and if abiogenesis is naturally impossible, there is no possible way evolution could be true.

In other words, you can't logically rule out God and believe in evolution without having a viable theory for abiogenesis (because it could be false).

Now, if that doesn't clarify things for you, then I can't help you. We will have to just simply disagree.

It doesn't matter at all whether god exists or not, or whether abiogenesis is true or false, as long as life came into existence via some means ... ANY means ... then it can evolve.

Not if God doesn't exist and abiogenesis is false. How can you evolve with no life originating?

It really is mind boggling that you are having such a problem with this simple point.

Put God back in the equation of creating life, and there wouldn't be any problems, sir. Can you do that? If you can do that, then we can let bygones be bygones.

[benchwarmer]

*sigh* Physical properties of matter in other universes would still be "natural", therefore, the "natural realm".

Fine, I will grant you this based on your extra qualifications. See? I can be reasonable when you define your terms properly.

I make the distinction between what we can 'naturally' observe and what might exist in another universe in its 'nature'. Clearly it's possible these two (or more) 'natures' could be drastically different. Thus my distinction.

I now understand you when you use the word 'nature' to mean physical properties that could be observed in any/all universes. Hooray, I'll call that progress.

Don't you want readers to understand your points?

If you don't understand, ask questions for clarification.

What exactly is it you think we have all been doing? I think I'm going to SMH at that one...

We are not trying to attack you, we are trying to get you to speak the same language by using terms as they are commonly defined.

And I don't believe that I've done otherwise. If you think I did, then we just simply disagree.

Yes, you disagree on what commonly defined terms in science mean. We get it. When you speak of the ToE, we now know you are not talking about the actual ToE, but your own version of it. We were just trying to get everyone on the same page.

If I ran around in the apologetics forum using the term 'resurrection' meaning that Jesus woke up from a deep coma, I'm guessing someone might try to correct me. My trying to win debates based on my misunderstanding would not get very far now would it?

Nope. But that don't have anything to do with my rejection of those specific naturalistic claims (abiogenesis, macroevolution).

Ya, it does because 'macroevolution' in scientific terms is just the ToE over a long time span. Yet for you, it means something completely different. There is just the ToE. Adding micro or macro only means changing the time span of the process. You thinking micro evolution is valid science and macro evolution is not means you think the process stops working at some unspecified time. Any other meaning means you are adding or subtracting something from the actual definition. Thus our constant attempts to correct your understanding.

No amount of corrections in the world will get me to believe that life came from nonlife and that reptiles evolved into birds.

Yes, we all get that. However, your points against the ToE and various origin theories are meaningless when you attack non-existent theories instead of the actual ones.

And I am by no means granting this notion of me being in error and needing to be corrected...but just for arguments sake. LOL.

Yes, you can never be wrong. Got it.

Did life begin to talk a billion years ago (or however many years ago)? So how am I moving the goalposts for demanding scientific proof of alleged natural phenomena?

You demanded talking life in the lab before showing us your god. Apparently you weren't happy with basic life when you made that statement.

This is a common tactic when theistic explanations fall after science explains various processes. Or do you still think thunder is the voice of an angry god?

We have already granted you the point that scientists have not produced a living organism 'from scratch' in the lab yet. Your insistence that it is not possible is extremely closed minded in my opinion given that they have managed to build some basic building blocks that are precursors to life. Rather than give any evidence or explanation why it's not possible you just LOL/SMH and say goddidit.

Well, a steering wheel is a long shot better than NO evidence of a god.

A steering wheel for an automobile is also evidence for intelligent design, too.

Now you are changing the subject based on an analogy??

Your point was that science has some (even if 'very little' in your opinion) of physical evidence. My point was that some is better than none. Your counter point is do go off on a tangent into ID?

Yes, of course I will. You quote DI or DrNoGods using the phrase 'brute fact' and I will retract my statement so fast you will LOL and shake your head so fast it might fall off. I admit my mistakes. I will probably also chide DI and DrNoGods for making such an odd statement.

I will tell you the SAME THING I told Bust Nak, when he brought up the "brute fact" stuff..

I never said that those guys literally used the words "brute fact"...but when they say or imply that evolution (macro) is absolutely, positively true, that is another way of saying "evolution is a brute fact".

So you couldn't find the quotes. Fine, why not just admit that rather than trying to twist other peoples words to suit your argument.

It's funny because I've seen you get so pedantic about small details when the ball is in your court, yet you fail to meet the same criteria when the shoe is on the other foot. i.e. in a separate thread you called out someone for using the number '500' when they were wrong and should have used 'many'. Good call and I agreed with you. Now you initially claim some people used 'brute fact' and are backpedaling when called on it.

I still stand by my offer to retract if you produce the links. I make mistakes all the time. I don't like it, but I do.

So you retract your statement then... about the ToE mentioning no gods exist. Cool.

Again..I never said it, so there is nothing to retract. That being said; this is indeed my last post to you on this subject.

In post #116 you said:

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 have added the bold.

You are claiming naturalists are using the ToE as evidence of God's nonexistence. Perhaps you were just very, very unclear. Maybe clarify what you meant there and I will happily retract my statement.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 114 by For_The_Kingdom]

...there are only two options...

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.

Let's just go with the two options then.

We are surrounded by nature and we are very much a part of it. We have observed and studied it for millennia. Over that time many phenomena once attributed to god(s) have been recognised as purely natural rather than supernatural. Never the other way around. It continues that way every day as our tools for studying the universe become better and more sophisticated.

On the other hand, gods have never been observed and verified as doing anything. There have been thousands of gods proposed by humans, all accompanied by fanciful origin tales and exploits. Yahweh is just another one. He then evolved into the Jesus character as there was an obvious need for a serious makeover from the tyrannical warlord of the OT to a more user-friendly loving god. Needless to say, it didn't really help. It added nothing to the credibility of the existence of any gods.

It seems to me that the main reason you object to evolution is because it is your specific God that is contradicted by its truth. As I see it, while evolution and god(s) may co-exist, the biblical creation fantasy and evolution cannot.

The physical and chemical properties of matter are amazing. Countless complex chemical changes occur every second without any human or supernatural intervention. A test tube as large as the oceans of the earth filled with untold chemicals together with billions of years of chemical events is more than enough to suggest that abiogenesis is not only possible, but probable. Far more probable than a magical being uttering a few incantation and poofing living things into existence. Even more so when they contain so many flaws that can't be explained if the source is an intelligent designer, but can be when they are seen as the product of an evolutionary process that is not infallible.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 124 by For_The_Kingdom]

And if God doesn't exist and abiogenesis is false, then it won't have living things to work from, will it?

Not unless life originated from some process other than a supernatural creator (a god), or abiogenesis. But with your definition of abiogenesis as any naturalistic mechanism for the origin of life, I agree (as I have stated repeatedly ... life must exist in order for evolution to have material to work with, but it doesn't matter what mechanism produced life to begin with).

Since the answer to my question above is an obvious "NO", it follows that evolution is dependent upon either God/abiogenesis being true..and if you keep thinking otherwise, I will keep going back to my question: "If God doesn't exist and evolution is false, then how can evolution get going".

Ah ... a not-so-subtle rewording of the end of the question (I'm assuming you meant to say that if God doesn't exist and abiogenesis is false, to match earlier similar statements). You've replaced various versions of "how can evolution be true" to "how can evolution get going." Evolution obviously can't "get going" without life originating in the first place. No one disagrees with that. But that is very different from stating that if god does not exist, and abiogenesis is false, then evolution is not true. To steal an example from post 116:

"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)."

This clearly suggests that you are linking the validity of evolution to a mechanism for the origin of life, which is my point of contention. There is no link.

Notice the question isn't being answered. Ok, we got it, you say that evolution doesn't depend on how life originated...got it...but that is COMPLETELY irrelevant to my question..I will ask again..

If God doesn't exist, and if abiogenesis is false, how...can...life...evolve?

OK ... so you now accept (or at least "got it") that evolution does not depend on how life originated. Great. That has been my point all along. But that is totally relevant to your question since you have been claiming that evolution cannot be true if god does not exist and abiogenesis is false. If evolution has no dependence on HOW life originated, then it has no connection to whether it was god or abiogenesis that got it started. ANY mechanism for getting it started would allow life to evolve.

Ok, so now I will ask the same question, but in the a different way; can life evolve, without having originated first? Now, this is a simple yes/no question. It requires no further explanation besides yes/no.

Can life evolve, without having originated first? Yes or no.

Very obviously ... NO. That is the whole point. Evolution requires life to exist in order to have material to work from. But it does not matter HOW that life came into existence ... my entire point from the beginning.

Not if God doesn't exist and abiogenesis is false. How can you evolve with no life originating?

It can't of course. But I think I understand what has been going on now. Your argument is really with the mechanism for the origin of life rather than evolution. The various statements like "if god is negated, and abiogenesis is false, then evolution can't be true" reads as if evolution is the issue, not origin of life (ie. it suggests that evolution depends on how life arose, and so evolution is false if an origin-of-life mechanism isn't identified). But if the point was that evolution can't proceed without some mechanism for origin of life, that has never been in dispute. We don't know the mechanism for origin of life yet, so all viable options are on the table. As long as one of them produced life (god, abiogenesis, etc.) then evolution can proceed independent of that mechanism.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Let's just go with the two options then.

We are surrounded by nature and we are very much a part of it. We have observed and studied it for millennia. Over that time many phenomena once attributed to god(s) have been recognised as purely natural rather than supernatural. Never the other way around. It continues that way every day as our tools for studying the universe become better and more sophisticated.

On the other hand, gods have never been observed and verified as doing anything. There have been thousands of gods proposed by humans, all accompanied by fanciful origin tales and exploits. Yahweh is just another one. He then evolved into the Jesus character as there was an obvious need for a serious makeover from the tyrannical warlord of the OT to a more user-friendly loving god. Needless to say, it didn't really help. It added nothing to the credibility of the existence of any gods.

So basically, "You (me) are just using 'god of the gaps' reasoning". Got it.

It seems to me that the main reason you object to evolution is because it is your specific God that is contradicted by its truth.

Oh, and it has absolutely nothing to do with my perceived lack of evidence for the theory, right?

As I see it, while evolution and god(s) may co-exist, the biblical creation fantasy and evolution cannot.

Depends on the Christian you are talking to at the time.

The physical and chemical properties of matter are amazing. Countless complex chemical changes occur every second without any human or supernatural intervention.

How did those complex chemicals get there in the first place? Million dollar question.

A test tube as large as the oceans of the earth filled with untold chemicals together with billions of years of chemical events is more than enough to suggest that abiogenesis is not only possible, but probable. Far more probable than a magical being uttering a few incantation and poofing living things into existence. Even more so when they contain so many flaws that can't be explained if the source is an intelligent designer, but can be when they are seen as the product of an evolutionary process that is not infallible.

?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Not unless life originated from some process other than a supernatural creator (a god), or abiogenesis.

Whatever process it could be, it would still be a "natural" process (discounting the supernatural for a bit)...so it would still be a case of abiogenesis.

But with your definition of abiogenesis as any naturalistic mechanism for the origin of life, I agree (as I have stated repeatedly ... life must exist in order for evolution to have material to work with, but it doesn't matter what mechanism produced life to begin with).

And I am saying, whatever mechanism it may be it could be false. The term "abiogenesis" covers ALL NATURAL hypothesis. Any natural hypothesis that you can think of will fall under the abiogenesis category.

That is the point that you don't seem to be grasping.

Ah ... a not-so-subtle rewording of the end of the question (I'm assuming you meant to say that if God doesn't exist and abiogenesis is false, to match earlier similar statements).

Good catch. Yup. '8-)'

You've replaced various versions of "how can evolution be true" to "how can evolution get going." Evolution obviously can't "get going" without life originating in the first place.

Splitting hairs. If it "got going" it is true...and if it is "true", it got going.

No one disagrees with that. But that is very different from stating that if god does not exist, and abiogenesis is false, then evolution is not true. To steal an example from post 116:

"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)."

This clearly suggests that you are linking the validity of evolution to a mechanism for the origin of life, which is my point of contention. There is no link.

I am saying; if you take God out of the equation, abiogenesis is NECESSARILY true. Do you understand what that means? That mean that if God is out of the picture, abiogenesis absolutely, positively MUST have taken place..

However, you don't know whether abiogenesis is true...for all we know, abiogenesis may be absolutely, positively FALSE and naturally impossible...and if it is possible for abiogenesis to be false, then it is also possible for evolution to be be false....since evolution depends on life originating in the first place.

If abiogenesis is possibly false, then everything as a result of it must also be possibly false. If it was possible for your parents to not exist, then it follows that it was also possible for YOU to not exist...since you depend on your parents to exist.

Now of course, we can imagine a possible world at which God can create you without creating your parents...but you already stated that God does not exist, so the supernatural hypothesis is negated, so the natural hypothesis is the only game in town.

This is elementary cause/effect talk...you should be able to get it.

OK ... so you now accept (or at least "got it") that evolution does not depend on how life originated. Great. That has been my point all along. But that is totally relevant to your question since you have been claiming that evolution cannot be true if god does not exist and abiogenesis is false. If evolution has no dependence on HOW life originated, then it has no connection to whether it was god or abiogenesis that got it started. ANY mechanism for getting it started would allow life to evolve.

Don't know where you got me granting your point from. LOL.

Very obviously ... NO. That is the whole point. Evolution requires life to exist in order to have material to work from. But it does not matter HOW that life came into existence ... my entire point from the beginning.

I get your point..but when you take God out of the equation, there are certain implications that comes with it, which is that abiogenesis is necessarily true, which we both know is obviously not the case.

It can't of course. But I think I understand what has been going on now. Your argument is really with the mechanism for the origin of life rather than evolution.

I will do you one better; my position is even bolder than that...my beef is with both abiogenesis AND evolution (macro).

The various statements like "if god is negated

But the statement wasn't just thrown out there...it was because you and others had maintained that God doesn't exist.

, and abiogenesis is false, then evolution can't be true" reads as if evolution is the issue, not origin of life (ie. it suggests that evolution depends on how life arose, and so evolution is false if an origin-of-life mechanism isn't identified).

My beef is with both.

But if the point was that evolution can't proceed without some mechanism for origin of life, that has never been in dispute. We don't know the mechanism for origin of life yet, so all viable options are on the table. As long as one of them produced life (god, abiogenesis, etc.) then evolution can proceed independent of that mechanism.

Ok..like I said before; put God back in the mix and we cool.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 128 by For_The_Kingdom]

So basically, "You (me) are just using 'god of the gaps' reasoning". Got it.

Basically everything you post is either the fallacious argument from personal incredulity or god of the gaps.

brunumb wrote: "It seems to me that the main reason you object to evolution is because it is your specific God that is contradicted by its truth."

Oh, and it has absolutely nothing to do with my perceived lack of evidence for the theory, right?

The amount of accumulated evidence for the theory of evolution is so large that the only way that someone cannot perceive its existence is by deliberately refusing to look. Quite the opposite when it comes to evidence for the existence of God. No matter how hard you look, there isn't any to see.

brunumb wrote: "As I see it, while evolution and god(s) may co-exist, the biblical creation fantasy and evolution cannot."

Depends on the Christian you are talking to at the time.

See the words in bold? No Christians necessary.

brunumb wrote: "The physical and chemical properties of matter are amazing. Countless complex chemical changes occur every second without any human or supernatural intervention."

How did those complex chemicals get there in the first place? Million dollar question.

It doesn't matter where they came from since evolution and even abiogenesis are independent of the original source of all matter.