Evidence for God from Science

Audie, do you really, truly believe life came from nothing?

RickD wrote:Enlarge? Ok. Here it is enlarged.

Scientifically, life cannot come from non-life.

If those silly scientists don't know what they are talking about when they dismiss the possibility of your idea of God being an answer, what makes you think they will know what they are talking about when they dismiss the possibility of life starting from non-life?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Enlarge? Ok. Here it is enlarged.

Scientifically, life cannot come from non-life.

If those silly scientists don't know what they are talking about when they dismiss the possibility of your idea of God being an answer, what makes you think they will know what they are talking about when they dismiss the possibility of life starting from non-life?

Ken

Ken,

Any scientist that dismisses God as a possibility of how life began, is probably making the claim outside of the field of science. I don't think scientists are silly for being scientists. I think the possibility of God being the answer is better left to philosophy.

Storyteller wrote:Audie, do you really, truly believe life came from nothing?

Of course not nothing-nothing.

And i try, at least, to think in terms of probabilities and data, not just "belief" as such.

Here are some things to consider:

Defining life is not so easy. Sure, this cow is alive, that one who is gracing the barbie is not. But on the level of virus and prions, perhaps some structures we are not familiar with, that is a lot harder. I dont think anyone can point to a bright line distinction but rather to a fuzzy borderline.

There used to be a "vitral force" theory. You can look that up. No such animating force has been detected.

All sorts of complex organic molecules do self assemble under a wide variety of
conditions. Ions, and simple compounds are incorporated into living systems by means of chemical processes.

I do not believe anyone has detected a theoretical or demonstrable barrier to the self assembly of a living thing.

Given that there are 330,000,000 cubic miles of water on earth, and that chemical reactions take place very rapidly, that they number of molecules in a drop of water would take you the rest of forever to count, and, of course, a few million years to play with, I'd say that about anything that can happen would happen.

Maybe a self replicating molecule would arise out of all that. Any reason why not?

Now, if it is shown that such reactions cannot take place sans a vital force or a nudge from God, then fine.

The so called "law of biogenesis" coes not in any way provide that demonstration of impossibility for abio. It has not been "proved impossible".

No law can be proved to be true, all that was done by say Pasteur was to show that under the set of parameters he tested, he failed to produce mice etc.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Enlarge? Ok. Here it is enlarged.

Scientifically, life cannot come from non-life.

If those silly scientists don't know what they are talking about when they dismiss the possibility of your idea of God being an answer, what makes you think they will know what they are talking about when they dismiss the possibility of life starting from non-life?

Ken

This may not be an example but sometimes people only like to believe scientists when they say what they like.

In the event, its a misreading to think "science" proved abio is impossible.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Enlarge? Ok. Here it is enlarged.

Scientifically, life cannot come from non-life.

If those silly scientists don't know what they are talking about when they dismiss the possibility of your idea of God being an answer, what makes you think they will know what they are talking about when they dismiss the possibility of life starting from non-life?

Ken

Ken,

Any scientist that dismisses God as a possibility of how life began, is probably making the claim outside of the field of science. I don't think scientists are silly for being scientists. I think the possibility of God being the answer is better left to philosophy.

If I were looking for the answer to how life began, I would go to a biologist, before going to a philosopher. But that's just me.

K

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Enlarge? Ok. Here it is enlarged.

Scientifically, life cannot come from non-life.

If those silly scientists don't know what they are talking about when they dismiss the possibility of your idea of God being an answer, what makes you think they will know what they are talking about when they dismiss the possibility of life starting from non-life?

Ken

Ken,

Any scientist that dismisses God as a possibility of how life began, is probably making the claim outside of the field of science. I don't think scientists are silly for being scientists. I think the possibility of God being the answer is better left to philosophy.

If I were looking for the answer to how life began, I would go to a biologist, before going to a philosopher. But that's just me.

K

Biologist for an answer to how life began, or to better understand organic life?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:="RickD"]

Audie wrote:Yes

If you believe that, I don't ever want to see you complaining about anything anyone else says here.

Spontaneous life from non-life is the most ridiculous thing ever. With your reliance on science, frankly I cannot understand how you could believe that. Other than you just refuse to believe in God.


I really think you need to think about what you're saying.

Advice better taken than given

You do realize spontaneous generation is obsolete, don't you?

Please enlarge on what you mean by that.

Enlarge? Ok. Here it is enlarged.

Scientifically, life cannot come from non-life. [/quote]

Evolutionists ignore the law of biogenesis just like the laws of thermodynamics in order to prop up evolution,I'm surprised people in physics did not tell biologists to prove life evolves first.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

No, life cannot come from non-life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzj8iXiVDT8

Now, perhaps there are some who hold to abiogenesis among us know more about biology than a professor of biology like Dean Kenyon or any of the other PhD scientists featured in the film. I happen to doubt it. If those guys are that highly educated in the matter -- particularly Kenyon, who has taught the subject for years -- and they come to the conclusions they do, then I'm content holding to what I consider to be obvious: that something cannot give what it does not have, and therefore, life cannot come from non-life.

Pretty good presentation, too. For those who haven't seen it (I hope most have), it's certainly worth the hour.

So a scientific law has been proven. And to think, it just happens to be the
one that will also prove god. Convenient, or what?

I doubt I know more than those guys, but if you're going to appeal to authority there is no shortage of PhD scientists in the field of biology making regular jokes about Behe & co's rather fringe ideas. I'm 20 mins into the documentary and really struggling - it's painful.

I suspect much of the issue is what we consider life, I see it as a blurry gap between chemistry & biology.

Audie wrote:So a scientific law has been proven. And to think, it just happens to be the
one that will also prove god. Convenient, or what?

It lines up with what the bible says, now where is your evidence it's wrong?

Whether it is convenient or not has nothing to do with anything, now does it? But as a matter of fact, it doesn't prove God. Science cannot prove God, because the question of God is not a scientific question. It certainly lends incredible credence to the claim, but it doesn't prove it. Imagine this scenario:

Unbeknownst to us, our universe is, in fact, a part of a multiverse. But the multiverse is so constructed that our universe began a finite time ago, but it is "under" or contingent upon a "higher" universe that has always existed. And that "higher" universe is filled with highly advanced intelligent species that know how to travel between various universes. And perhaps these aliens decided to seed one of these universes with life. For what reason? Who knows? I'm not the alien. I'm not even much of a sci-fi writer! I'll let you provide a reason. The point would just be that these aliens are alive and they gave life. And where did they get it from? They come from a universe in which life has ALWAYS existed. You don't have to explain the origin of what did not come into existence.

Now, do I believe that is actually the case? Not at all. Could you come up with a better sci-fi story? I'm sure. Would I believe that one? Almost certainly not. But my only point is that such stories are why ID cannot prove God exists. It can only provide (strong) warrant for the claim and then let philosophy get back to its work.

But more important than all that, there is simply no chemical pathway from life to non-life. Not, anyway, according to biologists like Kenyon. And perhaps you, with you BSc, who certainly knows more about biology than I do (and I truly mean that!) knows more about biology than Kenyon does. But I doubt it. And honestly, why should I believe you rather than him when he literally wrote the book on the matter?

The more interesting question to me is why you are so interested in denying what science is currently saying about the origin of life? I mean, perhaps in the future science will find some way to offer a chemical pathway for non-life to life. But as of now, it doesn't exist, and nothing is on the horizon. So my question to you, and I really am asking you, is why you think you know better than where the evidence is pointing? What do you know that scientists don't that gives you such confidence that something can happen that we have absolutely NO evidence for and ALL the evidence against? Put as simply as I can, on what basis do you reject what science is currently saying about how life got started (or, more technically, about how it could not have gotten started)?

Let's not look at it like I'm on the naturalistic evolution team and you're not.Instead let's try to go by evidence and let the chips fall where they may.Because unless we approach this like this nobody is going to learn anything and we'll just be talking past each other.We must be willing to try to The best of our abilities to search for truth and evidence and be willing to admit we are wrong.

Getting back to the original topic.

What I'm seeing here is not much to do with the validity of ToE, whatever one means by that...
but rather the validity of Naturalism over and against Creation or vice-versa.

People standing on one philosophical worldview (Naturalism) against people on the opposite side (Theism) and vice-versa.

Little to do with science on both sides imho. More a war of worldviews.