Abiogenesis is impossible

[The Reality Salesman01]

The "better interpretation" depends on the mind of the individual, and whether or not their idea of a "good interpretation" is one that affirms a presupposed truth, or a reliable conclusion. Emotional investment in a presupposed truth makes one incredibly vulnerable to logical mistakes in judgement.

For example, the child that wants to believe that Santa is real, when they begin to doubt, they will find it easier to accept implausible interpretations of the nature of Santa, so long as what they are being told affirms what they want to believe is true. But something changes in the mind of a child. And as they learn about the world, Santa's existence becomes less and less necessary. Stories that were once effective against their growing sparks of skepticism begin to trigger an attitude of incredulity because they have unwillingly withdrawn the emotional investment in their presupposed conclusion. They are now capable of suspending their belief, and the antidotes for doubt that were once effective, are now battling a healthy immunity. They have since acquired a new set of tools to battle intellectual viruses before they settle in their would-be host and make a permanent stay. A child of 4 years in age will say that the better interpretation of Santa's nature is the one that gives him a reason to perpetuate the belief that he exists. But, once that child matures, and develops a more reliable process for making accurate interpretations for the "better" of the two conflicting explanations, the conclusion they draw is now determined by an honest evaluation of intellectual merit, and not a filter of biases protecting a presupposition. It is in our very nature be blinded by our biases, and it takes much practice to strengthen our immunity to it. This practice is the critical habit of thought. I'm not talking only about religion. We form unreliable beliefs about people, relationships, purchases, investments, and career choices. Superstitious beliefs are just one of the many aspects of our lives that misinformation slips through our otherwise vigilant filter. But if we make a decision to value truth, and not affirmation, we form beliefs that are more accurate reflections of reality. It is then that we will be more aware of the forest we find ourselves in, and we will not find it so inviting to go on thinking the trees around us are all that there is.

[snowtracks]

The "better interpretation" depends on the mind of the individual, and whether or not their idea of a "good interpretation" is one that affirms a presupposed truth, or a reliable conclusion. Emotional investment in a presupposed truth makes one incredibly vulnerable to logical mistakes in judgement.

For example, the child that wants to believe that Santa is real, when they begin to doubt, they will find it easier to accept implausible interpretations of the nature of Santa, so long as what they are being told affirms what they want to believe is true. But something changes in the mind of a child. And as they learn about the world, Santa's existence becomes less and less necessary. Stories that were once effective against their growing sparks of skepticism begin to trigger an attitude of incredulity because they have unwillingly withdrawn the emotional investment in their presupposed conclusion. They are now capable of suspending their belief, and the antidotes for doubt that were once effective, are now battling a healthy immunity. They have since acquired a new set of tools to battle intellectual viruses before they settle in their would-be host and make a permanent stay. A child of 4 years in age will say that the better interpretation of Santa's nature is the one that gives him a reason to perpetuate the belief that he exists. But, once that child matures, and develops a more reliable process for making accurate interpretations for the "better" of the two conflicting explanations, the conclusion they draw is now determined by an honest evaluation of intellectual merit, and not a filter of biases protecting a presupposition. It is in our very nature be blinded by our biases, and it takes much practice to strengthen our immunity to it. This practice is the critical habit of thought. I'm not talking only about religion. We form unreliable beliefs about people, relationships, purchases, investments, and career choices. Superstitious beliefs are just one of the many aspects of our lives that misinformation slips through our otherwise vigilant filter. But if we make a decision to value truth, and not affirmation, we form beliefs that are more accurate reflections of reality. It is then that we will be more aware of the forest we find ourselves in, and we will not find it so inviting to go on thinking the trees around us are all that there is.

everything can be explained that it was created so that becomes the default position. if something can be shown otherwise, then there is a forest without any trees, maybe it was a virus (intellectual of course).

[Bad Wolf]

everything can be explained that it was created so that becomes the default position.

Well, I propose that our universe was created from the sneeze of an infinite being that has always existed, it explains why we always say 'bless you' when someone sneezes. Is this now the default position, since it explains how everything came to be?

[Cyberman]

everything can be explained that it was created so that becomes the default position.

Great. How was it created? By what mechanism? How does it operate? What theories explain the principle?

[Ravenshire]

Stimbo, you know what kind of "answers" your gonna get from Snowy, right?

[Esquilax]

everything can be explained that it was created so that becomes the default position. if something can be shown otherwise, then there is a forest without any trees, maybe it was a virus (intellectual of course).

Oh, is that all it takes to become the default position? That you want it to be true?

That's very convenient for you.

---

Grow the fuck up, Snowy.

---

[Cyberman]

Stimbo, you know what kind of "answers" your gonna get from Snowy, right?

Of course; that's why he needs to say it, to fulfil the prophecy.

[Tonus]

everything can be explained that it was created so that becomes the default position. if something can be shown otherwise,

I'm impressed that you would admit this.

[snowtracks]

no, confined to deprave humanity who were confined to a relatively small area. humans defined here have a spiritual dimension; bipedal primates do not. if they did, the flood would have been more encompassing.

So, just to make sure we're on the same page. We're excluding anything other than HSS. And we're limiting those "depraved" HSS just to the area in which you are (not)describing. So, the rest of the HSS spread around the globe at that time were a-ok (with god), and not depraved.....and thusly did not have to suffer through any flood?

Do I have that about right?

(also, are you saying that if those other bipedal primates had souls the flood would have been bigger? Why? There are, in your scenario - other HSS, with spirit, that the flood didn't touch. Clearly, the "spiritual dimension" doesn't have much to do with this proposed event)

Still wondering about the finer points of floating zoo construction with hand choppers, btw.

when hss came on the scene, advanced human culture appeared suddenly. the technology and culture displayed indicated that they were significantly superior to hominids who possessed some semblance of culture and relatively simplistic technology such as the hand axe which was basically unchanged for 2 million years( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_axe#Hi...stribution). the hss culture shows a quantum leap in cognitive capabilities (including symbolic thought), craftsmanship, inventiveness, and an artistic flair that the grunt brain hominid's didn't. this was the 'big bang' of human culture. from a Christian perspective, this was the result of a new type of creature (hss) that is endowed with a spirit, one made in God's image. neanderthals and other homo sapiens were simply bipedal primates, possessed limited intelligence with some type of culture but animals nevertheless. only hss possess a spirit and hence are held accountable for morality; the flood was a judgment against immorality.
hominids were spread out but not around the world. whereas, hss were confined to the local flood area.

[Bad Wolf]

Snowy, how long ago do you think the flood happened? and how long ago do you think there were other bipedal hominids sharing the planet with humans?