Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

Cool, I guess that's another example of the Bible being full of shit. Thanks!

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

God is not a natural process, please try to pay attention.

To repeat. There is nothing in living matter that is in nonliving matter. Where else could living matter come from other than non-living matter?

That in no way proves that living matter can naturally arise from non-living matter, there’s nothing in the works of Shakespeare that cannot be found in Nature (ink and paper), but those works didn’t spontaneously generate.

Why is there nothing in life that indicates a creative mind?

DNA indicates a creative mind; it’s the most sophisticated message encoding system we’ve ever observed; it blows the doors off of binary.

Before Pasteur people were seeing life come from non-life all the time. Maggots spontaneously arose from shit for example. You folks were completely satisfied with abiogenesis from observation until Pasteur showed otherwise. Why the sudden change of heart?

I am not that old. You’re the one who is still arguing for spontaneous generation even though it was disproven hundreds of years ago (more so by Redi than Pasteur), not me. Christians have always been opposed to the notion of spontaneous generation (which was a Greek teaching) because Genesis teaches that after creation week life comes from life, all animals reproducing after their kind.

While this statement is true for DNA, it's also not what scientists are claiming. The most common hypothesis is that RNA was the structure that originally became self-replicating within ocean vents. Another common hypothesis is that the Krebs cycle came first...although this is in dispute since the process of replication and generation of ATP are so intertwined that it's hard to imagine one without the other. Spend 20 minutes on wikipedia and read up on the RNA world theory, I'm sure you'll find it quite enlightening.

I am well aware of the RNA World Hypothesis, but thanks for the post. It’s actually losing favor among many Darwinist’s though because it requires the existence of prebiotic pools of beta-D-ribonucleotides, which is nearly impossible in an Oceanic environment. Even if you could find a way to explain how these pools could exist in such an environment you’re then faced with the problem of these Beta-D ribonucleotides spontaneously forming polymer links. There is no known way to achieve the necessary activation of the nucleoside phosphate groups without requiring ATP. Of course there’s no ATP prior to the existence of functioning proteins, but no proteins without ATP and now we’ve got a mess.

The point is, this is science, and eventually this will all be understood.

I think it’s more story telling that actual science.

Of course you don't. Its magic, right?

No, you’re just engaging in mere conjecture and storytelling; it’s not science at all.

Oh I see. Simulating the conditions of a nature that no longer is, is cheating?

You have no clue what the environmental conditions would have been like back then, nobody does; so yes in a way it’s cheating.

Abiotic sysnthesis is plausible.

If that’s your faith position then fine, but it’s not a position supported by the sciences.

The basics of life can form naturally from non-life.

Proof?

That makes it plausible that more complex life could eventually arrise from it.

No, it doesn’t even make it possible, much less plausible.

You moving the goal post and adding more complex qualifiers is a moot point.

Pointing out that you created the wrong amino acids is a moot point? That’s cute, so much faith, so little evidence.

Its a spontanious formation, this formation is a long process. Simple organic molecules are possibly formed through this process and there's any number of hypotheses of how it could occur. Showing that its possible for the foundation to form itself, opens the doors to many other possibilities. Nobody is suggesting that things went from Amino Acids to Human Baby! That's absurd. Kinda like the suggestion that things went from a planet with no people to- Intelligent full grown man! Really dude? Really?

Asserting it was a slow process doesn’t solve anything, you keep trying to sneak a forward looking memory into a system that cannot have one.

Oh I never said he was either of those things. That merely proves that your idea of God could not be in that jar. But, through Jar-God...all things are possible.

No, God’s omnipresence proves that He is in both jars, not that He is in neither jar. How is the claim, “God is not in this jar” falsifiable?

---

Oh you think unfalsifiable means that it's not able to be proven wrong by science!! You're half right...Science only deals with things of substance that correlate to reality, to assert wild postulations that you pull out of your ass, is something quite different. Read the jar question again, and continue trying to nail down the God I say is in there. All the while, thinking about how different it would be if something were supposed to be in the jar such as a bunch of coins. Then you will start to understand the difference in the types of claims.

---

Comparing the existence of an immaterial God to the existence of material coins is quite the category error, for someone who displays such hubris you sure are rather naïve.

Only because you say so, and that you REALLY want it to be true. There's been nothing from you to suggest it's true for any other reasons than those, and those aren't valid ones.

You’ve never asked me for anything else, you’ve been so preoccupied with trying to defend your own absurd claims. We’ll get there.

---

Let's see! A falsifiable claim correlates with reality, and can be either confirmed or falsified. If it has any substance that can at all be verified, it is a falsifiable claim. An unfalsifiable claim does not correlate with reality, its subjects are ungrounded in any evidence and cannot be verified by any justifiable means. The proponent of such claims usually has to resort to methods such as "just trust me" or "It's true because I know it is" and lastly, "its true ONLY because you can't prove it false"...lets see if you have grasped this yet, and whether or not your examples remotely qualify.

---

According to whom is anything you claimed above true? Your opinion won’t get you far in these parts.

---

NOPE! Texas Sailor is real! Even in the sense that he corresponds with you on this forums and others can verify it. If Texas Sailor makes an argument such as...

1) Lightening is made of electricity
2) Electricity comes from The Power Company
3) Therefore lightning comes from The Power Company!

We can prove that lightening doesn't in fact come from the power company, and therein prove that Texas Sailor (who at least exists) cannot really trust is ability to reason. NEXT!

---

:-P So you cannot trust your own ability to reason? Yet, you just tried to give a reason as to why it is that you cannot trust your ability to reason? Well, which is it?

CAN BE FALSIFIED! First, you may need to nail down "generally" this is never really a word involved in any claim worth investigating, that's a pretty weak hypothesis. But, if it turns out that Texas Sailor (Who exists!) is color blind or partially def (as I am from working around F-18s for so long) this can be proven false with simple hearing and vision tests.

How do you know you ever took a hearing or vision test without appealing to your senses? However, you cannot use your senses since the reliability of your senses is what is in question. Looks like you goofed up again!

You clearly don't have a clue what this conversation is about...
Texas Sailor (who exists!)...I like how you couch these claims with "generally" which isn't a claim at all. It's merely an opinon that begs the question.

All inductive claims are based upon the concept of "general"; please learn what you’re talking about.

Flash cards, and memory tests are available to either confirm or falsify this claim, they are in fact necessary for people that think they have Alzheimer's. You knew how stupid that one was right?

Not nearly as stupid as your answer was; how do you know you were ever given a memory test? Do you remember taking the test and what the results were? You cannot appeal to the reliability of your memory in order to prove your memory is reliable. There’s no begging the question allowed here. Oops! You goofed up yet again!

---

OOOOhhhh a big one. Once we have an example of something true that cannot be dicerned by logic, we can falsify it. But for the time being, it remains confirmed as no such evidence supports the contrary, and-REALLY WANTING IT TO BE WRONG, doesn't count. Keep in mind, a falsifiable claim, only needs to have substance that correlates to reality, and can be either confirmed or falsified. Ones inability to prove something wrong because it continues to render consistent results is hardly an unfalsifiable claim. It's a falsifiable claim that has yet to be proven wrong because it renders results that are consistently confirmed. Some other examples...

---

Why are you trying to use a logical argument to try and prove that logical arguments in fact discern truth? Begging the question yet again! You’re not nearly as good at this as I thought you would be.

Newton's Physics and theory of Absolute time sent men to the moon, and was the best theory available at the time. It was never "fact".

My question was about deduction, not inductive reasoning so this is irrelevant.

However,“Future trials will yield identical results as past trials under identical conditions.'' Is true until proven false so long as it does in fact render results.

You screwed this one up too. You cannot use “it’s always worked in the past that way” to justify the belief that future trials will resemble past trials under identical conditions because you are appealing to a past trial (it’s always yielded results for us in the past). This appeal would only be valid if future trials would somehow resemble past trials, but that’s the very thing we are questioning. So again, you begged the question because you used inductive reasoning to try and justify the validity of inductive reasoning. This has been rather entertaining.

Another falsifiable claim!
Unless he dies or something awful! Again, if tomorrow comes and Texas Sailor remains, this can be confirmed.

You did not confirm the claim ‘Texas Sailor will continue to be Texas Sailor tomorrow.” You confirmed the claim “Texas Sailor was still Texas Sailor X moments ago.” Those are two very different claims.

This is a broad and relative statement that begs the question and would need to get clarified. Again...

It’s a rather clear principle that all of inductive reasoning is based upon; we can make general claims about particular experiences. Whenever I drop a ball it falls to the Earth, therefore every time a ball is dropped it falls to the Earth. There is no way to verify or falsify that this form of reasoning is in fact justified and yet all science is predicated upon it being valid.

Hmm...That's a different debate all together, and I would be inclined to agree that some of the things listed are required to falsify things, but, you haven't quite presented reason to believe any of these things are UNfalsifiable.

If the act of falsifying presupposes a particular claim is true, then the truth value of that claim is un-falsifiable.

Unicorns are real

That claim is falsifiable.

Santa Clause is real

Unicorns are invisible and are real

This one too.

The flying spaghetti monster is real and is responsible for all the things we don't have answers for.

This one is falsifiable too.

God is real, he talks to me, and he created everything.

Well He doesn’t talk to me, but He is real and He did create everything.

---

Claim A:
1) a claim made about an actual observable, measurable, and verifiable object/concept/being/process/place/condition.
2) Has actual properties or attributes.
3) The predictions of the theory are able to reproduce accurate, measurable and verifiable results that correlate with truth.
4) Has more evidence to support it is True, rather than False. (this doesn't mean unfalsifiable)


Claim B:
1) A claim made about an object/concept/being/process/place/condition that cannot be observed, measured or verified at all.
2) Has no attributes or properties.
3) The predictions of the theory do not reproduce accurate, measurable and verifiable results that correlate with truth.
4) Has no evidence to support it is True, but rather it shares the same properties as something that would be False. (This is unfalsifiable)

---

You do not seem to understand that you have created a false dichotomy between these two different claims. There are far more than merely two different types of truth claims.

On ancient earth tens to hundreds of quintillions of amino acid molecules or even more than that interacting many times per second for a hundred million years or more and it only has to produce a self-replicating grouping once for life to start.

How do you know how many amino acids were on the ancient Earth?

its really a moot point. A carbon atom is just an atom. Scientists have shown that a simple carbon atom can, under the right conditions, given the right circumstances, and on its own...form into a compound that is the crux of all things that are living. If that can happen, there's good reason to believe that this compound can develop into more complex compounds (which are fortuitously made-up of the same matter), and from there-more complex compounds comprised of more intricate assemblies of the same matter...etc. With millions of years to play with, the right circumstances available, and an unthinkable amount of opportunities, its absolutely naive to suggest that such a thing isn't plausible or at the very least quite possible, and a DAMN SIGHT more possible than any unfalsifiable hypothesis. I don't want it to seem like I'm just picking on God theories as the only ones with no evidence, I'm also saying that The Tooth Fairy, Unicorns and all other like-theories of equal possibility, haven't warranted any credit either. Just to be fair.

This isn’t science, this is just story telling! What conditions are you referring to and how do you know they were present on the ancient Earth? How did the molecules become more complex? Merely asserting they did doesn’t demonstrate anything. What did they form? DNA? Proteins? RNA? Was there oxygen present? What was the catalyst? What was the Earth’s average temperature at that time? You just tossed out complete unsubstantiated garbage and expected someone to fall for it.

Evolution is backed by mountains of evidence,

After seeing what you consider to be “evidence” I am not the least bit surprised you think this is the case.