The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

I view our universe similar to that of a video game, in which the characters have been programmed to a level of sophistication where they have the capacity to make decisions and have consciousness. We will likely one day be able to create a virtual reality with enormous complexity. Are they simply poofed into existence? No they aren't. 

Your religious views say christian, so I think it's safe to say that you're accepting that the universe and the matter in it was crafted by the christian god from nothing, and you've said here that you believe that life was crafted and programmed by a designer. So adding an extra step doesn't really help matters: your god made the universe from nothing, and then using those materials, he crafted life and imbued it with intelligence via a supernatural method. You're still talking about a golem spell, there, you're just wrapping it in language you hope will give a simplistic concept more intellectual cache.

I know the ideas of how it evolved. Once there was a competing solution of biomolecules. Eventually the cells began fermentation. This created an acidic environment to which the cell population responded by developing ATP driven pumps to move protons out. They then developed electron transport chains to move the protons out, which allowed the ATP pump to do the reverse and form ATP. Then gradually it developed into the sophisticated mechanisms employed by cells today. It's not that I won't do the research, it is that these ideas are not empirical, and therefore do not need to be taken as fact. In fact they should not be taken as fact by the scientific community. The rest of us should be scrutinizing these ideas until they can be supported more strongly. That is how ideas are supposed to be received in the scientific community, but you seem to want me to just accept ideas without empirical evidence as true when you like the philosophical implications.

There is empirical evidence for abiogenesis; it's not perfect, and the hypothesis itself still developing, but to assert that there is no empirical data in support of it is just factually incorrect. It is, based on the available data, the best current hypothesis. Meanwhile, we have your god claim, for which there is no empirical evidence at all, and is supported by proponents like you solely by attacking abiogenesis. What we have here is one scientific hypothesis supported by some evidence, and your competing claim, which is supported by nothing other than a series of arguments from ignorance. So you're asking that we accept a claim with zero percent justification, on the basis that the currently accepted theory doesn't have one hundred percent justification. A classic example of the "99% equals 0%" fallacy.

[Esquilax]

Transitioning from one to the other would require invoking many enzymes that we have no idea if they ever existed. It IS speculative. It is speculation based on observation, but it is speculation none the less. Why not speculate and say that the more complex ones have degraded and lost components to become the less complex ones?

Speculation based on observation is a thing we call "probabilistic inference," and it's a cornerstone of scientific epistemology. You make an observation or series of observations, and then you base your conclusions on those, once you've tested for contaminating factors and so on... how else do you think science forms its conclusions?

[AAA]

I view our universe similar to that of a video game, in which the characters have been programmed to a level of sophistication where they have the capacity to make decisions and have consciousness. We will likely one day be able to create a virtual reality with enormous complexity. Are they simply poofed into existence? No they aren't. 

Your religious views say christian, so I think it's safe to say that you're accepting that the universe and the matter in it was crafted by the christian god from nothing, and you've said here that you believe that life was crafted and programmed by a designer. So adding an extra step doesn't really help matters: your god made the universe from nothing, and then using those materials, he crafted life and imbued it with intelligence via a supernatural method. You're still talking about a golem spell, there, you're just wrapping it in language you hope will give a simplistic concept more intellectual cache.

I know the ideas of how it evolved. Once there was a competing solution of biomolecules. Eventually the cells began fermentation. This created an acidic environment to which the cell population responded by developing ATP driven pumps to move protons out. They then developed electron transport chains to move the protons out, which allowed the ATP pump to do the reverse and form ATP. Then gradually it developed into the sophisticated mechanisms employed by cells today. It's not that I won't do the research, it is that these ideas are not empirical, and therefore do not need to be taken as fact. In fact they should not be taken as fact by the scientific community. The rest of us should be scrutinizing these ideas until they can be supported more strongly. That is how ideas are supposed to be received in the scientific community, but you seem to want me to just accept ideas without empirical evidence as true when you like the philosophical implications.

There is empirical evidence for abiogenesis; it's not perfect, and the hypothesis itself still developing, but to assert that there is no empirical data in support of it is just factually incorrect. It is, based on the available data, the best current hypothesis. Meanwhile, we have your god claim, for which there is no empirical evidence at all, and is supported by proponents like you solely by attacking abiogenesis. What we have here is one scientific hypothesis supported by some evidence, and your competing claim, which is supported by nothing other than a series of arguments from ignorance. So you're asking that we accept a claim with zero percent justification, on the basis that the currently accepted theory doesn't have one hundred percent justification. A classic example of the "99% equals 0%" fallacy.

I'd rather not get into the formation of the universe itself, because it will quickly become the infinite regress in which we can get nowhere. However, if we are going to oversimplify each other's position on the formation of the universe, then you believe it created itself. 

And the empirical evidence for abiogenesis is incredibly lacking. I don't think I ever said there was none, although I can't think of any. We were talking about the speculative nature with which they describe the origin of photosynthetic systems. It was not based on empiricism. And I don't think you can just assert that it is the best current hypothesis. There is another hypothesis capable of explaining the features of life, and that is intelligent design. Just because it raises more questions than answers does not mean it isn't correct (I'm not saying you're rejecting it for this reason, but I have a feeling it would have been part of the next response). When people first began to realize that electrons, protons, and neutrons were not the most fundamental particles, it raised a lot of questions, but they did not reject it on that premise. 

Both sides look at the empirical evidence. Both sides go from their to speculate about its origins. I happen to think they should be held on equal scientific grounds. I also think that the discussion should be encouraged in science. However, I think we need a word separate from science, because then it gets hard to discern speculation with empiricism.

[AAA]

Transitioning from one to the other would require invoking many enzymes that we have no idea if they ever existed. It IS speculative. It is speculation based on observation, but it is speculation none the less. Why not speculate and say that the more complex ones have degraded and lost components to become the less complex ones?

Speculation based on observation is a thing we call "probabilistic inference," and it's a cornerstone of scientific epistemology. You make an observation or series of observations, and then you base your conclusions on those, once you've tested for contaminating factors and so on... how else do you think science forms its conclusions?

I agree that speculation is important in science, but don't lump your speculation in with the empiricism that we agree should lead the way.

[AJW333]

Strictly speaking, Christians believe in abiogenesis. The difference is , they believe that God was responsible for it, and that he created Adam complete, with no intermediary steps.

But why?
Why do people believe this?
What is there that makes them accept this unsupported proposition?

I wouldnt call it unsupported. When studied carefully, the Scripture proves to be a reliable witness to what it claims, and to what future events will come to pass.

[ApeNotKillApe]

But why?
Why do people believe this?
What is there that makes them accept this unsupported proposition?

I wouldnt call it unsupported. When studied carefully, the Scripture proves to be a reliable witness to what it claims, and to what future events will come to pass.

You're funny.

[Cyberman]

and to what future events will come to pass.

How can you possibly know that?

[Minimalist]

But why?
Why do people believe this?
What is there that makes them accept this unsupported proposition?

I wouldnt call it unsupported. When studied carefully, the Scripture proves to be a reliable witness to what it claims, and to what future events will come to pass.

You have to be a POE.  No one could be that stupid by accident.

[AJW333]

Take the option that best fits.

Why???? Why not just say, "I don't know! It would be cool to find out!"???? And how do you know your assertions are the ones that "best fit"? If actual scientists did that, they'd never actually learn anything!! Jesus effing Krispy Kreme!

I think I'm about to implode.

Scientists make hypotheses all the time. It is commonplace to see an explanation given without having absolute proof. Abiogenesis is a good example - it is accepted by biologists all over the world without ever having been proven.  In the same way, Christians make a reasoned "hypothesis" that God exists. We would more commonly call that hypothesis, "faith."

[Cyberman]

Yes, scientists make hypotheses all the time. That's the start of the investigation, not the end. The next step is to test them against reality. How would you go about doing that with "God exists"?