Conflicting statements in the bible

[Minimalist]

These people aren't funny. They're sad.

[Statler Waldorf]

Lol, you're right. But I won't threaten to leave the debate again. At this point, I don't even think this qualifies as one. At any rate...I'm gonna keep my posts shorter to avoid responding so much, and avoid reading long em responses. Lets try an exchange over one thought at a time. Fair enough?

Whatever you can handle the best.

It is a Scientific theory that life began from lifeless matter.

I do not think it is scientific at all.

Evidence that such a thing could occur is available.

That’s not true at all, producing a racemic mixture does nothing to prove that a set of amino acids exhibiting homochiralty could ever form, and that’s what you need to produce life. Secondly, synthesizing building blocks in the lab does not prove that these building blocks can produce anything in nature.

The absurd suggestion that is NOT a theory, is that complex life SPONTANIOUSLY came from lifeless matter.

How else would the amino acids arrange in the proper sequence to produce self-replicating life?

How does not understanding one process differ from not understanding the other process? Are you claiming life is an unnatural process?

I am not sure what you’re asking here, you’re going to have to be more specific.

The origin of life is hardly an issue. It is not covered by any known religion rather claims the world was created as it existed at the time of writing the story. That is not a theory. That is bullshit.

Why? Because you say so?

There are living things and non-living things.

Yup.

There is nothing in living things which is not in non-living things.

Living things contain specified complexity, and the ability to self-replicate, neither is naturally found in non-living things (unless otherwise organized/assembled by a guiding mind).

Where else could life come from?

…from a guided intelligent process. You’re the kind of guy who’d try to argue that the patterns on the face of Mt. Rushmore were merely the product of wind erosion. I am calling that type of thinking absurd.

Even the great god Amun created the first man and woman out of clay and breathed life into them. Clay is not alive.

If you wanted to say that God created the first man and woman out of non-living matter then we’d be getting somewhere, but you’re trying to say “it just naturally happened.”

Yes. And as a side note. Everything you presented as an unfalsifiable claim, is falsifiable in one way or another and the subject of each claim given is verifiable.

Then tell me how you can falsify each of those claims, do not just assert that they are falsifiable (which they are not).

I tell you that God is in one (unfalsifiable claim)

I tell you the other is empty.

How can an omnipresent, immaterial God be in one jar but not in the other? Didn't I just falsify your claim?

Why do you keep assuming that all claims are scientifically testable when I have already given you numerous examples of claims that are not? That’s such a naïve view of epistemology. In a Godless Universe science would be impossible.

Personally I'm glad Statlers back.
I like a good laugh me.

I am glad I am back too! I get a good laugh hearing how you guys all think life can naturally arise from non-life because some intelligence in a laboratory was able to synthesize the amino acid building blocks, “look at all these brick buildings, did you know that they are the result of un-guided unintelligent natural processes? Yes, scientists proved it by building bricks in the laboratory and everyone knows that brick buildings are made of bricks! These people who believe that they are the constructed designs of architects are such morons and we should laugh at them!”

Thanks for that.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Not quite dude...it's more like saying-Wow look at this complex organism made of the same things as less complex organisms! I know! They're magic! Actually, they're not. We can simulate the conditions under which such matter can change into a more complex construct. It also just so happens that the said construct is the same stuff we're comprised of! WOW! That's magic! STOP SAYING THAT!!!

---

Ooh ooh! Or...

Wow look at this complex building! It's so intricate Ir must be magic!

Well no, look at this house, its made by people and its comprised of the same fundamental materials.

Ha ha ha..stupid! This building is so much more advanced than that house, plus, I don't know how to make a building like this, so nobody does! It's clearly magic..

You're retarded.

[Statler Waldorf]

We can simulate the conditions under which such matter can change into a more complex construct.

There is no natural tendency for amino acids to arrange themselves in the specific arrangement we observe them in within living organisms. You cannot even synthesize the proper amino acids in the lab much less demonstrate they can self-assemble into anything close to what we observe in DNA. It’s all blind faith.

Wow look at this complex building! It's so intricate Ir must be magic!

No it must be the product of a creative mind; you’re the one who’d have to say if you were consistent that it was just the product of natural processes since we can synthesize bricks in the laboratory and buildings are made of bricks.

Well no, look at this house, its made by people and its comprised of the same fundamental materials.

You have no observed example of natural processes giving rise to living organisms from non-living matter, so you cannot use that to infer that life on Earth naturallly arose from non-living matter.

You're retarded.

…says the guy who thinks that life comes from non-life, go back to the 16th Century with your delusions of spontaneous generation.

Why have you not proven that you can falsify any of the examples of un-falsifiable claims I presented to you? I am beginning to suspect it’s because you cannot do so.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Texas sailor will still be Texas sailor tomorrow... (Statement made at 11:30 pm on MAY 9, 2013)
Texas Sailor is obliterated in a nuclear attack at 11:46pm MAY 9, 2013.

Texas sailor was obliterated before "tomorrow".

Original statement was falsified and proof that such a statement can be falsified has been provided.

Is this the best argument you havre so far? Did you understand the "2 Jar experiment"?.

[Ryantology]

You have no observed example of natural processes giving rise to living organisms from non-living matter, so you cannot use that to infer that life on Earth naturallly arose from non-living matter.

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.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

We can simulate the conditions under which such matter can change into a more complex construct.

There is no natural tendency for amino acids to arrange themselves in the specific arrangement we observe them in within living organisms. You cannot even synthesize the proper amino acids in the lab much less demonstrate they can self-assemble into anything close to what we observe in DNA. It’s all blind faith.

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?

Wow look at this complex building! It's so intricate Ir must be magic!

No it must be the product of a creative mind; you’re the one who’d have to say if you were consistent that it was just the product of natural processes since we can synthesize bricks in the laboratory and buildings are made of bricks.

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

This is way back to the Galvani and Frankenstein life force which is electricity crap.

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?

[Praetorian]

There is no natural tendency for amino acids to arrange themselves in the specific arrangement we observe them in within living organisms....

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.

It's also worth mentioning that several of the components of RNA have indeed been produced in a lab with methods consistent with those that would have been present in an ocean vent. We're still missing a few, but research is constantly being done on it. Go on netflix and watch NOVA science now with Niel Degrasse Tyson, they explain the process in great detail.

The point is, this is science, and eventually this will all be understood. I don't know why the religious resist the findings of science when it doesn't even necessarily contradict your theology. So life started in an ocean vent. You can still posit that it was God that caused it to happen in the first place.

[John V]

Spend 20 minutes on wikipedia and read up on the RNA world theory,

Is this proven beyond a reasonable doubt? If not, why call it a theory? Creationists get crap for saying evolution is only a theory, yet evolutionists use it in the same sense all the time. Go figure.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I do not think it is scientific at all.

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

That’s not true at all, producing a racemic mixture does nothing to prove that a set of amino acids exhibiting homochiralty could ever form, and that’s what you need to produce life. Secondly, synthesizing building blocks in the lab does not prove that these building blocks can produce anything in nature.

Oh I see. Simulating the conditions of a nature that no longer is, is cheating? You would need a time machine to go back and actually witness the supposed slow changing process of abiotic synthesis before you would accept it as plausible? Abiotic sysnthesis is plausible. The basics of life can form naturally from non-life. That makes it plausible that more complex life could eventually arrise from it. That's all that is needed to make the argument against your claim that life can't come from non-life. You moving the goal post and adding more complex qualifiers is a moot point. Abiogeneis is possible and weighted by evidence, Your claim is just possible because its merely an unfalsifiable claim. Santa, Tooth Fairy, and Unicorns are all just as likely as your claim.

How else would the amino acids arrange in the proper sequence to produce self-replicating life?

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?

Then tell me how you can falsify each of those claims, do not just assert that they are falsifiable (which they are not).

He he he...coming up in a different post. I cannot believe you have no idea what the hell an unfalsifiable hypothesis is yet!

I tell you that God is in one (unfalsifiable claim)

I tell you the other is empty.

How can an omnipresent, immaterial God be in one jar but not in the other? Didn't I just falsify your claim?

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.

He he he...You think its that easy? Welcome to this game, and enjoy your experience on the other team.

Why do you keep assuming that all claims are scientifically testable when I have already given you numerous examples of claims that are not?

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.

That’s such a naïve view of epistemology. In a Godless Universe science would be impossible.

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.

---

Here are a few un-falsifiable claims for you that are quite meaningful…

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.

“Texas Sailor can trust his ability to reason.”

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!

“Texas Sailor can generally trust the reliability of his senses.”

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.

“Texas Sailor can generally trust the reliability of his memory.”

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. But, either way, once we nail down what is is to be meant by "generally", we will have a manageable period to determine whether or not Texas Sailor can in fact trust his memory. 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?

the laws of logic discern truth.”

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...

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".

General Relativity comes along and is more accurate. It is not a fact. It's very much falsifiable, but something being falsifiable doesn't mean it IS WRONG. It just continues to render results and has yet to be proven false. Those guys at CERN have been trying to accelerate particles past the speed of light for years, but all they do is confirm Einstein's theory. Again, a theory that is constantly confirmed is not wrong just because there's the possibility that it could be. You need to prove it.

“Future trials will yield identical results as past trials under identical conditions.”

That seems like a logical statement, but of course, it can be confirmed, so it has the potential to be falsified. If something different were to occur under the same conditions using the same experiments, then you've got something...Such as ooohhh Quantum Physics? Of course, you may find that you thought it was the same conditions, but the smallest difference may not have been accounted for. 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.

“Texas Sailor will continue to be Texas Sailor tomorrow.”

Another falsifiable claim!
Unless he dies or something awful! Again, if tomorrow comes and Texas Sailor remains, this can be confirmed. It is not fact, but it has the possibility of being falsified because we understand Texas Sailor, we know of conditions that could render this statement false, but if there is no evidence that it is false, it's more likely that the statement is true than false. It is a good theory under the weight of the evidence that supports Texas Sailor and the liklihood of his future existance.

“It is justified to reason from particular experiences to general claims”

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

1) Lightning is made of electricity
2) Electricity comes from the power company
3) Therefore, Lightning comes from the power company.

Not a single one of these is falsifiable

and yet without them the act of falsifying would be impossible.

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 you would only apply half of that thought to your own personal beliefs. Of course, once you understand that not all claims are equally valid as a possibility, you may have an epiphany.

You’re welcome.

...For?

Let me give you a list of actual unfalsifiable hypotheses..

Unicorns are real

Santa Clause is real

Unicorns are invisible and are real

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

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