The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Ryantology]

Except that life likely began in the deep ocean with cyano bacteria.

If you believe that cyano bacteria is the origin of life there are certain givens that need to be addressed.
1. You believe that something (in this case cyano bacteria) has always existed. You believe in eternal matter.

-or-

2. You believe something (cyano bacteria) came from nothing. That it wasn't and then was.

-or-

3. You've misunderstoond my question about "origin" and you've cited something that is life but is not itself the origin of life.

I will rule out #3 and assume you understood the question. I will also rule out discussing #2 here as well with the hope that we can all agree that it is impossible for something to come from nothing. Science rules out the possiblity that nothing produces something, it has never been observed, measured, nor repeated.

As far as #1 is concerned if you believe in eternal matter the question then becomes what created time? For without time there can be no evolutionary processes (the eternal matter would simply continue to exist as it always had and always will be) and with time evolutionary processes would have been going on eternally and so the universe wouldn't be billions of years old it would be eternally old and so there would be no way to quantify the age of anything. Eternity is eternity.

So back to the initial premise: cyano bacteria has eternally existed (outside the confines of time), then at the origin of life "time" was created and then the evolutionary process began and has now continued. What created time so as to seperate eternity from finite?

Well, we can accept three options that are all wrong, or we can go with #4: Cyanobacteria originated from a non-living chemical process.

[Esquilax]

Witnesses don't need to be alive to be witnesses.

But they do need to exist, something you cannot confirm, since they've all been dead for quite a while.

The account is not justified by the "how". My car moves when I step on the gas regardless of my understanding of "how".

Right, but if you had asked "how does my car move when I step on the gas?" and the answer you got back was "through space," would you be satisfied with that?

No more or less so then anyone can confirm the existence of anyone dead.

And how many other dead people who make claims of magic do you believe?

Just trying to weed out the those willing to lie for the gold mine owner and say he owns the gold mine when in truth it doesn't exist. Plenty of people lie, most people when faced with death would abandon said lie rather than than be killed just to deceive me (again an illustration).

But there are some who do die for any given religion, which completely nullifies the idea that those who died for christianity did so because it was true. These religions can't all be true, but they do all have martyrs, meaning that truth is not a prerequisite for martyrdom.

The popularity of a book says a lot about the factual accuracy of a book claiming to be non-fiction. Few people would continue to buy any book once it was found out that it was full of factual inaccuracies. Fiction books claim to be fiction which excludes them from being held to factual accuracy and so are not relevant to this discussion. I do agree with you that popularity does not equal proof. I was again illustrating that a book written even by one author, and not only surviving two thousand years but being the most purchased book of that period of time would be enough for me to take that gold mine owner on faith and invest that ten grand.

No, no it isn't sufficient to take stuff on faith. Even extraordinary, sustained popularity says nothing about the truth of an idea.

Depends how bad the gold mine owner wants my investment.

That doesn't answer the question.

If abiogenesis is not your origin of life please define where evolution begins. Where does life begin so that evolution can occur?

The question of the origin of life is the study of abiogenesis. Evolution concerns life once it already exists; having a problem with abiogenesis says nothing about evolution at all, because evolution is a confirmed, scientific fact. If you don't get your terminology right, it appears as though you don't actually understand what you're talking about.

That is a true statement but doesn't address the issue. There is an oxygen molecule in water and through hydrolysis it has the same effect on the bonds of amino acids.

But water isn't oxygen, and you have no idea what else was in the chemical makeup of the prebiotic earth. Let's not start making arguments from ignorance.

Never said science is always wrong. There is plenty of great science to go around. To qualify, my disdain is not for natural science (which is observable and repeatable) but rather for speculative science (some would call it historical science or the science of origins). If no one was there to observe it, scientifically speaking it's just speculation not science.

Um, no. See, evidence can be furnished for things even without being there. That's why our court system accepts DNA evidence, for example. We have evidence to support abiogenesis of varying stripes, which leads us to the conclusion that natural processes are sufficient to begin life, even without having been there. That evidence means we have literally one hundred percent more reason to believe in abiogenesis- tentatively- than we do creation.

Oh, and incidentally, if you're so happy to use the "were you there?" argument, were you there when god created the universe? If not, why believe it?

What was my argument from ignorance?

"I can't see how abiogenesis can occur, therefore it's impossible."

[Mudhammam]

If the early Christians were schizophrenics would it damage their credibility as witnesses? What's more likely, that they had some cognitive dissonance or that they witnessed God the Jewish Zombie? Hmm.

[Mister Agenda]

I have just inherited a gold mine. Its a guaranteed winner, trouble is I need some money to invest in it. I think you should all invest 10,000 US dollars in it.

If you can provide a thousand or so witnesses to attest to this, then write an account showing the who/what/when/where/why/how's of said goldmine, then teach those thousand or so witnesses said account and that those witnesses would be willing to share it with others even if it costs them their life, and then if your account not only survives but become the most widely purchased/circulated book for the next two thousand or so years... then I'm in.

It also wouldn't hurt if you could work in starting our yearly time numbering system over at 1 coinciding near to the year you were born. We could refer to it as 1 GM.

Me and a thousand other folks are witnesses, and they've all already given their life rather than recant the gold mine. The Gregorian calendar wasn't adopted until the 1580s, so I think it's only fair that you allow a millenium or two for the GM thing.

[Minimalist]

If the early Christians were schizophrenics would it damage their credibility as witnesses? What's more likely, that they had some cognitive dissonance or that they witnessed God the Jewish Zombie? Hmm.

Time to trot this out, again.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richa...kooks.html

From all of this one thing should be apparent: the age of Jesus was not an age of critical reflection and remarkable religious acumen. It was an era filled with con artists, gullible believers, martyrs without a cause, and reputed miracles of every variety. In light of this picture, the tales of the Gospels do not seem very remarkable. Even if they were false in every detail, there is no evidence that they would have been disbelieved or rejected as absurd by many people, who at the time had little in the way of education or critical thinking skills. They had no newspapers, telephones, photographs, or public documents to consult to check a story. If they were not a witness, all they had was a man's word. And even if they were a witness, the tales above tell us that even then their skills of critical reflection were lacking. Certainly, this age did not lack keen and educated skeptics--it is not that there were no skilled and skeptical observers. There were. Rather, the shouts of the credulous rabble overpowered their voice and seized the world from them, boldly leading them all into the darkness of a thousand years of chaos. Perhaps we should not repeat the same mistake. After all, the wise learn from history. The fool ignores it.

[orangebox21]

To oversimplify: evolution is from the beginning until now. It can be broken down into three main segments: stellar evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution. Stellar evolution has to do with the origin of matter namely the big bang model. Chemical evolution (abiogenesis) has to do with said matter through chemical processes becoming life. Biological evolution has to do with the life created through chemical evolution becoming what we observe today. While the specific processes have been different throughout time the result is that something has become something else over billions of years and the something it has become is of greater complexity than when it began, hence evolution. Something evolved.

Please define 'life'. Are replicating molecules alive?

For the sake of this discussion life would be the moment in the evolutionary process when chemical evolution (abiogenesis) became biological evolution. This is however different than the origin of life.

There was no free oxygen in the atmosphere or the water when life started. None.

Hydrolysis doesn't require free oxygen. Amino acids would not form in water because the moment they did hydrolysis would occur and the amino acid bonds would break.

The molecular oxygen in our atmosphere and in the oceans is a product of life.

Need a little clarification. Some here are suggesting that life began in water. You are suggesting water was created from life.

Something from nothing is a possibility.

An ultra-high-intensity laser beam and a two-mile-long particle accelerator is something. So it's not the same as nothing producing something. It's something producing something.

So back to the initial premise: cyano bacteria has eternally existed

No one has suggested this apart from you.

To clarify I'm not suggesting that cyano bacteria has eternally existed. If someone suggests that the origin of life is cyano bacteria they are faced with the above choices and most likely that choice is eternal matter. In fact prior to Hubble's discovery that the universe is constantly expanding this is what some scientists believed (that the universe was eternal).

Well, we can accept three options that are all wrong, or we can go with #4: Cyanobacteria originated from a non-living chemical process.

This statement falls under #3. The origin of life is the first step in the process. Reactants that are required for a chemical process cannot be step one; we're back to asking: where did the reactants come from? Did they eternally exist (#1)? Did the reactants come from nothing (#2)? Or is there a previous process that produced the reactants for the chemical processes (#3)? And #3 always leads back to #1 or #2.

But they do need to exist, something you cannot confirm, since they've all been dead for quite a while.

Someone's death is proof of existence. You can't be dead if you haven't existed.

Right, but if you had asked "how does my car move when I step on the gas?" and the answer you got back was "through space," would you be satisfied with that?

You've just made a statement arguing the "how" is justified by the "how" and I agree with that statement. The original statement was that the account (the what) is not justified by understanding "how".

And how many other dead people who make claims of magic do you believe?

There is only one who has died for the forgiveness of sins and in Him I believe. He who is no longer dead but has been resurrected.

No, no it isn't sufficient to take stuff on faith. Even extraordinary, sustained popularity says nothing about the truth of an idea.

It is evidence. I agree not proof of truth. Faith is the belief of things not seen, the assurance of things hoped for. So faith isn't built upon sight (I'm speaking metaphorically here). Much like evolutionists have faith that over the course of millions of years animals changed kinds even though they don't see it today.

See, evidence can be furnished for things even without being there.

Someone still observed the DNA at the crime scene (probably the Detective and the Forensic analyst). It's true you don't need to be at the crime scene but you do observe the DNA once in the courtroom and you couple that with the testimony of the people who did observe it when and where it was.

Oh, and incidentally, if you're so happy to use the "were you there?" argument, were you there when god created the universe? If not, why believe it?

Empirical science requires that to prove something it must be observed ("were you there"). If you claim something has been scientifically proven than you must show that it is observable and repeatable. Your frustration is not with me but with the requirements of empirical science. My faith is not justified by empirical science. The account of creation can't currently be proven by empirical science because it isn't observable or repeatable. Furthermore, nothing can't create something, but God can create something from nothing (breaks the law of conservation of matter). I take God at His word because while I wasn't there at creation He was.

"I can't see how abiogenesis can occur, therefore it's impossible."

Please write me the post number where I wrote this.

[Ryantology]

This statement falls under #3. The origin of life is the first step in the process. Reactants that are required for a chemical process cannot be step one; we're back to asking: where did the reactants come from? Did they eternally exist (#1)? Did the reactants come from nothing (#2)? Or is there a previous process that produced the reactants for the chemical processes (#3)? And #3 always leads back to #1 or #2.

Define "nothing".

I take God at His word because while I wasn't there at creation He was.

If you weren't there at creation, how do you know he was? You take him at his word for that, too, I suppose, on the basis of something else that you take his word for because you take his word for it that what you take his word for is something you can take his word for. Because you take his word for it.

What you do is you take the word of the human authors of the Bible. Or, the word of voices you hear in your head that definitely can't be anything except God because you have the magical and completely fictional ability to know that your subjective experiences are messages from an external source that nobody else can detect and that this source is being truthful to you.

And they say being an atheist requires more faith.

[Bad Wolf]

To oversimplify: evolution is from the beginning until now. It can be broken down into three main segments: stellar evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution. Stellar evolution has to do with the origin of matter namely the big bang model.

You have made that up.

For the sake of this discussion life would be the moment in the evolutionary process when chemical evolution (abiogenesis) became biological evolution. This is however different than the origin of life.

There is no chemical evolution, its just called abiogenesis. Evolution and abiogenesis are completely separate and do not rely on one another.

Someone's death is proof of existence. You can't be dead if you haven't existed.

Someone get this in the hall of shame now!

There is only one who has died for the forgiveness of sins and in Him I believe. He who is no longer dead but has been resurrected.

And i'm sure you have scrupulously studied every other religion in the world just to make sure.....

It is evidence. I agree not proof of truth. Faith is the belief of things not seen, the assurance of things hoped for. So faith isn't built upon sight (I'm speaking metaphorically here).

Faith is believing in something without evidence.

Much like evolutionists have faith that over the course of millions of years animals changed kinds even though they don't see it today.

Oh no you fucking didn't! Ok 1) There are no such things as 'evolutionists', all scientists believe in evolution and if they don't, then they are not scientists. 2) We who believe in evolution do not have faith that animals change over millions of years just because we can't watch it happen before our eyes today, you fucking idiot. We have irrefutable fossil records and DNA evidence. If you don't believe this stuff, quite frankly, you are burying your head in the sand. The reason we can't see it happening before our eyes is because evolution takes a very very long time. Hundreds of millions of years. And there is no such thing as a 'kind' who the fuck are you? Ray Comfort? We classify animals through species. Go back to school.

I take God at His word because while I wasn't there at creation He was.

And another one for the hall of shame.

"I can't see how abiogenesis can occur, therefore it's impossible."

Please write me the post number where I wrote this.

You didn't say that, but that is the sum of your argument.

[WesOlsen]

Gosh I love these idiots time and time again saying "you can't see evolution happening" or "you can't test it". Do you morons realise that if a scientific process takes an incredible amount of time, that there's no way of speeding up the said process to satisfy your stupidity? We can't see the sun exploding or imploding but we still know that one day it will burn out. I can't watch a canyon form in real-time but we know that water and ice erosion can form such structures given sufficient amounts of time. Evolution describes a slow and gradual process, of course you can't see monkeys turning in to humans in 10 minutes, because clearly you haven't read or understood evolution.

[Esquilax]

To oversimplify: evolution is from the beginning until now. It can be broken down into three main segments: stellar evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution. Stellar evolution has to do with the origin of matter namely the big bang model. Chemical evolution (abiogenesis) has to do with said matter through chemical processes becoming life. Biological evolution has to do with the life created through chemical evolution becoming what we observe today. While the specific processes have been different throughout time the result is that something has become something else over billions of years and the something it has become is of greater complexity than when it began, hence evolution. Something evolved.

So, you made all that up. Literally, you invented every word of that, and I challenge you to find a single mainstream, peer reviewed scientific paper, report or textbook that even refers to stellar evolution as a necessary component of evolution as a whole, or even mentions it as a part of evolution.

But let's assume that you're right, for just a second: would you not therefore have to agree that the "biological evolution" component of evolution could be true independent of the other two, and has been scientifically verified to occur, regardless of the status of the others?

Someone's death is proof of existence. You can't be dead if you haven't existed.

Wow, I guess I have to be completely blunt, then: where's your proof that these people died?

You've just made a statement arguing the "how" is justified by the "how" and I agree with that statement. The original statement was that the account (the what) is not justified by understanding "how".

My contention is that you can't call something a comprehensive explanation of a thing- in this case origins- if it only speaks to the most shallow possible details of it.

There is only one who has died for the forgiveness of sins and in Him I believe. He who is no longer dead but has been resurrected.

Question begging and mindless platitudes aren't an answer.

It is evidence. I agree not proof of truth. Faith is the belief of things not seen, the assurance of things hoped for. So faith isn't built upon sight (I'm speaking metaphorically here). Much like evolutionists have faith that over the course of millions of years animals changed kinds even though they don't see it today.

Actually, we do see it today, in the fossil record, genetics, cladistics, and even in motion, on occasion. Have you ever seen, say, dog breeds? Met your grandfather? You look different from him, yeah? That's evolution.

Here's a list of live, observed instances of evolution. And since "kind" has no definition beyond what's convenient for creationist morons, and is not an accepted scientific term, you can fuck right off with ever using it again in a discussion on evolution, okay?

Someone still observed the DNA at the crime scene (probably the Detective and the Forensic analyst). It's true you don't need to be at the crime scene but you do observe the DNA once in the courtroom and you couple that with the testimony of the people who did observe it when and where it was.

And biologists observe the evidence they use before they examine it. What was your point?

Empirical science requires that to prove something it must be observed ("were you there"). If you claim something has been scientifically proven than you must show that it is observable and repeatable. Your frustration is not with me but with the requirements of empirical science.

No, my frustration is with you, because even under your (incorrect) definition of empirical science, you're still wrong. Do a google search for "silver fox experiment," or "flavobacteria," sometime. Evolution has been observed, motherfucker. It's a done deal.

Now, all I have to do is wait for you to tell me that what I've provided you isn't one animal giving birth to another animal, so that we can all have confirmation of just how little you actually know about evolution, and can safely ignore you.

Or, you can take that as a warning, and actually research before you decide something is wrong. Your choice.

My faith is not justified by empirical science. The account of creation can't currently be proven by empirical science because it isn't observable or repeatable. Furthermore, nothing can't create something, but God can create something from nothing (breaks the law of conservation of matter). I take God at His word because while I wasn't there at creation He was.

This is, literally, the stupidest thing I've ever read. No wonder, since you clearly got it from Hovind or Ken Ham, or one of his breathtakingly braindead ilk.

So, first of all, you can't prove nothing can't create something in all possible variations, and even if you could, you still believe nothing created god, so premise invalid there. And if you say he's eternal, same deal, so whatever.

Second, you can't prove god exists, so there's no evidence he even claimed to have been there at the beginning of the universe, but even if you could prove he exists, he could be lying. You're likely to say god can't lie, to which I respond that he might have been lying when he claimed that, so premise invalid there.

Thirdly, I am now claiming, right here, that I was there at the beginning of creation and I didn't see god. Are you willing to take my word on that? No? What a fucking surprise.

Special pleading, premise invalid. Next.

Please write me the post number where I wrote this.

It's the basis of your initial argument: you presented a problem with abiogenesis, as though your inability to see around it means it can't have happened. If that wasn't what you meant, then you would have had no reason to post that problem with abiogenesis as proof of creation in the first place.

Think carefully: your god doesn't like lying, apparently.