Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[rjh4 is back]

Yes, cell biology is extremely complex. You know how we know that? Because methodological naturalism has revealed the cell's complex (and, so far, entirely natural) mechanisms.

Oh yeah....using methodology proposed by Christians. It is nonsense for you to take the position that because one believes in God, science and the scientific method cannot be applied by them. And it is irrational to take the position that just because science provides naturalistic explanations of what we see and observe, that all can be explained that way.

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, cell biology is extremely complex. You know how we know that? Because methodological naturalism has revealed the cell's complex (and, so far, entirely natural) mechanisms.

Oh yeah....using methodology proposed by Christians. It is nonsense for you to take the position that because one believes in God, science and the scientific method cannot be applied by them. And it is irrational to take the position that just because science provides naturalistic explanations of what we see and observe, that all can be explained that way.

It doesn't matter at all who developed the methodology, though I think you're giving the Greeks sort shrift.

It seems to be nonsense that you think that is Crossless2.0's position. I'm pretty sure he or she never claimed that theists can't apply the scientific method. On what do you base this accusation that this is his or her position?

The position is that if it can't be determined by observation, reason, and scientific methodology, it remains unknown. What is so irrational about that?

[rjh4 is back]

It seems to me the "It's still hypothetical" is inconsistent with "but it's very inaccurate to say there's no known naturalists mechanism for the origin of life."

As far as I know, scientists still cannot begin with non-living matter so as to produce life. If they cannot do it in a controlled lab, why is it plausible that it would happen in nature?

There are several plausible hypotheses for the origin of life from non-living organic matter easily found on Wikipedia or with a Google search. The evidence is over 3 billion years old, so we may never know which of them is correct (or if a mechanism not yet on the list is the case), but to say there 'is no naturalistic mechanism' by which it could happen simply isn't true. A naturalistic mechanism doesn't have to be the case to be a naturalistic mechanism, it only has to be possible.

Why do you think it is plausible that we can duplicate in a matter of decades what took nature hundreds of millions of years to accomplish?

So far, scientists have made a bacteria genome from scratch and placed it in a de-nucleated cell which then started functioning again. When an entire cell can be made 'from scratch', how will it affect your opinion on the likelihood of a naturalistic mechanism for the origin of life being the correct one?

As I explained before in this thread (that is not a criticism of you as I know you just jumped in) starting with a living organism and modifying it with man-made parts is far from beginning with just the chemicals and getting to life.

Also, a hypothesis does not prove that life can come from non-life. And how do we know whether any natural mechanisms would possibly work if we cannot show that those mechanism actually happen (repeatability)?

[Crossless2.0]

Yes, cell biology is extremely complex. You know how we know that? Because methodological naturalism has revealed the cell's complex (and, so far, entirely natural) mechanisms.

Oh yeah....using methodology proposed by Christians. It is nonsense for you to take the position that because one believes in God, science and the scientific method cannot be applied by them. And it is irrational to take the position that just because science provides naturalistic explanations of what we see and observe, that all can be explained that way.

It's also irrational to assume that someone confuses methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism or supposes that theists can't apply the scientific method when his post pretty clearly does no such thing.

As for Christians proposing the scientific method, that's trivially true: yes, the method was developed in the West. But it is disingenuous to suggest that the Christians who developed the method did so by appealing to Christian principles.

[rjh4 is back]

Oh yeah....using methodology proposed by Christians. It is nonsense for you to take the position that because one believes in God, science and the scientific method cannot be applied by them. And it is irrational to take the position that just because science provides naturalistic explanations of what we see and observe, that all can be explained that way.

It doesn't matter at all who developed the methodology, though I think you're giving the Greeks sort shrift.

It seems to be nonsense that you think that is Crossless2.0's position. I'm pretty sure he or she never claimed that theists can't apply the scientific method. On what do you base this accusation that this is his or her position?

The position is that if it can't be determined by observation, reason, and scientific methodology, it remains unknown. What is so irrational about that?

My apologies Crossless2.0. Brian was putting out so many posts I thought it was him and was going with what Brian appeared to be saying. I realize that you just came into the discussion so I would have no basis for saying that of you. It was my mistake.

And, thanks, Mr. Agenda, for pointing that out!

As to your last sentence, nothing is irrational about that. I don't think that is Brian's position, though, and that is who I was addressing (or trying to).

---

But it is disingenuous to suggest that the Christians who developed the method did so by appealing to Christian principles.

And where did I say or imply this?

[Brian37]

I have no idea what your initial point is. Could be I'm dense. Could be you are a horrible communicator. Of course I would pick the latter and assume you would pick the former.

Anyway, regarding: "It was understandable back then when humans didn't know any better, but we know better now."

As it relates to evidence, I think the more we understand, the more problems it raises for a naturalistic explanations. Think about it. When cellular live was seen as just a black box unknown, it is easy to imagine things just spontaneously happening. Think: Spontaneous Generation. But the more we learn about the complexity of the cell and all that is needed for replication, it seems harder and harder for a naturalistic explanation to make any sense whatsoever. So to me, a naturalistic viewpoint was more understandable back then when humans didn't know any better, but we know better now.

What an addled response! Spontaneous Generation was a "naturalistic" viewpoint only in the sense that it didn't explicitly invoke a god, though it might as well have since it had exactly the same explanatory scope and power: nil. The rest is nothing more than an argument from ignorance and incredulity. Yes, cell biology is extremely complex. You know how we know that? Because methodological naturalism has revealed the cell's complex (and, so far, entirely natural) mechanisms. It certainly wasn't revealed to us by imaginary friends or holy scripture.

Luckily for all of us, the men and women who study cell biology for a living don't throw up their hands in the face of difficult problems and invoke the supernatural/magic/favorite-imaginary-friend as an "explanation" for what we don't currently understand.

Thank you for having my back here. Theists stupidly think we cant see what they are doing.

The con works like this.

1. Pretend you are not arguing for your deity.
2. Attempt to debunk science.
3. If you are lucky enough to sell it to a gullible person, once you FALSELY sell the con, insert your pet flavor of deity into the gap.
4. If people are wise to the con, resort to trying to retrofit science to your comic book after the fact. Pretend science points to your particular club.

He's not getting the fact that EVERY RELIGION has followers who pull this crap. Christianity isn't the only religion to attempt this.

The argument from complexity really ultimately is nothing more than falling for your emotions, "Life has pretty things in it".

Well sure, I'll agree with that. But there are also lots of nasty things in life that are also complex. Ecoli, Eboli, Cancer, poisonous insects and and snakes, and dangerous animals like crocks and gators and hippos. Cockroaches are far better breeders than humans and outnumber humans and have been around far longer.

The earth is 4 billion years old. Since the start of evolution, there have been 5 mass extinction events as to which 99% have gone extinct and what we see now is a mere 1% left over. I find it absurd that a cosmic factory boss would take all that time, allow all that extinction and only wait to about 200,000 years ago to get to making humans, then wait until only about 10,000 years ago to finally get to humans writing or him even saying anything. That doesn't seem to me like anyone is pulling the strings.

It looks more like humans back then merely made bad guesses because they didn't have any modern science to explain what was really going on.

Knowing I can choke on food and potentially die from that, knowing we share the same eating and breathing tube doesn't seem like a good "design" knowing whales and dolphins don't have that problem.

[Crossless2.0]

But it is disingenuous to suggest that the Christians who developed the method did so by appealing to Christian principles.

rjh4 wrote: And where did I say or imply this?


You didn't directly, so perhaps I was uncharitable.

But if you weren't suggesting a connection between the development of the method and the religious worldview of many of those who first developed it, then what was the purpose in designating them as Christian rather than 'Western' or just people?

**Edited to note that my post was garbled as hell. Have noted who wrote the question to which I am responding.**

[Thumpalumpacus]

ID has been pretty well discredited.

[rjh4 is back]

But it is disingenuous to suggest that the Christians who developed the method did so by appealing to Christian principles.

rjh4 wrote:  And where did I say or imply this?


You didn't directly, so perhaps I was uncharitable.

But if you weren't suggesting a connection between the development of the method and the religious worldview of many of those who first developed it, then what was the purpose in designating them as Christian rather than 'Western' or just people?

**Edited to note that my post was garbled as hell. Have noted who wrote the question to which I am responding.**

To point out that the scientific method is not at odds with Christian principles.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And how do we know whether any natural mechanisms would possibly work if we cannot show that those mechanism actually happen (repeatability)?

Why is it you do not hold your god to this same standard? Why should I entertain your "hypothesis" for a moment when you cannot even show that your god did it once, much less repeat it?

Also, I'm wondering how much you know about the historical sciences. Repeatability is not a requirement of a science, necessarily. Do you deny geology? Well, earthquakes and tectonic drift aren't repeatable. By this logic you should deny it its due respect. Ditto with astronomy.