A Bio Genesis

@sonhouse said
All of which goes to prove YOUR agenda, GODDIDIT. This should not be in a science forum. In a spiritual forum it makes sense.

You are the one that keeps bringing God into this discussion.

I'm simply pointing you to natural processes do not build cells, the chemical reactions react producing things that do not support the formation of life. I can say this and not once invoke God, you hear that process doesn't do what you want it too, and you automatically want to denounce the findings as bias for GODDIDIT.

It is almost like Pavlov's dogs with you, as soon as there is a hint you start watering at the mouth GODDIDIT, GODDIDIT, your saying GODDIDIT!

@kellyjay said
I'm simply pointing you to natural processes do not build cells, the chemical reactions react producing things that do not support the formation of life. I can say this and not once invoke God,

So, according to you, no natural processes can make abiogenesis happen but you say you are not implying Goddidit by this claim?
Ok then, according to you, if no natural processes can make abiogenesis happen then how did the first life start without a god?
If you claim it could NOT have happen without a god then by saying no natural processes can make abiogenesis happen you are clearly implying Goddidit so you contradict yourself because you ARE saying Goddidit.
And if you claim it COULD have happen without a god then by what credible alternative process do you claim it could happened if not natural nor Goddidit? If NO credible alternative process then, again, you contradict yourself because you ARE saying Goddidit.
If you claim there IS a credible alternative process other than natural or Goddidit then you should be able to name it. So why don't you?

@humy said
So, according to you, no natural processes can make abiogenesis happen but you say you are not implying Goddidit by this claim?
Ok then, according to you, if no natural processes can make abiogenesis happen then how did the first life start without a god?
If you claim it could NOT have happen without a god then by saying no natural processes can make abiogenesis happen you are ...[text shortened]... rnative process other than natural or Goddidit then you should be able to name it. So why don't you?

See "2001 a Space odyssey''

@humy said
So, according to you, no natural processes can make abiogenesis happen but you say you are not implying Goddidit by this claim?
Ok then, according to you, if no natural processes can make abiogenesis happen then how did the first life start without a god?
If you claim it could NOT have happen without a god then by saying no natural processes can make abiogenesis happen you are ...[text shortened]... rnative process other than natural or Goddidit then you should be able to name it. So why don't you?

If no natural process can make abiogenesis happen, what is left? I admit and even in the lecture it is admitted that people are still looking for a method they can point too that shows it can happen. Even if we prove natural causes will not do what is required, does that mean GODIDIT, NOT AT ALL! It isn't a either or but without a doubt it should cause people to look at all the options and not limit them to materialistic ones. Suggesting it is either or is limiting all options outside of the one that is acceptable to the herd, is not much different than a church doctrine, if you cast doubt on it, you have left the faith you will be booted from the body, your out of here.

When scientific methods are used you think they should be taken seriously? Do we now require that they can only be taken seriously by an Atheist not a Theist? Either one can have an agenda, you have a preference and a distaste you use as a filter as you accept data, or do you only look at the science involved?

I'm a young earth Christian, the ID movement I only agree with parts of it. I've no dog in the debate in science, but find it laughable that science now has motivation checkers to see who is saying what for cause that might have nothing to do with the data being presented.

@kellyjay said
If no natural process can make abiogenesis happen, what is left? I admit and even in the lecture it is admitted that people are still looking for a method they can point too that shows it can happen. Even if we prove natural causes will not do what is required, does that mean GODIDIT, NOT AT ALL!

So you claim there IS a credible alternative process to create the first life other than natural or Goddidit? This question only requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer, which you so far refuse to give.
Its therefore seems obvious you are saying Goddidit.
If you deny it, vindicate yourself by just answering the question.

@humy said
So you claim there IS a credible alternative process to create the first life other than natural or Goddidit? This question only requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer, which you so far refuse to give.
Its therefore seems obvious you are saying Goddidit.
If you deny it, vindicate yourself by just answering the question.

I believe completely God did it, I don't think anything else remotely makes sense when you look at everything we see in life and the universe. God did it all, and not only that is still doing it. I told you I'm a young earth creationist, where do you not see God did it after that, for crying out loud!

With respect to a alternative process, I don't have single one, but that doesn't mean others do. sonhouse wants to credit space, but as far as I'm concern that doesn't answer the question only push if off world to make it unknowable and someone else' problem.

That aside, the lecture isn't about my beliefs, not even the one giving the lectures either, it was about what was looked at, how it was tested, and the result.

Care to answer my questions, or does this only apply to me?

@kellyjay said
I don't think anything else remotely makes sense when you look at everything we see in life and the universe.

This tells me you have deluded yourself into thinking only Goddidit makes sense because you WANT to believe only Goddidit makes sense. This is because what you have failed to do is explain why ONLY Goddidit can ever make sense and why can't all things with a cause be only caused by non-supernatural processes

where do you not see God did it

All the same places where I not see the tooth fairy did it, which is all places because I see no direct or indirect empirical evidence or logical premise of either a god existing or the tooth fairy existing nor evidence/premise of either doing anything specific. Don't know where you are going with this.

With respect to a alternative process, I don't have single one

So now you admit you were saying Goddidit after saying you weren't.

Care to answer my questions

Which questions? State them and I will do my honest best to answer them.

@humy said
This tells me you have deluded yourself into thinking only Goddidit makes sense because you WANT to believe only Goddidit makes sense. This is because what you have failed to do is explain why ONLY Goddidit can ever make sense and why can't all things with a cause be only caused by non-supernatural processes

where do you not see God did it

All the same places wh ...[text shortened]... swer my questions [/quote]Which questions? State them and I will do my honest best to answer them.

I think you have answered my questions already thank you.

@kellyjay said
I believe completely God did it, I don't think anything else remotely makes sense when you look at everything we see in life and the universe. God did it all, and not only that is still doing it. I told you I'm a young earth creationist, where do you not see God did it after that, for crying out loud!

With respect to a alternative process, I don't have single one, but tha ...[text shortened]... t, how it was tested, and the result.

Care to answer my questions, or does this only apply to me?

Considering how you don't find the overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution compelling, what could ever convince you of a non-beardy man origin of life?

@kazetnagorra said
Considering how you don't find the overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution compelling, what could ever convince you of a non-beardy man origin of life?

There is that. He also touts the idea Earth is 6000 years old. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then bitches at ME for daring to suggest those dudes in the video's have ANY kind of religious agenda, even after he admits GODIDIT is the ONLY answer to life on Earth, and that agenda was abundantly clear in those video's but he fights tooth and nail to run that idea into the ground, like having a 'scientific' lecture in a church would be all about science. Give me a break.

@kellyjay said
I've no dog in the debate in science, but find it laughable that science now has motivation checkers to see who is saying what for cause that might have nothing to do with the data being presented.

What do you mean "nothing to do with the data"? You keep writing that science only focuses on testable hypotheses, which is true, but can't point to anything testable about design. Meanwhile propagandists are trying to eliminate evolution from science curricula and eliminate environmentalists from debates about our environment. Dr. Peltzer is a very accomplished scientist who knows what he's talking about, but is also one the politicians call in to say stuff that sounds scientific as a part of an agenda-driven argument that design should be taught as an "alternative" to science and allotted equal time in high school biology lectures. This is absurd and ridiculous for obvious reasons. It fails all the tenets of critical thinking and experimental design. Design is fine as a concept, but it is notably not a scientific concept. There are more appropriate venues for that topic. Go to church /bible study / You Tube if you want to learn about design. Science doesn't touch it for the simple reason that its not testable. In english class we learn about many topics that in many religions are notably not pious, but we don't teach "alternatives" to Mark Twain.

@wildgrass said
What do you mean "nothing to do with the data"?

I don't know what he meant by the whole sentence that quote was in but, in case he was implying the contrary to this, I will say here that anyone that knows the first thing about what science is knows that science is EVERYTHING to do with the data!

@kazetnagorra said
Considering how you don't find the overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution compelling, what could ever convince you of a non-beardy man origin of life?

If you want to talk about the lectures we can, I will discuss anything else if you want to start another OP here if appropriate, or instead another forum.

@kellyjay said
If you want to talk about the lectures we can, I will discuss anything else if you want to start another OP here if appropriate, or instead another forum.

Tell me why those two scientists would willfully ignore interstellar clouds impacting the Solar system?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24153-solar-system-caught-in-an-interstellar-tempest/

Is Newscientist fake news?

@wildgrass said
What do you mean "nothing to do with the data"? You keep writing that science only focuses on testable hypotheses, which is true, but can't point to anything testable about design. Meanwhile propagandists are trying to eliminate evolution from science curricula and eliminate environmentalists from debates about our environment. Dr. Peltzer is a very accomplished scientist w ...[text shortened]... opics that in many religions are notably not pious, but we don't teach "alternatives" to Mark Twain.

I am not a ID person, I am of the opinion that creation can not be proven through testing. A special event is just that! You can’t prove a miracle by looking at it with science. So I don’t have a dog in that fight.

What I brought here was simply a very small piece of the puzzle that natural processes would have to overcome. The resistance to even looking at it is telling and the effort to make it about me is to. Small wonder claims are made about lack of evidence when people refuse to even acknowledge the possibility let alone look at the science that doesn’t validate their opinions.