@KellyJay
if humans cannot reproduce something from scratch, then only a God could have done it.
I appreciate that this must seem entirely convincing to you. However, what you have there is not evidence which could be examined in a petri dish and confirmed or disconfirmed by experiments, which is how science works.
In order to test the hypothesis, scientifically, we would have to have 1000 or more universes, half of which were created by a God, and half not created by a God. We would then examine each universe independently to determine whether life occurred only in the divinely created universes. If life occurred in at least one not divinely created universe, then the hypothesis would be falsified. However, as we have only the one universe known to us to examine, and no basis of comparison, the hypothesis cannot be tested scientifically.
What you have there is not evidence at all, but a theological argument. Please take this to the Spirituality forum, it is out of place here .
In science, a proposition or hypothesis can be considered as true or a candidate truth, only if it could be false or dis-verified. Since you are unwilling to consider the possibility that the proposition “God exists” might be false, it is impossible to carry on a scientific discussion with you so long as you insist on introducing God into it.
@moonbus saidThe fundament thing is if we see something in the distant past looking for a cause in the present can give us clues how it may have occurred in the past. There is only one thing that puts instructional information into a functionally complex systems, and it is not a mindless process, it is a mind. That is not something we don't know therefore God did it, in this case, it is something we know and experience ourselves.
I doubt he understands science sufficiently to answer that question.
I believe we have just seen Kelly’s ultimate fallback argument: if humans cannot reproduce something from scratch, then only a God could have done it. However, because, first, science is evidence-based, and second, there is no evidence of transcendental causality anywhere inside the universe, this argume ...[text shortened]... science forum here. This is a theological argument, and therefore belongs in the Spirituality forum.
You on the other hand if you want to make the argument against that, you cannot produce anything in the here and now to back up your claim, instead you have to appeal to the distant past and time and go after the evolution of the gaps, we don't know therefore evolution did it.
Show me the science that can disprove this, otherwise, your worldview is the only thing you got going for you, not evidence, not science, just what you want to believe and want to reject.
02 Jun 23
@moonbus saidGo ahead and take the worldview dispute to the Spirituality Forum I'll join you there, in the meantime evidence and observation can be done here.
@KellyJay
if humans cannot reproduce something from scratch, then only a God could have done it.
I appreciate that this must seem entirely convincing to you. However, what you have there is not evidence which could be examined in a petri dish and confirmed or disconfirmed by experiments, which is how science works.
In order to test the hypothesis, scientifica ...[text shortened]... sible to carry on a scientific discussion with you so long as you insist on introducing God into it.
02 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidThere is no instructional information directing blood to clot or cells to duplicate. These are human metaphors misapplied to chemical processes.
The fundament thing is if we see something in the distant past looking for a cause in the present can give us clues how it may have occurred in the past. There is only one thing that puts instructional information into a functionally complex systems, and it is not a mindless process, it is a mind. That is not something we don't know therefore God did it, in this case, it i ...[text shortened]... you got going for you, not evidence, not science, just what you want to believe and want to reject.
02 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidScience forum doesn't generally discuss the "why" part of our existence. It's not testable.
You can call it thoughtless but you can not point to any one who can reproduce or do it from scratch with a lot of thought, money, and resources, but under a rock with a mindless process you believe.
Your assessment falls flat if all you got is you wouldn’t have done it that way, while you have no clue why it works.
03 Jun 23
@moonbus saidThey are indeed human metaphors explaining what occurs so we can understand the process of a start-stop mechanism, that only does what is needed, as it is needed, and stops when the need is complete. Nothing is misapplied to this, in order for this to occur signals have to be sent to this occur only where it is required, signals are sent to keep it going as the need is there, and signals are sent when the need is no more, lest the cure becomes worse the issue itself.
There is no instructional information directing blood to clot or cells to duplicate. These are human metaphors misapplied to chemical processes.
03 Jun 23
@wildgrass saidWhy is that?
Science forum doesn't generally discuss the "why" part of our existence. It's not testable.
03 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidMolecules don’t have needs.
They are indeed human metaphors explaining what occurs so we can understand the process of a start-stop mechanism, that only does what is needed, as it is needed, and stops when the need is complete. Nothing is misapplied to this, in order for this to occur signals have to be sent to this occur only where it is required, signals are sent to keep it going as the need is there, and signals are sent when the need is no more, lest the cure becomes worse the issue itself.
@kellyjay saidWhy is “why” not testable? Why do you not see this immediately? Surgeons cut people open and sew them up again, because that is what surgeons do. Engineers build things because that is what engineers do. Architects design buildings because that is what architects do. Scientists investigate how nature works because that is what science is. "Why" questions are the purview of philosophy and religion because that is what philosophers and theologians do.
Why is that?
03 Jun 23
1 edit
@kellyjay saidWhy did you send me a PM saying this:
Willingly blind
”IF you want to talk…
Challenge me to a game, otherwise don't. I challenge FMF it can be unrated in any color you want.”
And then put me on “ignore”?
03 Jun 23
@moonbus saidThat is right, absolutely correct, so when they are placed into an order that builds something that isn't because of the molecule's molecular needs, nothing out of necessity is taking place as far as the molecule is concerned. The material world doesn't have needs/wants, only life does, in the material world there are causes, and reactions, that are mindless.
Molecules don’t have needs.
03 Jun 23
1 edit
@moonbus saidBS!!
Why is “why” not testable? Why do you not see this immediately? Surgeons cut people open and sew them up again, because that is what surgeons do. Engineers build things because that is what engineers do. Architects design buildings because that is what architects do. Scientists investigate how nature works because that is what science is. "Why" questions are the purview of philosophy and religion because that is what philosophers and theologians do.
"Doctor I'm sick why, what is wrong with me?
"Well dear patient you have XYZ, and this is making you sick."
All of our endeavors are to look at why, unless like you, the why means something you don't want it to mean, then I don't care what is shown you, what is demonstrated right in front of you, you only need one tiny reason to say, no, that is not enough, to get away from a conclusion your worldview wants to avoid at all cost.