Rev.

So your belief that life sprang spontaneously from non-living sources is reasonable, even though nobody has ever witnessed such an event or duplicated it in a lab...

While my belief that Someone caused life to begin is unreasonable, even though nobody has witnessed anything coming about without cause.

I suggest, if my belief is faith based that yours is as well, and by your own definition is unreasonable.

Not all science beliefs are based on REASON.
Not all religious beliefs are based on FAITH.

Maybe start a new thread sometime next week?

Really good question...which of course science won't ever answer. I'm perfectly willing to discuss this, but I think it would derail your thread.

__________________
Rev.

God doesn't send anyone to hell. We go to hell over His dead body.

niftydrifty

the evidence in support of evolutionary theory is overwhelming. if you'll find the time to actually acquaint yourself with it, the more you'll find it impossible to deny.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Endless Forms: Species and Speciation - Google Book Search

Making Sense of Evolution: The ... - Google Book Search

Mach

No, my belief is based on the fact that all evidence supports the notion that life as we know it, which is composed of the same stuff everything else in the universe is composed of, indeed arose from within that universe, from that universe. It is currently inescapably correct (but can change!).

ALL evidence/observation correlates to life originating from the universe, and there is NO evidence of any other sort of origin. In fact, there isn't even any reasonable idea of a mechanism to ponder. That is why it's the only reasonable theory.

It's unreasonable because there is no evidence at all, or even a plausible hypothesis, to make it reasonable.

I noted above how origins of life are indeed based on observation/evidence. Other origins have no such evidence. Maybe there are parallel universes and someone from one of those kickstarted us. But since there is no evidence to support this, it's just not reasonable to believe it as true, or offer it as legitimate opposition to evidence.

Incorrect, but I know what you mean, I'll explain:
It wasn't science if it was not based on reason, they made a mistake.
It was not faith-based if it was not based on faith, they made a mistake.

A scientist may indeed believe certain things based on faith, and try to pass them off as science. Happens all the time. But what they attempt to pass of IS NOT SCIENCE. At some point we will call them on it, and when the evidence does not bear out, we correctly re-assign it to faith.

When we get down to definitions, they are the "ideals". Science as the current body of human scientists work is NOT all science, as you noted. nor is all religion based on faith, a lot, if not most, has some basis on reality. But we can still differentiate the two given enough information.

Roger.

__________________
Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content.- Conan

justone

Thank you for providing another proof of dishonesty of evolutionists and adding to my experience of conversations with evolutionists.

justone: ''OK, I have taken my time to acquaint myself with TOE, I have read publications regarding speciation in sientific papers. This is analyses of the publications..''

Evolutionist: ''the evidence in support of evolutionary theory is overwhelming. if you'll find the time to actually acquaint yourself with it, the more you'll find it impossible to deny. You have to read NON-scientific publications!



And so we go in circles.

There is no need for me to read further. I don't have to catch you on ALL your lies in order to call you a lier. You have created hundreds of thousands pages of lies, I do not have to read ALL of them to the end when the first 20 demonstrate that you are a lier and you have nothing to say in defense.

Rev.

Accepting all of this, MY proposal that Someone was the mechanism is still unreasonable? You offer no alternative. That there was NO mechanism is statistically more unreasonable than the idea that Someone was.


Who observed life evolving from non-living sources?

OR

Science makes statements of belief in order to hold together their reasoning.
Religion makes statements of belief in order to hold together their reasoning.



This poses a bit of a conundrum for you. In my brief foray into TOE this morning, the literature is packed full of such statements as

"scientist believe"
"scientist think"
"this may explain"
"this implies"
"this is the possible reason"

Does this mean TOE is not science?

Alright then, we have a consensus. Shall we throw out the ideals and talk about what actually is?

niftydrifty

cool. let's continue this discusion, in a thread that YOU CREATE, ... ABOUT CREATIONISM.

have you read the OP? what are your opinions about it?

justone, you've made 1,380 posts, and you've never started a thread. now's the time.

stop hijacking this thread.

justone

1. You have nothing to argue my statements.
2. You are correct I have not made any statements aboput creationism.
3. You do the same mistake as GySgt and many others.

If I state all scientists are Christians and all Christians are creationists, you, GySgt and others who do not have any formal education, for some reason think and react like it is possible to conclude from my statement that the opposite is also true: all creationists are Christians and all Christians are scientists and even possible to conclude that all creationists are scientists.

For some reason you react like if one criticizes or questions or rejects Evolution it means that one imposes Creationism or intelligent design to replace Evolution in science. I see no justification for your reaction.
Yes, I STARTED reading the OP and could not make out a thing as it is usual with me when I try to read Mach. I may ask you later to explain how to read delirium of such type... Only when Rev. started to reply I realized what it was about, but I don’t know how she figured out, I have a feeling that she just guessed.
This is another example of dishonesty. What do you think, your posts not related to the OP cannot be answered, and hijacking this thread is your privilege at any time you want? Have you made this post for me not to reply and address your statements?

Mach

Correct, it's still unreasonable.
Again, it doesn't pass reasonable criteria:
1. There is no evidence to support it
2. All evidence of existence contradicts that proposal

That's primary. Secondarily again, just for the sake of argument accept your proposal as true. So, <someone> started life. OK, but that <someone> had to be alive, to start life, so they didn't really start life did they. So you didn't really propose an "answer", just some words right?

Don't confuse the semantics on us.
We observe the universe, it's existence, and how life develops, changes, evolves, etc., on a daily basis. We observe the fossil records. We observe all of the theory we use in science including biology, chemistry, physics, etc.
1. All evidence points to life originating from the universe.
2. All evidence points to life changing/evolving naturally.
3. All organic/living sources are made of the same materials as the "inorganic" (i.e. it is all derived from inorganic atmos/energy).

So, the question is, who observed life originating from any other source outside the known universe? (no one).

No, very common and perhaps natural to try to take this route. But if we accepted your conclusion, there would be no truth. That is, if i sat on a nuclear bomb and detonated it, the fact that I would be obliterated would by you, be able to be shown to be "false". that is the absurdity you must accept if you want to deny reality.

Great question. The answer is elegant of course.
Those types of statements "think, believe, maybe" are EXACTLY the language intentionally used in science, and reason. The "reason" is the following:

1. Reasoned beliefs are based on evidence.
a. If the evidence changes, the belief may change.
b. Thus, all reasoned beliefs are FALSIFIABLE!

2. Faith-based beliefs do not require evidence.
a. if the evidence changes there is no need to change a faith-based belief.
b. Thus, all faith-based beliefs are not falsifiable.

Reality is what truth is at the core, and we must use the best means we have to observe and relay the truth of reality, and being human we will make errors.
Faith based beliefs are of course, not falsifiable. (That's why they are dogmatic).
Example:
(wiki)

This is no accident that it all works out, it's a logical chain. It's yours to use, I don't own it, the pope doesn't, and scientists don't. It supposed to simply be acknowledgement of reality, and adherence to logic. Nothing more (which is actually everything!).

-Mach