On the subject of an alternative (non-naturalistic) cause for life on Earth, it is a fact I believe that very little could be said about it. And it's best to avoid wild speculation when a factual vaccuum exists, that's all I'm saying.
Unless it is a scientist who is wildly speculating 😜
Now, now. Be nice. Scientists have nothing over 'flood geologists' when it comes to 'wild speculating'.
TM has a point
🙄 Not really.
Anyone who believes that I'm pushing some particular point of view hasn't been reading my posts carefully enough. The only thing I've been saying is that we should take note of the most expert people when it comes to OOL research.
There aren’t any natural explanations to point to that deals with all of the things we see in the universe and life, so how can you disagree with what I said? There is nothing you can point to for a natural explanation so your disagreement is purely on philosophical lines of reasoning not evidenced based reasoning.
@TruthMuse,
@stephen_33 has the extremely successful history of naturalism at explaining things on his side, so you can't just discount that (let's be fair). And you really can't throw the "evidence based reasoning" at him, when there are so many "evidence based" conclusions that you reject out of hand on the basis of faith/religion.
*I hope against hope for the day when we're all able to lower our defenses and acknowledge the weaknesses in our own position (not just the strengths), and the strengths in opposing positions (not just the weaknesses)
But a factual vaccuum does not exist ("an enormous amount of empirical data...suggest that it is impossible for *any* non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter into the Darwinian world of the living"), and given that "enormous amount of empirical data" an inference that something beyond nature is needed is not illogical or "wild speculation." ....
The 'factual vaccuum' I was referring to is the absence of evidence to support any other credible explanation of how life came into existence.
If it turns out to be the case that life cannot emerge from inorganic chemistry by any conceivable natural process, what does that leave us with?
Actually that's a question you need to address, so what are we left with beyond idle speculation?
@TruthMuse,
@stephen_33 has the extremely successful history of naturalism at explaining things on his side, so you can't just discount that (let's be fair). And you really can't throw the "evidence based reasoning" at him, when there are so many "evidence based" conclusions that you reject out of hand on the basis of faith/religion.
*I hope against hope for the day when we're all able to lower our defenses and acknowledge the weaknesses in our own position (not just the strengths), and the strengths in opposing positions (not just the weaknesses)
We live in a world where we can see and measure things, but that stops at some point in space and time, and that point is how we explain the beginning. Can all that we see be explained by what we see and can measure? If there something else is required which we cannot see and measure 📐 at what point is this obvious?
There aren’t any natural explanations to point to that deals with all of the things we see in the universe and life, so how can you disagree with what I said? There is nothing you can point to for a natural explanation so your disagreement is purely on philosophical lines of reasoning not evidenced based reasoning.
Claims the person who insists that all living things were created at the same time and the fossil record supports this! You've shown the use you have for evidence.
There aren’t any natural explanations to point to that deals with all of the things we see in the universe and life, so how can you disagree with what I said? There is nothing you can point to for a natural explanation so your disagreement is purely on philosophical lines of reasoning not evidenced based reasoning.
Claims the person who insists that all living things were created at the same time and the fossil record supports this! You've shown the use you have for evidence.
Fossils are just fossils in the ground, and not even important to this discussion, if you want to use my religious beliefs to claim I have religious beliefs, uh okay. That doesn't remove the question that if what we can see and measure cannot explain what we can see and measure, does this mean that something else is required?
@TruthMuse, I think @stephen_33's point is similar to the one I was making that you can't criticize him for not following the evidence if you don't always follow the evidence.
@stephen_33, I don't need to address alternatives. That's a job for the philosophers. Merely pointing out that belief that something more than nature is needed is not illogical in light of the "enormous amount of empirical evidence" that suggests that life can't spontaneously arise from non-life (Tar/Asphalt Paradox).
I'm not sure what's meant by "following the evidence"? There're substantial objections to a naturalistic cause of life on Earth but that hasn't caused researchers to abandon the search and I regard them as being as well informed on the subject as anyone on the planet.
If the objections raised here were convincing then researchers would be convinced as well. The argument that they have little choice because science can only address the physical is a weak one because when a line of investigation has been demonstrated to be hopeless, it should be abandoned. That hasn't happened.
I keep feeling that one or two people here secretly regard those researchers as charlatans, taking funding under false pretences but are too shy to come out and say it?
I've already addressed these points multiple times
@TruthMuse, I think @stephen_33's point is similar to the one I was making that you can't criticize him for not following the evidence if you don't always follow the evidence.
@stephen_33, I don't need to address alternatives. That's a job for the philosophers. Merely pointing out that belief that something more than nature is needed is not illogical in light of the "enormous amount of empirical evidence" that suggests that life can't spontaneously arise from non-life (Tar/Asphalt Paradox).
Not interpreting the evidence the same way you do is not, "not following the evidence", where there is disagreement arguments can be made. When there is nothing to support a position outside of wishful thinking, that should be acknowledged as well.
You have to hold yourself to the same standards. Otherwise it's just special pleading. And I've never seen you "interpret" the same evidence differently. You only just deny the evidence (except in this case with the origin of life where you accept the evidence). That's the inconsistency that must be overcome.
What evidence have I denied, did I ever admit there are no fossils, or did I say what people say about them is an opinion, not facts? You are quite big on observation, I will grant you everything you can observe, and when you say these things mean this, that is something we can talk about. Are the claims you make something we can see in the observable world to the scale you present them or are they just assumptions posing as facts?
I've already addressed these points multiple times
Perhaps but there's no point in admonishing anyone because you feel they should know better (than to place hope in a demonstrably hopeless line of research) when it's difficult for any non-expert to know better than the best informed people on the planet.
What evidence have I denied, did I ever admit there are no fossils, or did I say what people say about them is an opinion, not facts? You are quite big on observation, I will grant you everything you can observe, and when you say these things mean this, that is something we can talk about. Are the claims you make something we can see in the observable world to the scale you present them or are they just assumptions posing as facts?
For example, @stephen_33 and I have both pointed out to you that all life does not appear in the fossil record at the same "time" (in the same layer), but different types of life appear and disappear at different points in the fossil record (like the dinosaurs, for example). This is an observational fact that anyone can go see for themselves.
I've already addressed these points multiple times
Perhaps but there's no point in admonishing anyone because you feel they should know better (than to place hope in a demonstrably hopeless line of research) when it's difficult for any non-expert to know better than the best informed people on the planet.
Don't see how this is any different from what you've already said multiple times (and what I've already said multiple times in response):
1. I support continued research on abiogenesis. That is how science works and abiogenesis is still the working hypothesis that is assumed to be true.
2. I never said science should research a non-natural/supernatural cause. By definition, science can't do that. I said the *belief* that something more than nature is required is not illogical, but a logical inference one can make based on the scientific evidence we have.
3. You keep saying you're not an expert, and that you must defer to what the experts say (as opposed to what I say). But I keep trying to get it across to you that this *is* what the experts say (not what I say).
What evidence have I denied, did I ever admit there are no fossils, or did I say what people say about them is an opinion, not facts? You are quite big on observation, I will grant you everything you can observe, and when you say these things mean this, that is something we can talk about. Are the claims you make something we can see in the observable world to the scale you present them or are they just assumptions posing as facts?
For example, @stephen_33 and I have both pointed out to you that all life does not appear in the fossil record at the same "time" (in the same layer), but different types of life appear and disappear at different points in the fossil record (like the dinosaurs, for example). This is an observational fact that anyone can go see for themselves.
Yes, quite right, and I point out to you that fossils appearing in the ground is really all you got, you are telling me that means X amount of time because they just show up in the ground in different parts of the strata. I thought I had made myself clear, facts, are not a consensus of our educated opinions any more than they are of our purely religious opinions either. You spend a lot of time telling me about your facts that you made up with an educated guess with the best possible explanation you have, but still, those are still not facts, the only fact you have are we find them in the ground.
But a factual vaccuum does not exist ("an enormous amount of empirical data...suggest that it is impossible for *any* non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter into the Darwinian world of the living"), and given that "enormous amount of empirical data" an inference that something beyond nature is needed is not illogical or "wild speculation." That doesn't mean other people have to accept that. Everyone is free to disagree. Your position based on naturalism's track record is a valid point. You obviously can reject the "something more than nature is needed" proposal. That's fine by me, and like I said the track record of naturalism is a valid point. But it would be unfair to label an alternative you reject as "wild speculation," when it is a logical inference based on "an enormous amount of empirical data."
Well, I think we've beaten this dead horse...