Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: Noinden
I have little intention to try to prove something regarding this subject to those who believe that nothing can be proven (a.k.a. 'science does not deal with absolutes' and all variants of that agnostic philosophy) including whether or not one plus one is two, or always two (in rational honest conversations with the proper use of language and agreed upon logical and mathematical rules of rationality and understandable communication).

I'm not attacking science, I'm pointing out fiction and mythology and the behaviour of those who promote, express and adhere to it under the marketinglabels of "science", "scientific", "peer reviewed" (science, articles), etc. And describing some of my issues with doing the same (or a short description, using metaphors).

a reply to: whereislogic

That is a cop out. As I said, I'm not an atheist, nor am I agnostic. You have repeatedly made statements regarding science, and tried to use it as evidence, but can't actually back any of it up with a citation.

Here is the thing neighbour. If you are going to use science as "evidence" (or lack of) you need to play by the rules science lives by. It would be like trying to use Russian as evidence for something, but refusing to cite what the Russian phrases mean.

So again, you are coping out, and you are doing this to a scientist who is theistic.

originally posted by: whereislogic
It just demonstrated further to me what the issue is here. An unwillingness to properly evaluate these so-called "peer reviewed" articles.

I think the issue here is that you and the OP don't seem to grasp that no matter how the "peer reviewed" articles are evaluated, it will never be an argument bolstering the premise in the OP.

"Always Existing vs Nothing"

This is a false dichotomy and since nobody seems to really be arguing for nothing, at least not the way the OP seems to be using the term, what exactly do you expect people to present?

a reply to: Noinden
Citations that certain people here don't like (not tickling their ears) tend to be ignored or dissed as mere opinion. Too bad these people can't make the same evaluation of their own citations and sources.

Like you're ignoring my first comment to you today. Preferring to focus on a silly debate game. Like pretending now that you're responding to me by mentioning you're not agnostic, as if I said or suggested such a thing. You have "druid" after all in your description (and you already told me before I think, or I read a comment with you talking about that).

I'd love it if you guys started using a proper and proven effective method to acquire science/knowledge about realities/facts or things that are absolute/factual/certain. I described it many times before using Isaac Newton's descriptions of his methodology that allowed him to discover things like the Law of Gravity, which is still correct, without error (no matter what you might have heard about Einstein's work in that field of research or science/knowledge taking other facts into consideration as well that influence results under certain conditions). It was dismissed at the time as mere philosophy by Barcs I think. I've had others make similar arguments just because the quotation contains the phrases "Natural Philosophy" and "Experimental Philosophy" (both terms that were used a lot before the terms "science" and "scientific method" had the popularity they have today).

From wiki, the page for "scientist":

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

Rule I: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

Myths deceptively presented as hypotheses (won't go into the definition of hypothesis now) is not "science", "scientific" or "a scientific basis for..."(fill in the rest of the quotation earlier regarding the origin of life and Barcs' suggestion that there is a scientific basis for what was asked about).

a reply to: whereislogic

Couple of things neighbour.

(a) I am in a different time zone, so "today" is subjective
(b) I can only assume your first post in the last few hours to me, had something I should reply too? Because to be blunt, I'm not the one making comments on what Science has or has not said. But as you wish. Where exactly has science tested if life can spontaneously create? I think you will find that if such an experiment were being conducted, the time it took would be longer than the "spontaneous" thing you are claiming. Your understanding of science is appalling.
(c) I've told you what sort of scientist I am a long time ago. Guess what, I commit science, every day, for a good paycheck.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: whereislogic
(a) I am in a different time zone, so "today" is subjective

Haven't made a comment to you in days, so why even bring up the above other than to feel like you have to win some debate and pretend I'm not clear enough or something or said something wrong or stupid, not making enough sense or not thinking it through?

(b) I can only assume your first post in the last few hours to me, had something I should reply too?

Sure, quickly talk past your attempts at making it appear I had not pointed towards citations, sources and references. I.e. no science to back up anything I said. The usual routine that I refer to as ignoring or dissing the science/knowledge about facts/realities that pertains to these subjects (and 'winning' a debate, playing debate games, discrediting the person for others to see).

Because to be blunt, I'm not the one making comments on what Science has or has not said.

Huh, now I'm the one using phrases like "what science has said...." when I'm actually pointing out that "scientists say things..." to demonstrate how you are using the word "science" as a magic 'stick of truth' when referring to something that is almost always actually presented as not true/certain/absolute/factual/conclusive/correct, without error by those using that word as a marketinglabel when referring to unverified philosophies/ideas and especially when you start asking pressing questions about the logical chasms in the myths told by philosophers who refer to themselves and eachother as scientists? (I explained before when I'm counting them as scientists and when as philosophers depending on what they're doing at the time or what I'm describing that they're doing).

The rest I'm not interested in responding to anymore, tired of the straw man arguments. Also because gloating, marketing yourself (and thus your opinions and arguments), discrediting others who don't agree with you including the reverse appeal to pride mentioned below (for the readers, referring to your claim that ends with "appalling"), pride and arrogance are a real killer of rational conversation but perfect for propagandistic purposes or fuel for useless debates (it isn't going to change reality or my views about reality though).

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
...
They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Source: link in my signature

Quoting Barcs:

Just because we haven't seen life originate, doesn't mean it can't happen. There is no logical connection between not seeing it, and it being impossible or unlikely.

Let's change that argument (ignoring for a moment that it was a response to an imaginary straw man argument that obviously wasn't spelled out and then responded to; but not ignoring that "we haven't seen life [spring from nonliving matter by natural processes alone which includes not reverse engineering from biomolecular machinery that may be defined as nonliving matter for convenience when it's non-operational]" wasn't spelled out) for a moment to something very similar and see if this way of thinking is of any use in determining the truth/reality of a matter:

'Just because we haven't seen a pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster, doesn't mean it didn't exist at one time, exists now somewhere, or will exist in the future. There is no logical connection between not seeing it, and it being impossible or unlikely.'

Perhaps the above statement is perfectly correct, yet does it in any way convince someone like me that the existence or historical existence of pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters is possible, likely or even inevitable (as some philosophers claim regarding the origin of life by natural processes alone when the topic of chance and necessity or probability comes up). Or would the statement be a nice red herring if it wasn't already a straw man argument?

I never like to make the rude comment 'put up or shut up' but I still would like to leave a reminder of that phrase.
Especially since I mentioned that I have observed and concluded that ""all scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter" by natural processes alone (plus my other stipulations regarding what I mean by natural processes alone) from my research into the matter. And no sorry, so-called "hypotheses" that I perceive to be myths because of logical sound reasons are not going to affect that conclusion. Which like Newton, I consider to be a certain truth, "notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which [it] may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions." This rule I must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses, and I do not become unwise deceiving myself with false reasoning and wishful thinking (including beliefs in the possibility or likelihood of things for which there is about as much real tangible logical and/or reasonable evidence as there is for the possible existence of pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters, but a lot more twisted argumentation and half-truths and propagandistic attempts to boost the perception of the general public regarding that likelihood and in some cases even called inevitable or 'by necessity'; that alerts me to something else going on).

originally posted by: whereislogic
pride and arrogance are a real killer of rational conversation but perfect for propagandistic purposes or fuel for useless debates...

Sounds a lot like this thread and, I hate to say it but, your participation in it.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Perhaps the above statement is perfectly correct, yet does it in any way convince someone like me

Perfect example of my previous post.

I never like to make the rude comment 'put up or shut up' but I still would like to leave a reminder of that phrase.

You missed the point. It's simple. That task falls upon the OP before he gets to ask others to counter his premise.

a reply to: daskakik
"...does it in any way convince someone like me..." is referring to someone who doesn't accept or believe myths (like stories about pink unicorns) as "a scientific basis" or "science"(/knowledge, pertaining to facts, things that are absolute/factual) simply because (some) scientists (functioning as philosophers) say so (when doing this) which is then used under the argument paraphrased as '(peer reviewed) science says so'. Or said. Or the reverse, did not say so (suggesting facts are myths or fiction just because it's not in the so-called peer reviewed articles or not exactly spelled out the same way, or simply ignoring or dissing it if it is spelled out, as mere opinion; demanding citations before acknowledging inconvenient facts and responding to those rather than straw man arguments that aren't spelled out, or a slight twist here or there to promote confusion or misinterpretation of what is being argued for or said).

So I think you missed my point, or another possibility could be feigning having missed it to make another argument against whatever I might say.

I also see no link between my commentary about pride and arrogance being harmful to rational conversations in general and the first part of the sentence you quoted:
"Perhaps the above statement is perfectly correct,..."

I thought that was a pretty humble statement 'open to agreement', even using part of the mode of thinking that is so popular on ATS and that I've spoken about before:

“What Is Truth?”

THAT question was cynically posed to Jesus by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.—John 18:38.

This disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. They hold that truth...is not absolute but relative and ever changing.

Source: “What Is Truth?”

Pilate, of course, was not really seeking the truth. If anything, his question revealed his skeptical or cynical attitude. Apparently, to Pilate truth was whatever a person might choose or was taught to believe; there was really no way to determine what is truth. Many today feel the same way.

I did use "perhaps" after all, accomodating those who feel similarly as described above. The word perhaps is also there to indicate that it's besides my main point about that statement and that I haven't given that particular statement and whether or not it is perfectly correct a lifetime of thought.

originally posted by: whereislogic
"someone like me" is referring to someone who doesn't accept or believe myths (like stories about pink unicorns) as "a scientific basis" or "science"

Pink unicorns are not used in these posts as myths or things that people actually believe in but as sarcastic exaggerations to emphasize the lack of proof in other myths, like your own.

So I think you missed my point, or another possibility could be feigning having missed it to make another argument against whatever I might say.

I honestly don't know what your point is. I'm seeing members of ATS who have some "faith" in science discussing the topic. Faith is in quotes for a reason. Mainly because it isn't the same faith as religious faith although it has become common practice to equate the two.

The OP created the thread with what seemed like the intention of proving why creation was the only logical explanation. Their logic doesn't convince someone like those who have asked for a better argument, for whatever reason.

ETA:

I also see no link between my commentary about pride and arrogance being harmful to rational conversations in general and the first part of the sentence you quoted:
"Perhaps the above statement is perfectly correct,..."

You said it yourself, the "above statement" despite maybe being "perfectly correct" doesn't convince you. The only time I have seen people come across something "perfectly correct" and not accepting it is when they are being proud and arrogant.

a reply to: daskakik
Well don't worry, I wasn't using sarcasm. I was dead serious when changing only a few words in Barcs' commentary regarding this subject to demonstrate the unreasonable nature of bringing up something like that regarding the subject that was being asked about. As if you're making a point that should be considered regarding the validity of claims presented as various so-called "hypotheses" concerning the topic of abiogenesis by natural processes alone and the likelihood or how plausible they are to be the correct view of reality (a supposed historical reality in this case, a supposed past event, hence the term myth if it's not correct). Or how "scientific" they are, whether or not they should qualify as a proper rational reasonable scientific basis for those claims.

What I did there was take a well known sarcastic straw man argument (that also makes use of the other propaganda techniques I mentioned earlier) from the clique of philosophical naturalists whose other arguments many here repeat (such as Dawkins who used the 'pink unicorn'-argument), and applied it properly, rationally and seriously to Barcs' commentary and the way of thinking and arguing of the philosophical naturalists I just spoke about instead (of using it as a straw man argument in a propagandistic manner, including warping people's understanding of the word "faith" into "blind faith", but that's a slight side issue you brought up).

All so-called hypotheses involving the topic of abiogenesis that I have researched resembled nothing more than more fanciful stories about pink unicorns than the stories you hear about pink unicorns, but the actual experimental logical conclusive/factual (etc.) evidence* for it is of the same quantity, totally lacking. Zero, nada, noppes. * = I'm thinking about the type of reasoning, arguing and evaluating evidence that Isaac Newton and the Encyclopaedia Britannica described, those are my standards for proper evidence and a logical reason to think something is possible, likely, inevitable or the case of the matter (a fact/certainty, something that is absolute/correct, without error/factual).

a reply to: whereislogic

The sarcasm wasn't your's it was their's.

It isn't meant to be scientific. It is meant to highlight the fact that anyone can throw out an outlandish "hypothesis" and if people can't prove it wrong it doesn't mean that it is true. Like the premise of this thread.

a reply to: daskakik
Then why did you link it to my comment about arrogance and pride? Which btw does show in Dawkins' sarcastic usage of the pink unicorn argument in a straw man fashion, just like you're doing when you said "myths, like your own" and "like the premise of this thread". Going back to the straw man but refusing to even consider the point I was making, let alone say anything about it. Switching to implying a lack of proof for something else instead. Shifting the question that Barcs was 'responding' to, and I mean that in a broad but vague sense, cause I already explained how he was responding to a straw man that you now replaced with another one, if I can call it a straw man, perhaps this one is better described as a red herring away from the question that was asked:

Fact: All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter.
Question: What is the scientific basis for saying that the first cell sprang from nonliving chemicals?

According to Barcs, after filling in the gaps in his commentary, the myths that are included and accompanied by facts presented in a misleading manner and half-truths (leaving out inconvenient details for consideration) in certain publications about the topic of abiogenesis are a scientific basis for this (including the things I added to make it more clear what the subject was and what the claims are that are made in relation to that subject, things that are discussed in more detail in the article I was quoting from; what is meant with "saying that the first cell sprang from nonliving chemicals" in more detail and who are saying that, including references and including the parts of the story that they aren't spelling out when saying things like that or rephrasing it to terms like "the hypothesis of abiogenesis", "the chemical evolution theory of life", 'chemical evolution followed by biological evolution', "evolution", "evolved....", 'self-organized...', "...created itself...", "Nature found a way to...", "Nature...created it", or was that "designed" that Phantom423 used a long time ago? Etc.).

No matter how much rephrasing, philosophical naturalists can't hide their 'Mother Nature did it' (flying spaghetti monster) from someone who has given this a lifetime of thought with a couple of unfair advantages over others that I won't go into detail about other than making another mention of 2 Timothy 4:3,4 and the "system of things" and the "spirit of the world". Which probably won't mean much to most readers unless they've heard me talking about it before. And can find some agreement in the articles in my signature (2 pages) and/or Newton's warnings regarding hypotheses.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Figured you were going to continue changing the fact that was spoken of and then responding to that. It doesn't say that it's impossible. It says ""all scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter". That's what I'm observing (including the very same experiments that you interpret the other way around). I'm not talking about what I'm not observing being automatically impossible, I never made that argument. That's why it's called a straw man argument.

Have you even read the research papers on the experiments that I referenced? I'd really like to hear your counterpoints and your explanation of how and why they are wrong.

I changed nothing and responded directly to your claims every time. Funny how you snipped off the part of that paragraph that specifically explains it! I mean come on, don't accuse me of ignoring your points when you intentionally left out the part that addressed it.

"all scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter"

This is simply false. I have not seen any scientific research make that conclusion and you have not yet addressed the science behind the various experiments. Please show me the scientific research paper that concludes this, or explain why the experiments are wrong. Your claim is very deceptive.

"Scientific research has not yet proven that life can spring from nonliving matter"

This is the proper way to phrase it, rather than the statement above which you completely pulled out of your rear (or saw it on JW propaganda site)

Big difference from your false claim above because it is still a work in progress in science. To suggest that it is myth or fantasy, just because it hasn't been completely demonstrated yet, is a bit silly. If all scientific research indicated that it cannot happen, then there wouldn't be several experiments that show various parts of the process. The problem is, there ARE those experiments and you have not once addressed them. You look for excuses to dismiss them.

I've already seen the stuff that Barcs and others have put forward in this forum so far, it didn't qualify. Perhaps that's why he's not sharing any of it again to show how wrong my evaluation of this scientific research is.

How can you say that when you refuse to address any of it? You just claim it doesn't qualify, but why? Please explain why the studies are invalid or why they indicate that it cannot happen as per your mission statement.

'Just because we haven't seen a pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster, doesn't mean it didn't exist at one time, exists now somewhere, or will exist in the future. There is no logical connection between not seeing it, and it being impossible or unlikely.'

There is no evidence of pink unicorns or FSM, so it is logical to reject that belief, just like the claim of god. There IS evidence of abiogenesis and RNA world. You just refuse to acknowledge it, but good thing science doesn't care what some random JW propagandist on the internet claims.

So yeah, I'm still waiting for your "observations" on the research papers, with direct quotes and explanations of why they are wrong, rather than blind denial and semantics arguments. I'm not holding my breath, however. We have already run this rodeo many times. You will pretend you don't have to address the science, bring up some faulty generalization about it, make an absurd conclusion based on this generalization, and then you will attack my character and falsely accuse me of fallacies, all of which while avoiding discussing any science whatsoever.

If you are really going to stand by the statement "all scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter", then why not "all scientific research indicates that life cannot come from a conscious creator". According to your logic, both statements are correct. I can't wait to see how you explain yourself out of this one, although I'm not expecting anything beyond the usual conjecture.

Have you even read the research papers on the experiments that I referenced? I'd really like to hear your counterpoints and your explanation of how and why they are wrong.

Holograms created by Satan.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Then why did you link it to my comment about arrogance and pride?

To point out that you were not getting it.

Which btw does show in Dawkins' sarcastic usage of the pink unicorn argument in a straw man fashion, just like you're doing when you said "myths, like your own" and "like the premise of this thread". Going back to the straw man but refusing to even consider the point I was making, let alone say anything about it. Switching to implying a lack of proof for something else instead. Shifting the question that Barcs was 'responding' to, and I mean that in a broad but vague sense, cause I already explained how he was responding to a straw man that you now replaced with another one, if I can call it a straw man, perhaps this one is better described as a red herring away from the question that was asked:

Call it whatever you want. I was just addressing the topic of the thread while including you part in it.

No matter how much rephrasing, philosophical naturalists can't hide their 'Mother Nature did it' (flying spaghetti monster) from someone who has given this a lifetime of thought with a couple of unfair advantages over others that I won't go into detail about other than making another mention of 2 Timothy 4:3,4 and the "system of things" and the "spirit of the world". Which probably won't mean much to most readers unless they've heard me talking about it before. And can find some agreement in the articles in my signature (2 pages) and/or Newton's warnings regarding hypotheses.

Your participation shows that you are more than eager to go into it.

You complain about me saying "myths like your own" and then cite the bible. How was I wrong?

Newton is your red herring. Newton was a smart guy but his warnings don't bolster the premise of the OP.

a reply to: whereislogic

To be honest I'm not keeping track of the days you do or do not reply to me neighbour. You ingore questions for months from people afterall

Your strawman needs to be a bit more sturdy.

originally posted by: AshFan

Have you even read the research papers on the experiments that I referenced? I'd really like to hear your counterpoints and your explanation of how and why they are wrong.

Holograms created by Satan.

Hahaha. I don't believe in holograms created by Satan, so I guess that makes me an ahologramofsatanist... but OMG I can't prove they don't exist! Crap!

a reply to: Barcs

I think one needs to eat ergot to see them.... Or ricin ,