Does God Exist?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's because Science (at a loss when it comes to C19) is their god.

Haha, what crap. Sciene is merely a method of discerning what we know and do not know.

 

[Newtonian]

[In the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1 the Greek words used involve "evident demonstration" and "convincing evidence."

Ironic that you'd quote Hebrews since that is, according to some scholars, a letter written in the name of Paul but not written by him.

First my sense of humor (needed in these times):

After the 5 Ts (teas) [1,2 Thessalonians, 1,2 Timothy, Titus] and the filet mignon (Philemon) - Hebrews some more!

Seriously, a good memory aid for the order of Bible books - after Go Eat Pop Corn (Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians).

So, who wrote Hebrews?

From our Bible dictionary here:

Hebrews, Letter to the — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Writership of the letter to the Hebrews has been widely ascribed to the apostle Paul. It was accepted as an epistle of Paul by early writers. The Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P⁠46) (of about 200 C.E.) contains Hebrews among nine of Paul’s letters, and Hebrews is listed among “fourteen letters of Paul the apostle” in “The Canon of Athanasius,” of the fourth century C.E."

Manuscripts of the Bible — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Quite noteworthy is the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P⁠46) believed to be from about 200 C.E. It has 86 somewhat damaged leaves out of a codex that probably had 104 leaves originally, and it still contains nine of Paul’s inspired letters: Romans, Hebrews, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and First Thessalonians. It is noteworthy that the letter to the Hebrews is included in this early codex. Since Hebrews does not give its writer’s name, its composition by Paul has frequently been disputed. But this letter’s inclusion in P⁠46, evidently consisting of Paul’s letters exclusively, indicates that in about 200 C.E., Hebrews was accepted by early Christians as an inspired writing of the apostle Paul. The letter to the Ephesians appears in this codex, thus also refuting arguments that Paul did not write this letter."

“Bearing Thorough Witness” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"The letter to the Hebrews was addressed to the Hebrew Christians in Judea. Although the letter does not specifically identify the writer, evidence suggests that it was Paul.... Paul sends greetings from Italy, and he mentions Timothy, who was with him in Rome.—Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; Philem. 1; Heb. 13:23, 24."

Note: Paul may have omitted his name because he was "apostle to the nations" (=Gentiles). Many Jews were biased against Gentiles - some even hated them! Instead, Paul quoted or referred to many Hebrew Scriptures from a Jewish perspective. And it is the evidence from the Hebrew Scriptures that Paul refers to, not who the author of Hebrews was, that provides the "convincing evidence" as per Hebrews 11:1

 

[Newtonian]

What is the definition of spirit scientifically?

There isn't any. Its a madeup concept. An abstract construct of the human mind.

Of course, there is evidence of the definitions of the word "spirit" used in the Hebrew Scriptures {OT] (Hebrew ruahh) and in the Christian Greek Scriptures [NT] (Greek pneuma).

All of the definitions (wind/breath/spirit/etc) are within this overall definition: 'invisible active force' [cp. invisible energy]. Even in English words the prefix from Greek pneuma is evidence of its definitions, e.g.:

Pneumonia = diseases involving breath/breathing. (e.g. Covid)

Pneumatic (as in pneumatic tire and pneumatic drill) - involves air pressure - which is also an invisible active force.

 

[Hollie]

That's not necessarily true. Theologians have been wrong about so much of existence from the age of the planet to heliocentrism to compiling the various Bibles.

Not one profession, and no person, is perfect. Getting one thing wrong does not mean all is wrong.

I see it more as a puzzle. No one knows how everything quite fits together, but my own thought is that the various professions ignoring each other isn't the most efficient way to find out.

Here are some statistics. About seven percent of Americans are agnostic or atheist. However, just over sixty percent of Americans believe in evolution and that the earth was created millions of years ago. Of the forty percent who do believe in a young earth and do not hold with evolution, many tend to be older Americans.

In other words, I fall in with the majority who believe in God, evolution, and the earth being created millions of years ago.

The next is those who believe in God and a young earth, no evolution.

The final group are those who do not believe in God, but do believe in evolution and that the earth was created long ago.

Yes. Not one profession, and no person, is perfect. That’s hardly the point, though. It is obvious to me that adherents to a particular religion do predefine a number of conclusions. This is borne out by the "conclusive" nature of partisan religious beliefs leading to a predisposed conclusion using a partisan theology. As long as your predisposition remains biased towards a predisposed conclusion (i.e., that the religion you inherited as a function of parentage and place of birth), is true because the “holy text” says it is true – utterly without support, then one cannot ever view the issue in a nonpartisan way. Evidence really is secondary to your conclusion because the nature of your dogma nullifies actual proofs-- a convenient loophole of your ideological perspective but one that is common to all of them.

Science on the other hand doesn't care what the end result is. Scientists strive to validate and falsify regardless of where a presupposition leads. Science does not carry the burden of religious dogma and as a result, science is able to draw conclusions based only on the evidence in hand. That said, which discipline is more likely to engage in dialogue more freely? Categorize evidence more objectively? Draw conclusions based on the merit of evidence rather than its bearing on alleged “holy texts”?

My point is that as time goes on the sciences are able to assert claims with more and more evidence that anyone can test, while theism has less and less.

 

[alang1216]

[In the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1 the Greek words used involve "evident demonstration" and "convincing evidence."

Ironic that you'd quote Hebrews since that is, according to some scholars, a letter written in the name of Paul but not written by him.

First my sense of humor (needed in these times):

After the 5 Ts (teas) [1,2 Thessalonians, 1,2 Timothy, Titus] and the filet mignon (Philemon) - Hebrews some more!

Seriously, a good memory aid for the order of Bible books - after Go Eat Pop Corn (Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians).

So, who wrote Hebrews?

From our Bible dictionary here:

Hebrews, Letter to the — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Writership of the letter to the Hebrews has been widely ascribed to the apostle Paul. It was accepted as an epistle of Paul by early writers. The Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P⁠46) (of about 200 C.E.) contains Hebrews among nine of Paul’s letters, and Hebrews is listed among “fourteen letters of Paul the apostle” in “The Canon of Athanasius,” of the fourth century C.E."

Manuscripts of the Bible — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Quite noteworthy is the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P⁠46) believed to be from about 200 C.E. It has 86 somewhat damaged leaves out of a codex that probably had 104 leaves originally, and it still contains nine of Paul’s inspired letters: Romans, Hebrews, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and First Thessalonians. It is noteworthy that the letter to the Hebrews is included in this early codex. Since Hebrews does not give its writer’s name, its composition by Paul has frequently been disputed. But this letter’s inclusion in P⁠46, evidently consisting of Paul’s letters exclusively, indicates that in about 200 C.E., Hebrews was accepted by early Christians as an inspired writing of the apostle Paul. The letter to the Ephesians appears in this codex, thus also refuting arguments that Paul did not write this letter."

“Bearing Thorough Witness” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"The letter to the Hebrews was addressed to the Hebrew Christians in Judea. Although the letter does not specifically identify the writer, evidence suggests that it was Paul.... Paul sends greetings from Italy, and he mentions Timothy, who was with him in Rome.—Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; Philem. 1; Heb. 13:23, 24."

Note: Paul may have omitted his name because he was "apostle to the nations" (=Gentiles). Many Jews were biased against Gentiles - some even hated them! Instead, Paul quoted or referred to many Hebrew Scriptures from a Jewish perspective. And it is the evidence from the Hebrew Scriptures that Paul refers to, not who the author of Hebrews was, that provides the "convincing evidence" as per Hebrews 11:1

It is not a forgery like some of the "Paul" letters since the text does not mention the name of its author, but was traditionally attributed to Paul the Apostle. However, doubt on Pauline authorship in the Roman Church is reported by Eusebius.[3] Modern biblical scholarship considers its authorship unknown,[4] perhaps written in deliberate imitation of the style of Paul.[5][6] Although the writer's style reflects some characteristics of Paul's writing, there are some differences.Scholars of Greek consider its writing to be more polished and eloquent than any other book of the New Testament, and "the very carefully composed and studied Greek of Hebrews is not Paul's spontaneous, volatile contextual Greek".[7]

 

[Newtonian]

That's not necessarily true. Theologians have been wrong about so much of existence from the age of the planet to heliocentrism to compiling the various Bibles.

Not one profession, and no person, is perfect. Getting one thing wrong does not mean all is wrong.

I see it more as a puzzle. No one knows how everything quite fits together, but my own thought is that the various professions ignoring each other isn't the most efficient way to find out.

Here are some statistics. About seven percent of Americans are agnostic or atheist. However, just over sixty percent of Americans believe in evolution and that the earth was created millions of years ago. Of the forty percent who do believe in a young earth and do not hold with evolution, many tend to be older Americans.

In other words, I fall in with the majority who believe in God, evolution, and the earth being created millions of years ago.

The next is those who believe in God and a young earth, no evolution.

The final group are those who do not believe in God, but do believe in evolution and that the earth was created long ago.

And then there are those of my religion. We believe in God, that the earth was created likely billions of years ago - but we believe in micro-evolution (e.g. speciation of the cat kind) but reject macro-evolution. Thus we believe many thousands of species were produced from a relatively few kinds (perhaps only 2 cats) on Noah's ark. But we do not believe new kinds evolved - for example: humans from apelike ancestors. But DNA evidence does show we have Neanderthal DNA. Genetic evidence shows all extant human races (and likely extinct races as well) come from a common origin (Acts 17:26).

Also, genetic evidence shows all races came from one mother called the mitochondrial Eve; and from one man - called the Y-chromosomal Adam.

 

[Meriweather]

That's because Science (at a loss when it comes to C19) is their god.

That is a little too broad as well, as I know atheists who have as little interest in science as they are in God. For example, my grandmother, also Catholic, and I were very interested in both God and science. My atheist grandfather took little interest in either. People of science who think that because of science they can, or should, have no interest in God leave me befuddled. To me it is like telling a marine biologist he can have no interest in astronomy.

I think where you and I might agree is that science should not be given the top priority.

 

[Hollie]

That's not necessarily true. Theologians have been wrong about so much of existence from the age of the planet to heliocentrism to compiling the various Bibles.

Not one profession, and no person, is perfect. Getting one thing wrong does not mean all is wrong.

I see it more as a puzzle. No one knows how everything quite fits together, but my own thought is that the various professions ignoring each other isn't the most efficient way to find out.

Here are some statistics. About seven percent of Americans are agnostic or atheist. However, just over sixty percent of Americans believe in evolution and that the earth was created millions of years ago. Of the forty percent who do believe in a young earth and do not hold with evolution, many tend to be older Americans.

In other words, I fall in with the majority who believe in God, evolution, and the earth being created millions of years ago.

The next is those who believe in God and a young earth, no evolution.

The final group are those who do not believe in God, but do believe in evolution and that the earth was created long ago.

And then there are those of my religion. We believe in God, that the earth was created likely billions of years ago - but we believe in micro-evolution (e.g. speciation of the cat kind) but reject macro-evolution. Thus we believe many thousands of species were produced from a relatively few kinds (perhaps only 2 cats) on Noah's ark. But we do not believe new kinds evolved - for example: humans from apelike ancestors. But DNA evidence does show we have Neanderthal DNA. Genetic evidence shows all extant human races (and likely extinct races as well) come from a common origin (Acts 17:26).

Also, genetic evidence shows all races came from one mother called the mitochondrial Eve; and from one man - called the Y-chromosomal Adam.

Unfortunately, believing the Bibles are true because you believe the Bibles are true is simply reinforcing a bias.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB910: New species

CA520: "Origin of Species" on speciation.

www.talkorigins.org

I suppose entirely new species could have magically been created by the Gods while the Ark was underway just a few thousand years ago but that seems a bit unlikely.

 

[Indeependent]

That's because Science (at a loss when it comes to C19) is their god.

That is a little too broad as well, as I know atheists who have as little interest in science as they are in God. For example, my grandmother, also Catholic, and I were very interested in both God and science. My atheist grandfather took little interest in either. People of science who think that because of science they can, or should, have no interest in God leave me befuddled. To me it is like telling a marine biologist he can have no interest in astronomy.

I think where you and I might agree is that science should not be given the top priority.

Science is a beautiful way of connecting with God.

 

[james bond]

We can only speculate on what the conditions of the early earth were and what the first life was made of. Here is some on the carbon cycle. I do know that there was plenty of oxygen around, I'm pretty sure it was not free, atmospheric oxygen, at least not for long.

The only evidence for an intelligent chemist is a gap in our knowledge. Such gaps have been getting smaller and smaller as we learn more.

Go ahead and add the early gases which you claim. What happens to the Miller-Urey experiment?

Miller-Urey Experiment

www.millerureyexperiment.com

 

[Newtonian]

F

That's not necessarily true. Theologians have been wrong about so much of existence from the age of the planet to heliocentrism to compiling the various Bibles.

Not one profession, and no person, is perfect. Getting one thing wrong does not mean all is wrong.

I see it more as a puzzle. No one knows how everything quite fits together, but my own thought is that the various professions ignoring each other isn't the most efficient way to find out.

Here are some statistics. About seven percent of Americans are agnostic or atheist. However, just over sixty percent of Americans believe in evolution and that the earth was created millions of years ago. Of the forty percent who do believe in a young earth and do not hold with evolution, many tend to be older Americans.

In other words, I fall in with the majority who believe in God, evolution, and the earth being created millions of years ago.

The next is those who believe in God and a young earth, no evolution.

The final group are those who do not believe in God, but do believe in evolution and that the earth was created long ago.

Yes. Not one profession, and no person, is perfect. That’s hardly the point, though. It is obvious to me that adherents to a particular religion do predefine a number of conclusions. This is borne out by the "conclusive" nature of partisan religious beliefs leading to a predisposed conclusion using a partisan theology. As long as your predisposition remains biased towards a predisposed conclusion (i.e., that the religion you inherited as a function of parentage and place of birth), is true because the “holy text” says it is true – utterly without support, then one cannot ever view the issue in a nonpartisan way. Evidence really is secondary to your conclusion because the nature of your dogma nullifies actual proofs-- a convenient loophole of your ideological perspective but one that is common to all of them.

Science on the other hand doesn't care what the end result is. Scientists strive to validate and falsify regardless of where a presupposition leads. Science does not carry the burden of religious dogma and as a result, science is able to draw conclusions based only on the evidence in hand. That said, which discipline is more likely to engage in dialogue more freely? Categorize evidence more objectively? Draw conclusions based on the merit of evidence rather than its bearing on alleged “holy texts”?

My point is that as time goes on the sciences are able to assert claims with more and more evidence that anyone can test, while theism has less and less.

First of all, you seem to think peer review support defines science - it does not. In fact, peer reviewed journals contradict each other on many points.

Second, there is prejudice against belief in God for peer approval - including monetary factors such as being approved for grants.

Thankfully, we have zero monetary motives and we rely on actual scientific observations, not peer reviewed selected observations that ignore observations which contradict what is popular among peers. An obvious example you also ignore is earth's crustal carbonates deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which required K, Na, Ca ions in water which destroy chemical pathways to life. Not to mention the fact that Oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust due to oxidation of minerals when popular belief among peers is that there was no free oxygen on early earth. Also, UV photolysis (photodissociation) of Water to produce free Oxygen is ignored. And the fact that formic acid is the predominant chemical reaction product, not amino acids, in origin of life synthesis experiments is also suppressed or ignored.

And on partisan religious beliefs: most people in most religions go to war despite Jesus admonition for us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44) as Gandhi noted. Not to mention Isaiah 2:2-4 which says God's people would "learn war no more." Few religions follow what the Bible teaches on this subject alone - not to mention other subjects like believing God torments people eternally in the false doctrine of Hell Fire - which promotes fear rather than love (1 John 4:8 - God is love) not to mention painting God as cruel.

We do not go to war or learn war and we do love our enemies.

Bottom line - most clergy are money lovers and most so-called Christians do not follow what Jesus taught (Jesus did not accept a salary for his preaching).

Isaac Newton had it right - truth comes from both science and the Bible - observations duly noted and correctly interpreted.

 

[Newtonian]

That's because Science (at a loss when it comes to C19) is their god.

That is a little too broad as well, as I know atheists who have as little interest in science as they are in God. For example, my grandmother, also Catholic, and I were very interested in both God and science. My atheist grandfather took little interest in either. People of science who think that because of science they can, or should, have no interest in God leave me befuddled. To me it is like telling a marine biologist he can have no interest in astronomy.

I think where you and I might agree is that science should not be given the top priority.

Science is a beautiful way of connecting with God.

That is certainly true - Romans 1:20.

 

[james bond]

Go Eat Pop Corn

“The threshing floors shall be full of grain; the vats shall overflow with wine and oil." Joel 2:24

What Does the Bible Say About Pop Corn?

Bible verses about Pop Corn

www.openbible.info

Plenty of verses for it. I noticed because I ordered a popcorn popper, Orville Redenbacher kernels, coconut popcorn oil, flavicol, and more to make it in the microwave at home .

 

[Meriweather]

My point is that as time goes on the sciences are able to assert claims with more and more evidence that anyone can test, while theism has less and less.

Theism cannot have any less evidence because it had no evidence to begin with. That some scientist even think theism should have evidence is utterly astonishing to me. Would you, as a scientist, expect Nitrogen to combine with Hydrogen? If not, why ever would you suppose what is spiritual should combine with what is physical?

Something else you may not be aware of is that even those of us who do remain with the religion we were born into (about 1 in 4), what people in the same family take from religion is vastly different. My grandmother, mother, and I might all be faithful Catholics, but we all got something very different from practicing our faith. (Think of one element, oxygen, combining with hydrogen, fluorine, or magnesium.)

It has been my experience that many people of faith are more ardent explorers than even people of science. You seem to think there is no God to explore, and therefore of course you would have no interest in such an exploration. However, for those of us who do believe/know there is God to seek and discover, we will not be restrained any more than a space explorer will be restrained.

 

[Meriweather]

Science is a beautiful way of connecting with God.

Well said!

 

[alang1216]

We can only speculate on what the conditions of the early earth were and what the first life was made of. Here is some on the carbon cycle. I do know that there was plenty of oxygen around, I'm pretty sure it was not free, atmospheric oxygen, at least not for long.

The only evidence for an intelligent chemist is a gap in our knowledge. Such gaps have been getting smaller and smaller as we learn more.

Go ahead and add the early gases which you claim. What happens to the Miller-Urey experiment?

Miller-Urey Experiment

www.millerureyexperiment.com

I give up, what happens to the Miller-Urey experiment? More to the point, why should we care?

 

[Indeependent]

That's because Science (at a loss when it comes to C19) is their god.

That is a little too broad as well, as I know atheists who have as little interest in science as they are in God. For example, my grandmother, also Catholic, and I were very interested in both God and science. My atheist grandfather took little interest in either. People of science who think that because of science they can, or should, have no interest in God leave me befuddled. To me it is like telling a marine biologist he can have no interest in astronomy.

I think where you and I might agree is that science should not be given the top priority.

Science is a beautiful way of connecting with God.

That is certainly true - Romans 1:20.

I have the original, I don't need the work that plagiarized the original.

 

[Hollie]

F

That's not necessarily true. Theologians have been wrong about so much of existence from the age of the planet to heliocentrism to compiling the various Bibles.

Not one profession, and no person, is perfect. Getting one thing wrong does not mean all is wrong.

I see it more as a puzzle. No one knows how everything quite fits together, but my own thought is that the various professions ignoring each other isn't the most efficient way to find out.

Here are some statistics. About seven percent of Americans are agnostic or atheist. However, just over sixty percent of Americans believe in evolution and that the earth was created millions of years ago. Of the forty percent who do believe in a young earth and do not hold with evolution, many tend to be older Americans.

In other words, I fall in with the majority who believe in God, evolution, and the earth being created millions of years ago.

The next is those who believe in God and a young earth, no evolution.

The final group are those who do not believe in God, but do believe in evolution and that the earth was created long ago.

Yes. Not one profession, and no person, is perfect. That’s hardly the point, though. It is obvious to me that adherents to a particular religion do predefine a number of conclusions. This is borne out by the "conclusive" nature of partisan religious beliefs leading to a predisposed conclusion using a partisan theology. As long as your predisposition remains biased towards a predisposed conclusion (i.e., that the religion you inherited as a function of parentage and place of birth), is true because the “holy text” says it is true – utterly without support, then one cannot ever view the issue in a nonpartisan way. Evidence really is secondary to your conclusion because the nature of your dogma nullifies actual proofs-- a convenient loophole of your ideological perspective but one that is common to all of them.

Science on the other hand doesn't care what the end result is. Scientists strive to validate and falsify regardless of where a presupposition leads. Science does not carry the burden of religious dogma and as a result, science is able to draw conclusions based only on the evidence in hand. That said, which discipline is more likely to engage in dialogue more freely? Categorize evidence more objectively? Draw conclusions based on the merit of evidence rather than its bearing on alleged “holy texts”?

My point is that as time goes on the sciences are able to assert claims with more and more evidence that anyone can test, while theism has less and less.

First of all, you seem to think peer review support defines science - it does not. In fact, peer reviewed journals contradict each other on many points.

Second, there is prejudice against belief in God for peer approval - including monetary factors such as being approved for grants.

Thankfully, we have zero monetary motives and we rely on actual scientific observations, not peer reviewed selected observations that ignore observations which contradict what is popular among peers. An obvious example you also ignore is earth's crustal carbonates deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which required K, Na, Ca ions in water which destroy chemical pathways to life. Not to mention the fact that Oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust due to oxidation of minerals when popular belief among peers is that there was no free oxygen on early earth. Also, UV photolysis (photodissociation) of Water to produce free Oxygen is ignored. And the fact that formic acid is the predominant chemical reaction product, not amino acids, in origin of life synthesis experiments is also suppressed or ignored.

And on partisan religious beliefs: most people in most religions go to war despite Jesus admonition for us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44) as Gandhi noted. Not to mention Isaiah 2:2-4 which says God's people would "learn war no more." Few religions follow what the Bible teaches on this subject alone - not to mention other subjects like believing God torments people eternally in the false doctrine of Hell Fire - which promotes fear rather than love (1 John 4:8 - God is love) not to mention painting God as cruel.

We do not go to war or learn war and we do love our enemies.

Bottom line - most clergy are money lovers and most so-called Christians do not follow what Jesus taught (Jesus did not accept a salary for his preaching).

Isaac Newton had it right - truth comes from both science and the Bible - observations duly noted and correctly interpreted.

F

That's not necessarily true. Theologians have been wrong about so much of existence from the age of the planet to heliocentrism to compiling the various Bibles.

Not one profession, and no person, is perfect. Getting one thing wrong does not mean all is wrong.

I see it more as a puzzle. No one knows how everything quite fits together, but my own thought is that the various professions ignoring each other isn't the most efficient way to find out.

Here are some statistics. About seven percent of Americans are agnostic or atheist. However, just over sixty percent of Americans believe in evolution and that the earth was created millions of years ago. Of the forty percent who do believe in a young earth and do not hold with evolution, many tend to be older Americans.

In other words, I fall in with the majority who believe in God, evolution, and the earth being created millions of years ago.

The next is those who believe in God and a young earth, no evolution.

The final group are those who do not believe in God, but do believe in evolution and that the earth was created long ago.

Yes. Not one profession, and no person, is perfect. That’s hardly the point, though. It is obvious to me that adherents to a particular religion do predefine a number of conclusions. This is borne out by the "conclusive" nature of partisan religious beliefs leading to a predisposed conclusion using a partisan theology. As long as your predisposition remains biased towards a predisposed conclusion (i.e., that the religion you inherited as a function of parentage and place of birth), is true because the “holy text” says it is true – utterly without support, then one cannot ever view the issue in a nonpartisan way. Evidence really is secondary to your conclusion because the nature of your dogma nullifies actual proofs-- a convenient loophole of your ideological perspective but one that is common to all of them.

Science on the other hand doesn't care what the end result is. Scientists strive to validate and falsify regardless of where a presupposition leads. Science does not carry the burden of religious dogma and as a result, science is able to draw conclusions based only on the evidence in hand. That said, which discipline is more likely to engage in dialogue more freely? Categorize evidence more objectively? Draw conclusions based on the merit of evidence rather than its bearing on alleged “holy texts”?

My point is that as time goes on the sciences are able to assert claims with more and more evidence that anyone can test, while theism has less and less.

First of all, you seem to think peer review support defines science - it does not. In fact, peer reviewed journals contradict each other on many points.

Second, there is prejudice against belief in God for peer approval - including monetary factors such as being approved for grants.

Thankfully, we have zero monetary motives and we rely on actual scientific observations, not peer reviewed selected observations that ignore observations which contradict what is popular among peers. An obvious example you also ignore is earth's crustal carbonates deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which required K, Na, Ca ions in water which destroy chemical pathways to life. Not to mention the fact that Oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust due to oxidation of minerals when popular belief among peers is that there was no free oxygen on early earth. Also, UV photolysis (photodissociation) of Water to produce free Oxygen is ignored. And the fact that formic acid is the predominant chemical reaction product, not amino acids, in origin of life synthesis experiments is also suppressed or ignored.

And on partisan religious beliefs: most people in most religions go to war despite Jesus admonition for us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44) as Gandhi noted. Not to mention Isaiah 2:2-4 which says God's people would "learn war no more." Few religions follow what the Bible teaches on this subject alone - not to mention other subjects like believing God torments people eternally in the false doctrine of Hell Fire - which promotes fear rather than love (1 John 4:8 - God is love) not to mention painting God as cruel.

We do not go to war or learn war and we do love our enemies.

Bottom line - most clergy are money lovers and most so-called Christians do not follow what Jesus taught (Jesus did not accept a salary for his preaching).

Isaac Newton had it right - truth comes from both science and the Bible - observations duly noted and correctly interpreted.

I believe a more precise description in your opening sentence would be “those who submit data for peer review in science journals can contradict each other on many points”

Of course, the point of peer review is to have others attempt to validate or to refute submitted data. That's how science works. "Belief" is not the measure. Testability is. For a theory to be considered scientific, it must run a continuous gauntlet of testing, replication and peer review. The theorist who simply proposes dogma that make him “feel good” because the dogma is within a “holy text” without any evidence, reasoning or testing is at best just reciting labels.

The reason why many, many people have a hard time believing creationism is because there is not one shred of evidence to support it, and above that it is an irrational concept dealing completely in speculation.

What we do see is a refusal to accept the idea that there is no practical limit to how species can evolve and a refusal to accept that humans could have evolved from primitive hominids. That is repugnant to many theists, not because the science is bad but because it clashes with the literal flood fable.

I'm never surprised at how many so-called Christians define out of Christianity other Christians who don't hold the same Christian beliefs. I'm thinking maybe it's up to me to get a black and white striped shirt and whistle so I can referee the match.

 

[Hollie]

My point is that as time goes on the sciences are able to assert claims with more and more evidence that anyone can test, while theism has less and less.

Theism cannot have any less evidence because it had no evidence to begin with. That some scientist even think theism should have evidence is utterly astonishing to me. Would you, as a scientist, expect Nitrogen to combine with Hydrogen? If not, why ever would you suppose what is spiritual should combine with what is physical?

Something else you may not be aware of is that even those of us who do remain with the religion we were born into (about 1 in 4), what people in the same family take from religion is vastly different. My grandmother, mother, and I might all be faithful Catholics, but we all got something very different from practicing our faith. (Think of one element, oxygen, combining with hydrogen, fluorine, or magnesium.)

It has been my experience that many people of faith are more ardent explorers than even people of science. You seem to think there is no God to explore, and therefore of course you would have no interest in such an exploration. However, for those of us who do believe/know there is God to seek and discover, we will not be restrained any more than a space explorer will be restrained.

Your statement that Theism has no evidence is an argument you need to explore with your fellow theists. My older brother still has the body armor he deployed with. I can arrange to loan that to you before you square off with some of the more excitable religious types.

 

[Newtonian]

T

We can only speculate on what the conditions of the early earth were and what the first life was made of. Here is some on the carbon cycle. I do know that there was plenty of oxygen around, I'm pretty sure it was not free, atmospheric oxygen, at least not for long.

The only evidence for an intelligent chemist is a gap in our knowledge. Such gaps have been getting smaller and smaller as we learn more.

Go ahead and add the early gases which you claim. What happens to the Miller-Urey experiment?

Miller-Urey Experiment

www.millerureyexperiment.com

Thaxton, et al, documented the actual chemical reaction product proportions in this book:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

From page 23:

"In 1974, Miller reported the amino acids he had obtained in electrical discharge experiments.8 These are listed in table 3-2."

Reference 8. Miller and Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth, p. 84. See also: D. Ring, Y. Wolman, N. Friedmann, and S. Miller, 1972. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 69, 765; Y. Wolman, W.J. Haverland, and S.L. Miller, 1972. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 69, 809; S. Miller, 1955. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 77,2351.

Table3-2. Yields of amino acids obtained from sparking a mixture of CFL, NHl, H20 and H2.
Compound
Glycine Alanine a-Amino-n-butyric acid a-Aminoisobutyric acid Valine Norvaline Isovaline Leucine Isoleucine Alloisoleucine Norleucine tert-Leucine Proline Aspartic acid Glutamic acid Serine Threonine Allothreonine
Yield (14M) Compound Yield (14M)
440 790 270 30 19.5 61 5 11.3 4.8 5.1 6.0 < 0.02 1.5 34 7.7 5.0 0.8 0.8
a:y-Diaminobutyric acid a-Hydroxy-')'-aminobutyric acid Sarcosine N-Ethylglycine N-Propylglycine N-Isopropylglycine N-Methylalanine N-Ethylalanine ,8-Alanine ,8-Amino-n-butyric acid ,8-Amino-isobutyric acid "Y-Aminobutyric acid N-Methyl-,8-alanine N-Ethyl-,8-alanine Pipecolic acid a,,B-Diaminopropionic acid Isoserine
33 74 55 30 2 2 15 < 0.2 18.8 0.3 0.3 2.4 5 2 0.05 6.4 5.5
(From S. Miller, 1974. Origins of Life 5, 139.)

See the link for correct formatting.

Note this list does not include formic acid, the primary product, because it is not an amino acid.

Note Glycine has the highest proportion. This is because Glycine is the simplest amino acid. From Bing search:

"The simplest, and smallest, amino acid found in proteins is glycine for which the R-group is a hydrogen (H)."

There are about 500 naturally occurring amino acids - only 20 (L polarized) are used in life.

Table 3-3 (page 25) includes the primary chemical reaction product: formic acid. It is the base of comparison of chemical reaction product proportions with a number of 1,000. By comparison, Glycine is 270 and Glycolic acid is 240. Some of the amino acids produced are extremely low percentage compared with non-biologic product proportions - see the chart.

See the rest of the evidence of different synthesis experiments in different environments in documented in chapter 3.

Chapter 4 is entitled "The myth of of the prebiotic soup" shows much evidence from chemistry.

I will post just one example in this post. From page 48:[HCN is Hydrogen Cyanide]

"Hydrolysis of HCN and Nitriles (RCN)
According to Ponnamperuma, hydrogen cyanide may be "the most important intermediate leading to the origin of life."29 It is an ingredient for the production of amino acids in the Strecker synthesis (see Chapter 3). It also is considered a starting material in the synthesis of adenine and a host of other biomolecules, as shown in figure 4-1. The value of HCN in the chemical evolution scenario is enhanced by the fact that it escapes rapid destruction in the atmosphere by ultraviolet irradiation.30
....
It is the ubiquitous water molecule, however, that is the main obstacle to the reaction involving HCN and its nitrile derivatives.31 For example, HCN adds water to its triple bond to form formamide, which, upon further hydrolysis, produces formic acid."

This is why formic acid, not amino acids. is the primary chemical reaction product in synthesis experiments including Miller-Urey.

This is an example of basic chemistry ignored by chemical evolutionists. Simply: HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid.

Page 50 goes into more detail as to the destruction of chemical pathways to molecules required for life.

That is for my next post.