Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Sanctissima]

If you consider intelligent design some guy in a lab making cells and bacteria using vitriol and some other elements, then sure, teach away.

Otherwise, no, science is about what's observable in our natural universe. Find a way to observe an omnipresent deity, and you're welcome to teach about the Garden of Eden and anything else theology-related in a science class. But until then, it ain't happening.

I'm not talking about any kind of theology. It's an observable fact, supposedly, that life can be created from nonliving elements by intelligent design. As far as I am aware, it has never been observed that life was created from nonliving elements entirely on accident. Why, then, is it more "scientific" to teach the latter but exclude the former as a possible explanation for the beginning of life?

Because one can make logical conclusions that don't involve a Caananite god of war having done literally everything.

Comets get around, water mixes with carbon and other elements, and over the course of time biological entities form.

[Jamzmania]

So it has, then, been proven that life can be created from nonliving elements through intelligent design? Why, then, would it be wholly unsuitable for a "science" class to mention that intelligent design is a possible explanation for the otherwise extremely unlikely event of life spontaneously being created from nonliving elements?

Because short of God manifesting himself in said biology classroom, and enumerating in detail how he paired amino acids into protein strand and formed DNA, we cannot test that theory, nor can we calculate for it, nor can we verify it. Intelligent design is an argument from reason, not testable empiricism. It's philosophy, not science. Nobody except for czechanada is saying you can't teach intelligent design, but we are saying it shouldn't be taught in a biology class where students are learning about the fundamentals of Genetics, classifications, and why the paramecium have flagella, and the amoeba had pseudopods. It's something that should be reserved for philosophy classes, or social studies classes. And if you want people to be taught that the Christian God created life, well there's Sunday School.

That's fine, I suppose, if it were only testable, calculable, verifiable theories which are being taught in science classes. If you are going to only stick to the previously mentioned things, then that would be better than picking and choosing which (at least somewhat reasonable) untestable, incalculable, and unverifiable theories to teach and which to exclude.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

If you consider intelligent design some guy in a lab making cells and bacteria using vitriol and some other elements, then sure, teach away.

Otherwise, no, science is about what's observable in our natural universe. Find a way to observe an omnipresent deity, and you're welcome to teach about the Garden of Eden and anything else theology-related in a science class. But until then, it ain't happening.

I'm not talking about any kind of theology. It's an observable fact, supposedly, that life can be created from nonliving elements by intelligent design. As far as I am aware, it has never been observed that life was created from nonliving elements entirely on accident. Why, then, is it more "scientific" to teach the latter but exclude the former as a possible explanation for the beginning of life?

Because Science doesn't try to assume anything. God, would be a variable they would have to be able to test for.

To break it down, a scientist looking at this problem would see, for all observable purposes, is that life at some point came into being. We can't observe it happening, but we know it had to have happened. You say God did it, but we can't test that. There's no experiment that we can devise that will test the divine. Thus to say God did it, from the scientific perspective, would be to unduly affirm an untestable conclusion. So rather then say, I don't know how it happened so it must be God, they say, we don't know how it happened, but we'll keep working to find out.

[Jamzmania]

I'm not talking about any kind of theology. It's an observable fact, supposedly, that life can be created from nonliving elements by intelligent design. As far as I am aware, it has never been observed that life was created from nonliving elements entirely on accident. Why, then, is it more "scientific" to teach the latter but exclude the former as a possible explanation for the beginning of life?

Because Science doesn't try to assume anything. God, would be a variable they would have to be able to test for.

To break it down, a scientist looking at this problem would see, for all observable purposes, is that life at some point came into being. We can't observe it happening, but we know it had to have happened. You say God did it, but we can't test that. There's no experiment that we can devise that will test the divine. Thus to say God did it, from the scientific perspective, would be to unduly affirm an untestable conclusion. So rather then say, I don't know how it happened so it must be God, they say, we don't know how it happened, but we'll keep working to find out.

That's fine if you're going to just say "we don't know," but if you're going to push theories, then at least be inclusive.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Because Science doesn't try to assume anything. God, would be a variable they would have to be able to test for.

To break it down, a scientist looking at this problem would see, for all observable purposes, is that life at some point came into being. We can't observe it happening, but we know it had to have happened. You say God did it, but we can't test that. There's no experiment that we can devise that will test the divine. Thus to say God did it, from the scientific perspective, would be to unduly affirm an untestable conclusion. So rather then say, I don't know how it happened so it must be God, they say, we don't know how it happened, but we'll keep working to find out.

That's fine if you're going to just say "we don't know," but if you're going to push theories, then at least be inclusive.

Scientific Theory =/= Everyday random theories.

Evolution is observable theory. We can see how it happened. It's not sciences job to defend itself to religion, but rather religion's job to make sense of science.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I'm not talking about any kind of theology. It's an observable fact, supposedly, that life can be created from nonliving elements by intelligent design. As far as I am aware, it has never been observed that life was created from nonliving elements entirely on accident. Why, then, is it more "scientific" to teach the latter but exclude the former as a possible explanation for the beginning of life?

Because one can make logical conclusions that don't involve a Caananite god of war having done literally everything.

Comets get around, water mixes with carbon and other elements, and over the course of time biological entities form.

That theory about YHWH is even less founded than spontaneous generation of life.

[Jamzmania]

That's fine if you're going to just say "we don't know," but if you're going to push theories, then at least be inclusive.

Scientific Theory =/= Everyday random theories.

Evolution is observable theory. We can see how it happened. It's not sciences job to defend itself to religion, but rather religion's job to make sense of science.

We can theorize how evolution might be a reasonable explanation of what happened based on the evidence that we have, but the same can be said of intelligent design.

We know that life had a beginning. We know that the likelihood of life being created from nonliving elements by complete accident is so low as to be virtually impossible. We know that life can, and supposedly has, been created from nonliving elements by intelligent design. Thus, we can theorize that, given the evidence we have, intelligent design is a reasonable explanation of what happened.

[Sanctissima]

Because one can make logical conclusions that don't involve a Caananite god of war having done literally everything.

Comets get around, water mixes with carbon and other elements, and over the course of time biological entities form.

That theory about YHWH is even less founded than spontaneous generation of life.

Honestly, it has a lot of weight to stand on.

The Israelites did start out as a Caananite tribe, that much should be fact. Is it really so much of a stretch that the Caananite god El is Yahweh? Someone who shares almost all the same functions, comes from the same people, and is even referred to as such (or at least, by very similar names) throughout the Bible?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Scientific Theory =/= Everyday random theories.

Evolution is observable theory. We can see how it happened. It's not sciences job to defend itself to religion, but rather religion's job to make sense of science.

We can theorize how evolution might be a reasonable explanation of what happened based on the evidence that we have, but the same can be said of intelligent design.

We know that life had a beginning. We know that the likelihood of life being created from nonliving elements by complete accident is so low as to be virtually impossible. We know that life can, and supposedly has, been created from nonliving elements by intelligent design. Thus, we can theorize that, given the evidence we have, intelligent design is a reasonable explanation of what happened.

Not quite. Evolution doesn't assume the involvement of another influence, all its components are observable, and testable, and thus is a reasonable deduction. Intelligence requires the assumption of the existence of an intelligent being to create it. We cannot test the existence of this intelligent being, and thus we cannot test intelligent design. It's. Not. Science. It's Reason/Philosophy/what ever other word you can come up with.
We also don't know that life can be created from non-living elements by intelligent design. We think, it can happen, but we can't test that theory either.

[Jamzmania]

We can theorize how evolution might be a reasonable explanation of what happened based on the evidence that we have, but the same can be said of intelligent design.

We know that life had a beginning. We know that the likelihood of life being created from nonliving elements by complete accident is so low as to be virtually impossible. We know that life can, and supposedly has, been created from nonliving elements by intelligent design. Thus, we can theorize that, given the evidence we have, intelligent design is a reasonable explanation of what happened.

Not quite. Evolution doesn't assume the involvement of another influence, all its components are observable, and testable, and thus is a reasonable deduction. Intelligence requires the assumption of the existence of an intelligent being to create it. We cannot test the existence of this intelligent being, and thus we cannot test intelligent design. It's. Not. Science. It's Reason/Philosophy/what ever other word you can come up with.
We also don't know that life can be created from non-living elements by intelligent design. We think, it can happen, but we can't test that theory either.

Someone earlier said that it had been done in an experiment, but if we can't even test if life can be created by intelligent design, then surely we cannot test that it was created by accident, and thus neither should be taught?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

That theory about YHWH is even less founded than spontaneous generation of life.

Honestly, it has a lot of weight to stand on.

The Israelites did start out as a Caananite tribe, that much should be fact. Is it really so much of a stretch that the Caananite god El is Yahweh? Someone who shares almost all the same functions, comes from the same people, and is even referred to as such (or at least, by very similar names) throughout the Bible?

We don't know that for certain. Our earliest archaeological evidence, put's the Hebrews in Canaan circa 1500 BC, but that doesn't tell us they originated there, just that they were there by that time. We also have evidence of proto-hebrews in Egypt as early as 3000 BC, which suggests the Exodus story, while maybe greatly exaggerated, also could have genuinely happened.

Take also into account that no archaeological record of the Canaanite pantheon includes a mention to YHWH (not to mention the Goddess of War is called Anat) and all Hebrew scripture suggests that YHWH operated in opposition to the Gods of Canaan, it's a long stretch on flimsy evidence to suggest that he was also a part of the Canaanite Pantheon.

[Czechanada]

So it has, then, been proven that life can be created from nonliving elements through intelligent design? Why, then, would it be wholly unsuitable for a "science" class to mention that intelligent design is a possible explanation for the otherwise extremely unlikely event of life spontaneously being created from nonliving elements?

Because short of God manifesting himself in said biology classroom, and enumerating in detail how he paired amino acids into protein strand and formed DNA, we cannot test that theory, nor can we calculate for it, nor can we verify it. Intelligent design is an argument from reason, not testable empiricism. It's philosophy, not science. Nobody except for czechanada is saying you can't teach intelligent design, but we are saying it shouldn't be taught in a biology class where students are learning about the fundamentals of Genetics, classifications, and why the paramecium have flagella, and the amoeba had pseudopods. It's something that should be reserved for philosophy classes, or social studies classes. And if you want people to be taught that the Christian God created life, well there's Sunday School.

I never said that intelligent design shouldn't be taught; I said that it should be taught in a religious studies class.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Not quite. Evolution doesn't assume the involvement of another influence, all its components are observable, and testable, and thus is a reasonable deduction. Intelligence requires the assumption of the existence of an intelligent being to create it. We cannot test the existence of this intelligent being, and thus we cannot test intelligent design. It's. Not. Science. It's Reason/Philosophy/what ever other word you can come up with.
We also don't know that life can be created from non-living elements by intelligent design. We think, it can happen, but we can't test that theory either.

Someone earlier said that it had been done in an experiment, but if we can't even test if life can be created by intelligent design, then surely we cannot test that it was created by accident, and thus neither should be taught?

no they said abiogenesis occurs. However, if Abiogensis occurs in a controlled experiment, that means it's perfectly viable that it happened spontaneously without intelligent design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Because short of God manifesting himself in said biology classroom, and enumerating in detail how he paired amino acids into protein strand and formed DNA, we cannot test that theory, nor can we calculate for it, nor can we verify it. Intelligent design is an argument from reason, not testable empiricism. It's philosophy, not science. Nobody except for czechanada is saying you can't teach intelligent design, but we are saying it shouldn't be taught in a biology class where students are learning about the fundamentals of Genetics, classifications, and why the paramecium have flagella, and the amoeba had pseudopods. It's something that should be reserved for philosophy classes, or social studies classes. And if you want people to be taught that the Christian God created life, well there's Sunday School.

I never said that intelligent design shouldn't be taught; I said that it should be taught in a religious studies class.

Well you never know with you shifty eyed penguins.

[Jamzmania]

Someone earlier said that it had been done in an experiment, but if we can't even test if life can be created by intelligent design, then surely we cannot test that it was created by accident, and thus neither should be taught?

no they said abiogenesis occurs. However, if Abiogensis occurs in a controlled experiment, that means it's perfectly viable that it happened spontaneously without intelligent design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

"Abiogenesis or biopoiesis[5] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds."

I am confused.

[Sanctissima]

Honestly, it has a lot of weight to stand on.

The Israelites did start out as a Caananite tribe, that much should be fact. Is it really so much of a stretch that the Caananite god El is Yahweh? Someone who shares almost all the same functions, comes from the same people, and is even referred to as such (or at least, by very similar names) throughout the Bible?

We don't know that for certain. Our earliest archaeological evidence, put's the Hebrews in Canaan circa 1500 BC, but that doesn't tell us they originated there, just that they were there by that time. We also have evidence of proto-hebrews in Egypt as early as 3000 BC, which suggests the Exodus story, while maybe greatly exaggerated, also could have genuinely happened.

Take also into account that no archaeological record of the Canaanite pantheon includes a mention to YHWH (not to mention the Goddess of War is called Anat) and all Hebrew scripture suggests that YHWH operated in opposition to the Gods of Canaan, it's a long stretch on flimsy evidence to suggest that he was also a part of the Canaanite Pantheon.

As far as we know (and of course there's a lot of theorizing, but the archaeological evidence is at least there in parts) the tribe that eventually became the Israelites were Ugarits (I think I spelled that right). The legend of the Exodus probably came from enslaved Caananites who escaped Egypt (albeit in far smaller numbers) and settled in Ugarit. In regards to Moses, my personal guess is that he was a half-legendary or maybe fully legendary figure who got inserted into the tale at a later dare.

The Ugarits eventually came to dominate the other Caananite tribes, probably through a combination of militaristic and cultural means. Over time, a distinct Israeli cultural and religious identity developed, with El becoming Yahweh, the sole god of an initially polytheistic pantheon.

It's mostly speculation, I know, but it would fit in with a lot of the Biblical narrative regarding early Israelite wars, and why God goes from being referred to as Elohim to El Shaddai to Yahweh and numerous other names in the early Hebrew texts.

[Maineiacs]

no they said abiogenesis occurs. However, if Abiogensis occurs in a controlled experiment, that means it's perfectly viable that it happened spontaneously without intelligent design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

"Abiogenesis or biopoiesis[5] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds."

I am confused.

What's confusing about that?

[Jamzmania]

"Abiogenesis or biopoiesis[5] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds."

I am confused.

What's confusing about that?

He was telling me that abiogenesis is different from life being created from nonliving elements.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

no they said abiogenesis occurs. However, if Abiogensis occurs in a controlled experiment, that means it's perfectly viable that it happened spontaneously without intelligent design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

"Abiogenesis or biopoiesis[5] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds."

I am confused.

You, at your lowest molecular level are made up 5 base molecules: Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine, for DNA, Uracil replaces Thymine in RNA. These four base molecules are inorganic molecules, but when they link together they form DNA, and RNA, which is the blueprint for life. These are important for the formation of amino acids: the lowest form of organic molecules. which combine to form proteins, which form basic structures, and Cells and Cell systems and organs and organ systems: LIFE.

Organic matter is created by inorganic matter.

[Jamzmania]

We don't know that for certain. Our earliest archaeological evidence, put's the Hebrews in Canaan circa 1500 BC, but that doesn't tell us they originated there, just that they were there by that time. We also have evidence of proto-hebrews in Egypt as early as 3000 BC, which suggests the Exodus story, while maybe greatly exaggerated, also could have genuinely happened.

Take also into account that no archaeological record of the Canaanite pantheon includes a mention to YHWH (not to mention the Goddess of War is called Anat) and all Hebrew scripture suggests that YHWH operated in opposition to the Gods of Canaan, it's a long stretch on flimsy evidence to suggest that he was also a part of the Canaanite Pantheon.

As far as we know (and of course there's a lot of theorizing, but the archaeological evidence is at least there in parts) the tribe that eventually became the Israelites were Ugarits (I think I spelled that right). The legend of the Exodus probably came from enslaved Caananites who escaped Egypt (albeit in far smaller numbers) and settled in Ugarit. In regards to Moses, my personal guess is that he was a half-legendary or maybe fully legendary figure who got inserted into the tale at a later dare.

The Ugarits eventually came to dominate the other Caananite tribes, probably through a combination of militaristic and cultural means. Over time, a distinct Israeli cultural and religious identity developed, with El becoming Yahweh, the sole god of an initially polytheistic pantheon.

It's mostly speculation, I know, but it would fit in with a lot of the Biblical narrative regarding early Israelite wars, and why God goes from being referred to as Elohim to El Shaddai to Yahweh and numerous other names in the early Hebrew texts.

Maybe not present your wild theories and speculation as being commonly held knowledge?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

What's confusing about that?

He was telling me that abiogenesis is different from life being created from nonliving elements.

No, i linked abiogensis so you could read about how it works.

[Sanctissima]

As far as we know (and of course there's a lot of theorizing, but the archaeological evidence is at least there in parts) the tribe that eventually became the Israelites were Ugarits (I think I spelled that right). The legend of the Exodus probably came from enslaved Caananites who escaped Egypt (albeit in far smaller numbers) and settled in Ugarit. In regards to Moses, my personal guess is that he was a half-legendary or maybe fully legendary figure who got inserted into the tale at a later dare.

The Ugarits eventually came to dominate the other Caananite tribes, probably through a combination of militaristic and cultural means. Over time, a distinct Israeli cultural and religious identity developed, with El becoming Yahweh, the sole god of an initially polytheistic pantheon.

It's mostly speculation, I know, but it would fit in with a lot of the Biblical narrative regarding early Israelite wars, and why God goes from being referred to as Elohim to El Shaddai to Yahweh and numerous other names in the early Hebrew texts.

Maybe not present your wild theories and speculation as being commonly held knowledge?

Says the one who thinks intelligent design should be taught in science class.

[Jamzmania]

Maybe not present your wild theories and speculation as being commonly held knowledge?

Says the one who thinks intelligent design should be taught in science class.

That sounds like a fallacy of some kind.

[Sanctissima]

Says the one who thinks intelligent design should be taught in science class.

That sounds like a fallacy of some kind.

Probably, but I'm not one to be above petty mudslinging.

-builds strawman-

[Tarsonis Survivors]

We don't know that for certain. Our earliest archaeological evidence, put's the Hebrews in Canaan circa 1500 BC, but that doesn't tell us they originated there, just that they were there by that time. We also have evidence of proto-hebrews in Egypt as early as 3000 BC, which suggests the Exodus story, while maybe greatly exaggerated, also could have genuinely happened.

Take also into account that no archaeological record of the Canaanite pantheon includes a mention to YHWH (not to mention the Goddess of War is called Anat) and all Hebrew scripture suggests that YHWH operated in opposition to the Gods of Canaan, it's a long stretch on flimsy evidence to suggest that he was also a part of the Canaanite Pantheon.

As far as we know (and of course there's a lot of theorizing, but the archaeological evidence is at least there in parts) the tribe that eventually became the Israelites were Ugarits (I think I spelled that right). The legend of the Exodus probably came from enslaved Caananites who escaped Egypt (albeit in far smaller numbers) and settled in Ugarit. In regards to Moses, my personal guess is that he was a half-legendary or maybe fully legendary figure who got inserted into the tale at a later dare.

The Ugarits eventually came to dominate the other Caananite tribes, probably through a combination of militaristic and cultural means. Over time, a distinct Israeli cultural and religious identity developed, with El becoming Yahweh, the sole god of an initially polytheistic pantheon.

It's mostly speculation, I know, but it would fit in with a lot of the Biblical narrative regarding early Israelite wars, and why God goes from being referred to as Elohim to El Shaddai to Yahweh and numerous other names in the early Hebrew texts.

I'm sorry but that's incorrect. The Ugarits were tribe operating out of modern day Syria, and had sea trading with multiple Mediterranean powers. They were still existing during times we know the Jews were distinct from Canaanites. They collapsed while the Jews were still in the 1st temple period.