Jazzycat Debate with a Naturalist

The following discussion took place at my good friend Mark Pierson's Bluecollar Blog at his request. A scientist by the name of Jim from the United Kingdom, who is a university biology lecturer and atheist, was invited by Mark to have a discussion with me on the existence of God. The following is the comment thread from that discussion and also a link to the original post at the Bluecollar Blog:
"Wayne and Jim Talk - Is the Bible Truth?"

Mark said........
Yep, the sitemeter indicates about four people read here a day. This post could be good for ratings. Oh, dare I hope that we could increase the readership by, Oh... nah, could it possibly be, could we increase to...five?! Oh dear, that would be too good to be true...

Loren said.......
That's a good idea, but I know Maalie is going away tomorrow for a short holiday.

Maalie (Jim) said.....
Hi Mark, what a great idea and I will enjoy contributing here and trust that we can be civil. Elsewhere I was treated thus: are Maalie and Dawkins are like an Elymas of modern times? I think a fair comparison can be made because of their shared opposition to the truth. I was likened to the son of the Devil.

I shall say now that I most certainly do not oppose the "truth". "Truth" is often transitory, and is what one perceives it to be. Rather, my quest is to find the most parsimonious explanation that accounts for the evidence as we view it.

Also, I might point out that accusations made against me are also per se directed against the orthodox peer-reviewed scientific community which of course includes some of your own country's most brilliant brains.

Mark, if you put this up expecting to find a "winner" in this debate, you may be disappointed. Some points of view are irreconcilable from the outset.

As Lorenzo said, I am off on holiday (I need to check out some hominid fossils in the Natural History Museum in Vienna), but I will look in as opportunity presents itself.

My current musings are that a man could not have survived for three days in the guts of a fish; and that human diversity could not have sprung from a group so small as Noah's family in such a shoirt time.

Best wishes. I wish you all a pleasant spring holiday, whatever it means to you. To me, it is the Festival of Ostara, as it used to be before the Christians hijacked it.

Jazzycat (Wayne) said.......
Jim,
Since you are starting off by confirming that your view is not universal among your peers in the scientific community, I would like to highlight the point that many in the scientific community are Christians and believe in the God of the Holy Bible. Therefore, objections against your views are not necessarily against all of your peers. Put another way many scientists of the present and past are Christians just like Mark and myself. I personally know some.

While I agree that everything other than our immutable God is in a state of becoming and change rather than being, I disagree that that the truth is often transitory and dependent on ones perception. Truth may be hard to find as even scientists have gotten many scientific principles wrong on their road to getting it right, but the truth is there to be discovered and is not dependent on consensus or anything else.

Since the theory of evolution that you affirm is a system based on change rather than a static state, I would like to ask you the following questions about the second of two starting points that your view (atheists) must explain. What is your view of how life began from non-life and has any of your peers ever duplicated this feat in the laboratory?

Maalie (Jim) said.....
>What is your view of how life began from non-life and has any of your peers ever duplicated this feat in the laboratory?

May I say at the outset that I am in practice unable always to give replies here that would take me a semester of lectures to elaborate.

I think you will go some way to finding your answer here:Miller's experiments.

The point is this, we do not need to prove exactly how life evolved without the intervention of the supernatural; only that it could have. Then, by attributing a supernatural influence merely adds a further assumption, which, by definition, renders the explanation less parsimonious.

In the view of the orthodox peer-reviewed scientific community (the only one I am qualified to relate to) it has been established beyond doubt that life could have emerged without the intervention of the supernatural.

With all due deference to you, we have had different educational backgrounds, which means that your understanding of relevant vocabulary is limited, just as mine would be restricted in a discussion of a subject area in which you yourself are qualified.

Jazzycat (Wayne) said........
Jim,
Thanks for your answer to my question. I would also say that my replies are also limited by the time restraints you refer to. The Miller’s experiments link was interesting. I think you do need to offer plausible answers for how live evolved without the intervention of a supernatural being. After all astrophysicists offer detailed plausible answers as to how the universe began and expanded after the big bang. However, they do have a huge problem with explaining where the stuff (matter/energy) of the big bang originated.

First, let me define a supernatural being as an eternal self-existent being that does change or require anything for his existence. He exists outside of time and space and could be called an uncaused cause and creator of the known universe. You say the orthodox peer-reviewed scientific community have established that life could have emerged without the intervention of a supernatural being! Wouldn’t you agree that this also means that life could possibly not have emerged from non-life apart from a supernatural being? Wouldn’t you also say to assert emphatically that it did emerge apart from a supernatural being requires a leap of faith since you admit it has not been proved? IOW, to totally reject another plausible possibility is to place faith in the one possibility that you admit has not been proved? Shouldn’t scientists consider all possibilities until one has been proved? Even if the evolution you assert is true, it does not disprove the God of the Bible (note: I do not accept macroevolution). Neither does the big bang theory. Science has not disproved a supreme being and not offered any coherent explanation of how something comes from nothing apart from an eternal self-existent being? Yet, many will not even allow the possibility of a supernatural being to be considered a possibility. This seems unbelievable to me even if there were no Bible, no historical record that affirms Biblical accounts, or no religion of any kind on planet earth.

I admit that my vocabulary may be lacking as you describe. However, I am not unfamiliar with scientific methods as I have an engineering degree and experience with scientific inquiry.

Loren said...
Just as you say that science views are not universal, neither are the views of the Church on many subjects.

Just as Jim has been likened to the son of the devil, I also have been treated with contempt for being a Catholic.

Last night we had a beautiful service for Holy Week which was ecumenical, and it was nice to see friends who go to other churches.Surely this is the way forward, to become one, but having different ideas. Surely no-one, not even scientists, have the monopoly of truthy.

Maalie (Jim) said......
>Surely no-one, not even scientists, have the monopoly of truth

Science generally avoids terms like "truth", "belief" and "proof" (though proof is used in mathematics).

Unlike fundamentalism, science does not purport to know the truth. It is progressive. The best that can be done is to suggest (erect a hypothesis) that explains the available evidence to hand. As more evidence (through observation, experiment or discovery) comes to light, the hypothesis may be modified, rejected, or regarded with more confidence. My favourite example is poor old Lamarck who had a life's work discredited when Darwin published his more credible hypothesis.

So, I agree with you that science does not have a monopoly on the truth; however it can assert that certain hypotheses (for example the "God Hypothesis") is so improbable as to be out of the frame for serious consideration; there is simply a more credible and parsimonious hypothesis available. Likewise, a man living in the guts of a fish for three days; inter-continental swimming kangaroos; and that human diversity as we know it today could have arisen from a group as small as Noah's family as recently as the bronze age.

I think this may answer one of Jazzycat's points too, but I really am rushed today.

Maalie (Jim) said......
>Wouldn’t you also say to assert emphatically that it did emerge apart from a supernatural being requires a leap of faith

NO!!! It is nothing to do with faith! It is a matter of consideration of the evidence. There is evidence of procaryote bacteria-types in rocks millions of millions of years old!

Jazzycat (Wayne) said......
Loren,
Just as you say that science views are not universal, neither are the views of the Church on many subjects.

On the core issues such as the Trinity, the person and work of Jesus Christ, salvation through grace alone through faith alone, etc. all Christians agree. Certainly we disagree on many of the details. I regularly have debates with my Pastor and differ with my denomination on many points. Why? Because I read the Bible and form my own conclusions.

It is one thing to disagree on the mode of baptism, but quite another to endorse as valid other means to salvation other than the blood Christ. One is a disagreement over interpretation and the other is unbelief of core Biblical doctrine. Do you see the difference?

Jazzycat (Wayne) said.......
Maalie,
There is evidence of procaryote bacteria-types in rocks millions of millions of years old!

This does not even come close to disproving the existence of a supreme being. At some point you will have to acknowledge that you have already agreed that a supernatural being is a possibility. Then we will look at Biblical revelation as to what this supernatural being is like.

As a scientist you cannot simply discard a possibility simply because it does not fit a naturalistic world view.....

More on your next comment when I get back!

Maalie (Jim) said......
>At some point you will have to acknowledge that you have already agreed that a supernatural being is a possibility

Of course I do! Even Dawkins acknowledges that you can't disprove that.

But that isn't what science is about. Science does assert that the probability is so low as to be out of the frame for consideration.

Anyone could claim that life came from Mars, or is spontaneously generated from dust "is a possibility", but at the present time it isn't the most parsimonious explanation that fits the evidence!

Jazzycat (Wayne) said.....
Maalie,
Likewise, a man living in the guts of a fish for three days; inter-continental swimming kangaroos; and that human diversity as we know it today could have arisen from a group as small as Noah's family as recently as the bronze age.

If a person pursues the “God hypothesis” as you call it, then the intervention of such an entity in the history of the universe should not be limited to naturalistic laws of nature. The keyword in a supernatural being is the word “supernatural” and such a being would not be limited by the natural laws of physics, chemistry, or biology. Such a being could intervene and cause a man to live inside a fish, put kangaroos in Australia and perform other miracles from a naturalistic standpoint. Would changing human DNA really be that much of a problem for a supreme being that could create this magnificent unbelievably vast universe?

Do we have any evidence that a supernatural being has intervened in the history of planet earth? Yes we do have evidence in the form of historical, archeological, and fulfilled prophecy contained in Bible that was written by many authors over a couple of thousand years. Hopefully we can explore this very soon.

Jazzycat (Wayne) said.......
Maalie,
In speaking of a supernatural being, you said the following:
Science does assert that the probability is so low as to be out of the frame for consideration.

Could this be because science insists on limiting all of Biblical revelation to conformity with natural laws? You have admitted a probability. If you take the next step and admit that a supernatural being could operate outside of the natural laws he established, wouldn’t the probability increase dramatically?

For example: I am amazed at how the current scientific theory on the origin of the universe agrees with the Genesis creation account. Both agree there was a beginning. The big bang theory of science is compatible with the creation account. The difference is in what each has to say about the origin of the stuff (matter/energy) of the big bang. Science has no answer other than some have offered the absurd spontaneous generation theory. IOW, matter just popped into being from non-being apart from any outside source. This is nothing short of nonsense from the very people who you claim are rational logical thinkers. Biblical revelation also asserts that matter/energy did pop into being, but it was caused by an outside source. This outside source was a supreme being (God) that exists outside of time and space and is eternal and self-existent. He is an uncaused cause. IOW, he is not an effect of something else. He is pure being and not in a state of becoming something different as everything in the universe is always doing.

Could such a being exist and be responsible for the existence of matter and energy? Could such a being reveal himself to humanity in any way he chooses? Could such a being be completely pure in his ethical standards? The Bible and historical evidence say that He could.

Maalie (Jim) said......
>The Bible and historical evidence say that He could.

Every culture has its creation myths, and all consider that theirs is "right".

I understand that your theology would put the great flood just a few thousand years ago. Geologists can pin-point meteorite hits and rising and falling sea levels and so on that occured millions of years ago. Not an iota of evidence has been found for a world-wide flood. As a matter of fact Darwin commenced his Beagle voyage with the objective of looking for such evidence. Noah could not have had the technology to build a boat before the bronze-age. Human diversity as we know it today could not have evolved from such a small group in such a short time. Humans, in all their diversity, were distributed all over the world by then.

I think the main problem is that you (representing fundamentalism) have already decided what you believe and your faith will not allow you to consider alternatives. Science (as opposed to individual scientists) has no such prejudice - it formulates explanations according to the evidence, and is prepared to modify them as new evidence comes to light.

I am puzzled why an omniscient God should plant so much spurious evidence that contradicts his existence.

It really is difficult to debate this subject because, if contradicted, you fall back on the notion that God is almighty, therefore he can do anything. I regard that as a form of argument from personal incredulity: "I don't believe that life could have started from inorganic precursors, so it must have been done by God".

And that is why the bible was written at the time: to explain the inexplicable. But we have come to know and understand a great deal in the ensuing 2000 years that makes that book outdated.

Jazzycat (Wayne) said.......
Maalie,
You said….
It really is difficult to debate this subject because, if contradicted, you fall back on the notion that God is almighty, therefore he can do anything. I regard that as a form of argument from personal incredulity: "I don't believe that life could have started from inorganic precursors, so it must have been done by God".

Would another form of personal incredulity be: “I don’t believe matter was created by a super intelligent supreme being, so it must have just popped into being from non-being.” Would that be falling back on the notion that a supreme being is impossible and not a possibility? IOW, wouldn't that be accepting nonsense rather than consider a plausible explanation?

Jazzycat (Wayne) said.....
Maalie,
I understand that your theology would put the great flood just a few thousand years ago……. ETC. ETC.

This is a presupposition about my theology. My theology on the time frame of God’s creation is not carved in stone.

You are continuing to view the supernatural through your naturalistic filter while refusing to confront the elephant in the room concerning the origin of matter! Certainly, miracles and a supernatural being that created the universe and parted the sea is hard to fathom, but don’t try to present a naturalistic origin of the universe as easily explainable. Debating evolution misses the point. While I do not accept the THEORY of evolution, it would not eliminate the existence of a supreme being even if it were true.

Jazzycat (Wayne) said.....
Maalie,
Science (as opposed to individual scientists) has no such prejudice - it formulates explanations according to the evidence, and is prepared to modify them as new evidence comes to light.

Therefore, you are admitting you come to this debate with a prejudice and that science is always in a state of change. You further admit that scientific conclusions are made on incomplete and inadequate data. You also admit that science draws incorrect conclusions from this data. All of this is contained in this one sentence and I was aware of all of them, and I am glad to see you admit it.

Isn’t it a fact that evolutionary theory has often been guilty of drawing conclusions from incomplete, inadequate, and at times false data? Has not hoaxes been part of the history of evolutionary discovery?

Jazzycat (Wayne) said......
Maalie,
I think the main problem is that you (representing fundamentalism) have already decided what you believe and your faith will not allow you to consider alternatives.

You need to define fundamentalism. If it means someone who accepts the Bible as truth, then I am guilty. If it means someone who thinks he understands every passage and detail, then I am not guilty and you have made a false charge intended to discredit my entire thinking. My faith does permit me to consider alternatives, and I am unable to grasp the possibility of an uncaused cause in the chain of cause and effect other than a supreme intelligent self-existent being.

Jazzycat (Wayne) said......
Maalie,
I am puzzled why an omniscient God should plant so much spurious evidence that contradicts his existence.

This is your conclusion that is based on your incomplete and sometimes erroneous understanding Biblical theology.

Jazzycat (Wayne) said.......
Maalie,
And that is why the bible was written at the time: to explain the inexplicable. But we have come to know and understand a great deal in the ensuing 2000 years that makes that book outdated.

The Bible is actually a collection of 66 books written over a couple of thousand years of time. It contains amazing fulfilled prophecy that validates its inspired supernatural source and it contains the amazing story of the life of Jesus Christ who was resurrected from the dead to prove his divinity. Many have tried to disprove the resurrection, but over 500 witnesses saw him post crucifixion. You can read in the Bible how a group of disciples who were disillusioned and afraid to show their faces suddenly became bold and started the Church of the true and living God.

The Bible has not become outdated and I am all ears as to what you have that would prove it outdated. Evolution (even if true) certainly does not do that………

Maalie (Jim) said......
I accept what you say about the composition of the bible, I am not an authority on that. However, the writers of the New Testament knew about the Old and so could have composed it in aq way as to suggest the prophesies had come true. A sort of self-fulfilling prophesy I suppose. They were expecting a Messiah, were looking for one and duly appointed a man who was undeniably charismatic and probably what we would not call a "cult hero".

>The Bible has not become outdated and I am all ears as to what you have that would prove it outdated.

It is axiomatically outdated. As a simple example, the authors did not understand the physics and refractive and internally relfective properties of rainbows; they considere4d rainbows a sign from God; they had no other was to account for them.

And you know my old favourite: these days they would not have referred too a bat as a 'fowl'. Of course the science of taxonomy has advanced in the meantime, but if the bible really is the Word of God, and he made those creatueres, you would expe4ct him to make thast small point correct.

I am staying with family over Easter, I do not have much time on line.

I wish all Bluecollar readers a good holiday weekend.

Maalie (Jim) said........
Sorry for the typos, I wrote in a rush.

Maalie (Jim) said........
>The Bible has not become outdated and I am all ears as to what you have that would prove it outdated.

Oh, as I said before, science generally avoids terms like 'truth', belief' and 'proof'.

Rather, it suggests the most plausible explanation that fits the evidence to hand. The explanation can be modified as futher evidence cmes to light. Since we have an adequate explanation for the origin and development of life on earth without recourse to the supernatural, there is no need to invoke it.

I would be interested to know how fundamentalism regards scientific evidence that contradicts the bible. I know for sure that they scool their kids at home to prevent contact with "dreadful scientists"!

Loren said.........
Was Judas pre-ordained to betray Jesus?

Jazzycat (Wayne) said........

Maalie,
However, the writers of the New Testament knew about the Old and so could have composed it in a way as to suggest the prophesies had come true.

The New Testament writers (under the inspiration of God) make many references to events they witnessed that fulfilled OT prophecies. If you will read through Matthew, for example, you will find many references to these prophecies being fulfilled. These prophecies were made many centuries in advance such as Isaiah 53 (700 years before Christ), which is a remarkable prophecy about Jesus. The Romans were also aware of these prophecies and that is why the tomb of Jesus was placed under guard by Roman soldiers. Yet, they were left with an empty tomb to explain and over 500 witnesses that saw the risen savior. This would have been quite a feat for the NT writers to pull off to prove a prophecy!

Jazzycat (Wayne) said........
Maalie,
Of course the science of taxonomy has advanced in the meantime, but if the bible really is the Word of God, and he made those creatueres, you would expe4ct him to make thast small point correct.

The authors of the Bible were inspired by God, but wrote in the language of the day that was consistent with the culture of the day. We speak of the sun rising and the sun setting in our culture and yet we know the earth’s rotation causes this illusion. We speak of fires consuming material, when we know that matter is not created or destroyed by fire. Therefore, this is an insignificant and nit-picking objection.

Jazzycat (Wayne) said......
Maalie,
Oh, as I said before, science generally avoids terms like 'truth', belief' and 'proof'.

The physics, chemistry, and engineering classes I took had no problem with these terms. The term belief can be properly used to mean the affirmation of a conclusion based on the data and facts. It does not have to always mean something that is affirmed by a leap of faith without proof. EXAMPLE: I believe it is true that a body at rest tends to remain at rest, etc....... I can see why evolutionary theorists, like yourself, would avoid these terms since your science is strongly based on a shaky unproved preconception. I am of course speaking of macro-evolution rather than micro-evolution. You to have a happy Easter and remember there is an empty grave that proves that Christ died for the sins of all those who come to him in faith and repentance just as the Scriptures tell us……More this afternoon.

Jazzycat (Wayne) said........
Maalie,
I would be interested to know how fundamentalism regards scientific evidence that contradicts the bible. I know for sure that they scool their kids at home to prevent contact with "dreadful scientists"!

I do not believe the Bible contradicts scientifically discovered truth about nature. Incorrect interpretation of the Bible has contradicted scientific truth, but I don’t think the Bible clearly asserts something that science has proven false. When churchmen thought the sun revolved around the earth, it was not the Bible that was wrong, but rather an incorrect interpretation of the Bible. Just because we speak of sunrises and sunsets does not mean we are asserting that the sun revolves around the earth. Since you stated an aversion for the terms proof and truth, I am a bit puzzled that you are comfortable with these terms in your critique of the Bible. I suspect your aversion is grounded in wanting to retain some wiggle room for adjusting your theory of macro-evolution. A theory that is wrought with many problems.

By this statement about “dreadful scientists”, I see that I am not included in your definition of fundamentalism. Therefore, I cannot speak for anyone who thinks in this way. I can say that the children in America that are home schooled score higher on college entrance exams and ACT tests than do those schooled by our public school system. There are many reasons for home schooling children in America, but I think an anti-science reason would be practically nil. The truth is that Christianity throughout history has done more for scientific discovery through promoting education and building schools and universities than for any other reason.

Jazzycat (Wayne) said........
Maalie,
Rather, it suggests the most plausible explanation that fits the evidence to hand. The explanation can be modified as futher evidence cmes to light. Since we have an adequate explanation for the origin and development of life on earth without recourse to the supernatural, there is no need to invoke it.

most plausible explanation = other than considering the possibility of a supreme being (can’t have that)

explanation modification = change the theory to fit the new evidence (called a mulligan in golf)

adequate explanation = barely sufficient, not a solid dependable explanation(best we can do)

therefore, no need to invoke supernatural = thank goodness God is not real(man is in control)

The science I am familiar with is much more solid than the picture you paint here. I know if I didn’t believe in the absolute truth of Bernoulli’s principle, I would never set foot in a fixed wing airplane. Why? Because Bernoulli’s principle is not a theory. It is established rock solid scientific fact that does not need explanation modification due to further evidence. It is the scientific principle that gives lift to an airfoil and allows a heavier than air object to fly.

Jazzycat (Wayne) said........
Loren,
Was Judas pre-ordained to betray Jesus?

I know that Jesus was pre-ordained to die on the cross of Calvary (Acts 2:23) and that Judas acted out of his own free will. God uses the evil that men commit out of their own free will to accomplish His will of decree. I think the answer is yes, but that Judas action was unforced by God and he was totally responsible for his sin.

Maalie (Jim) said.......
>but rather an incorrect interpretation of the Bible.

Exactly! What a cop-out! It all boils down to a presonal interpretation.

The bible can mean anything you want it to!

The bible is either the word of God, or it isn't; it is eithe inerrant, or it isn't. So what else has been "mis-interpreted"? The bat bird/example may seem trivial to you, but what is written there is demonstrably WRONG! What else woukld have been written differently in the light of modern knowledge and understanding? A man living in a fish for three days? A flood that covered the whole wide world as recently as the bronze age? Human diversity on earth arising from a group as small as Noah's family in a similar time-scale?

There is an explanation for the origin and development of life on earth that doesn't require the assumption of the supernatural. It is held by the world's scientific community.

Of course, you would have to deny that about home-schooling, but I was unambiguously infoirmed that it was done "on biblical grounds", i.e. to avoid "contimnation" with science that contradicts the bible.

All cultures have their creation myths; Genesis is merely an example.

Sorry, I can't be on-line much for the time being.

Good wishes to all for Easter.

Maalie (Jim) said.......
>remember there is an empty grave that proves that Christ died for the sins of all those who come to him in faith

It proves nothing of the kind! It is the unverifiable word of someone who wrote a book 2000 odd years ago!

Jazzycat (Wayne) said......
Maalie,
Are you familiar with the theory of directed panspermia? This theory holds that the first organic molecules or living organisms were brought to earth by aliens from outer space. It was held by Nobel prize winner Professor Francis Crick. Wouldn’t you say that such theories as this are based on nothing but blind faith? In fact isn’t all of the theories on how life came from non-life based on faith? Since evolution is ultimately based on life coming from non-life without proof, wouldn’t you say that evolution is in reality a religion. Naturalists even celebrate a Darwin Day, but unfortunately his bones are still in the grave. Christianity celebrates a risen savior and while faith is involved, it is not a blind faith of the type that is required for the directed panspermia theory. No, there is much historical and archeological proof that the Biblical record of Christianity is true.

How can naturalists reject the idea of a supreme being outright and yet consider such theories as directed panspermia?

Mark Pierson said........
Jim,
there are many scientists who are also Chrisians. You would say they come at science with a preconceived notion of the existence of God. You would say that they have a vested interest in miss-using science to prove what they want to prove - that God DOES exist. Hmmm.

Since the Fall of Adam ALL men are tempted to walk after the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. So wouldn't those who are not regenerate have a vested interest in using science to disprove the existence of God? After all if God exists that would mean that we are accountable to Him on how we live "our" lives. It would mean that we must live by every word that comes from His mouth rather than going about to live as WE see fit. Judging by your tone here it almost seems that you are on some sort of crusade to discount the existence of God.

Maalie (Jim) said........
Mark,
I understand your point, however, the tangible independently-verifyable evidence has to be accounted for. It won't go away.

We seem to be drawing close to the inevitable impasse. You have faith in your mythology; scientists see the evidence. Axiomatically we cannot prove there is no God, only assert that the God hypothesis is so improbable (in the light of the scientific evidence) as to be out of the frame for serious consideration. It may seem an inconvenient truth to you, but I assure with the greatest confidence that human diversity as we know it today could not possibly have developed from a group as small as Noah's family. A knowledge of the most elementary genetics will tell you that.,

Mark Pierson said.......
"but I assure with the greatest confidence that human diversity as we know it today could not possibly have developed from a group as small as Noah's family. A knowledge of the most elementary genetics will tell you that.,"

Then how is it that not ALL scientists would agree with you here???

Jazzycat (Wayne) said.......
Maalie,
Axiomatically we cannot prove there is no God, only assert that the God hypothesis is so improbable (in the light of the scientific evidence) as to be out of the frame for serious consideration.

However, the theory of directed panspermia (life was seeded on earth by aliens from outer space) is given serious consideration by some scientists, even Noble prize winning scientists. Have you ever been on an alien space ship Jim?

If this theory is given serious consideration, why can't the "God hypothesis" be considered? Could it be because there is such an anti-God bias with some scientists that they would consider aliens from outer space seeding life on earth before they would consider a supreme being seeding life through creation?

Are you going to tell us what you think of directed panspermia or just ignore the grasping at straws to explain how life came from non-life?

BTW, retreating to consensus or group think has no bearing on the truth of anything! Sometimes the consensus is right, and sometimes one single person can be right and a large consensus group can be wrong. I bring this up because you seem to assert that affirmation by a group of peers ends the debate. We hear the same hogwash concerning the hyped hysteria concerning man made global warming.

Jazzycat (Wayne) said.......
Maalie,
Mark has made some excellent points that point to your pre-conceptions and pre-suppositions!

Maalie (Jim) said.....
>Then how is it that not ALL scientists would agree with you here???

Fair point: please could you direct me to a published paper in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that supports your asssertion?The evidence won't go away, however inconvenient you may think it is.

Mark Pierson said......
A good place for you to start

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers

Mark Pierson said......
Quite simply it boils down to this: The regenerate scientist sees science as the exploration of God's creation. On the other hand, the unregenerate scientist is all too happy if he interprets his findings in such a way as to discount the existence of his Creator. To him/her the Bible is foolishness, which is an indication that he/she is of those who are perishing.

Jazzycat (Wayne) said.....
Maalie,
Fair point: please could you direct me to a published paper in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that supports your asssertion?

Do you mean to say that a scientist whose opinion does not agree with the prevailing peer-reviewed (consensus) would no longer be considered a scientist? IOW, buy into the consensus or be marginalized and discounted as unworthy to be called a scientist. Here are a few quotes for you to consider: Please let me know if you need more.

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."(Sir Fred Hoyle, British physicist and astronomer)"

It is emphatically the case that life could not arise spontaneously in a primeval soup from its kind."(Dr. A.E Wilder Smith, chemist and former evolutionist)"

The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is, 1 in 10-161 power, using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began...for a minimum set of required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is, 1 in 10-119,879 power. It would take, 10-119,879 power, years on average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10-119,831 times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119,831 zeros."(Dr. James Coppedge from, "The Farce of Evolution" page 71)"

I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum)"

The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)"

The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)"

To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner)"

The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination."(Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)"

The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."(Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77)

Jazzycat (Wayne) said........
Maalie,
These examples are not hard to find. I am surprised you are unaware of these scientists.

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."(Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

Shiloy Guy said.........
WOW! You guys have been busy while I was gone! I guess I'm paying the penalty for not visiting earlier! I'll try to stay caught up with your conversation if it goes on much longer.

Your conversation is way over my head and I have nothing to add. However, in my discussions with scientists who hold the same views that Maalie holds I have discovered that they seem to allow for a lot of "faith" in their assumptions while being unwilling to allow "faith" in any other views.

Carry on!

Maalie (Jim) said.......
>Here are a few quotes for you to consider: Please let me know if you need more.

Yes please! I asked for information from the peer-reviewed scientific community, not the quasi-scientific mis-indformation put about by the fundamentalist publishers!

Maalie (Jim) said
"Denton's views have changed over the years. His second book Nature's Destiny argues for a law-like evolutionary unfolding of life and therefore assumes evolution as a given. He no longer openly associates with Discovery, and the Institute no longer lists him as a fellow".

'Nuff said.

We can go on exchanging quotes all day, but we can't escape the fact that yours are from the fundamentalist lobby, not the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Jazzycat (Wayne) said......
Maalie,
Are you refuting the accuracy of all of the quotes I listed? One does not need "fundamentalist publishers" to find these quotes. Not with the internet and Google. You are really only wanting to consider the scientists that agree with your faith based theories of macro-evolution. All others are automatically considered kooks because they do not accept the consensus of the peer-reviewed scientific community.

Isn't it a fact, there is no fossil or any other proof of macro-evolution and isn't it a fact that your peer-reviewed group has no clue on how life came from non-life? That is why theories such as seeding life on planet earth by outer space aliens is seriously considered by evolutionists. That is also why in your own words you do not like terms like truth, proof, and belief.

Isn't it true that life seemed to appear all at once in the fossil Record?

I must now get ready to go worship and celebrate the fact that Jesus left an empty tomb on planet earth.

Maalie (Jim) said........
This is getting silly now Jazzycat. I leave you to wallow in your delusion!

Mark Pierson said........
"Yes please! I asked for information from the peer-reviewed scientific community, not the quasi-scientific mis-indformation put about by the fundamentalist publishers!"

"We can go on exchanging quotes all day, but we can't escape the fact that yours are from the fundamentalist lobby, not the peer-reviewed scientific literature."

"This is getting silly now Jazzycat.I leave you to wallow in your delusion!"

================
Maybe it's just me but it seems Jim has already concluded that there is no God. Hmmm. Like I said, the regenerate scientist sees science as the exploration of God's creation. On the other hand the unregenerate scientist is all too happy to interpret the evidence in such a way so as to suggest that there is no God. It is because he loves his sinful life-style and is hostile to the fact that he should be living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of his Creator. There will be a price to pay on judgement day for this attitude though.

Shiloy Guy said.......
Mark,
This conversation needs to be saved! (No, not in the spiritual sense!) I mean you need to cut and paste it into a single document because it is an important example of such conversations. I would love to have a copy of it for my files.

Wayne, thanks for your hard work. As usual, the questions raised by the intelligent design community go unanswered and the valid scientific observations of creationists are dismissed out of hand. This is what almost always happens in my experience.

Maalie, thank you for your time and input. I'm sure we would be friends and would have many interesting conversations.

Mark Pierson said........
Pastor Dave,
I do not know how to save it in such a way as you suggest.

Maalie (Jim) said.......
Mark,
thank you for the oportunity to burble here, I must withdraw now because I am going on holiday.

As far as the scientific community is concerned, unless an opinion is published for critical review in the peer-reviewed literature, it isn't science. If anyone here wishes to offer an altrrnative explanation to Darwin, I am sure the editors of the journals will be pleased to consider it.

Their is no "faith" involved, because we are ready to modifiy our explanations in the light of new evidence. Fundamentalists are not.

I am quite aware that I am not elected, I am in fact a Unitarian. I guess that damns me.

Best wishes to you all.

Jazzycat (Wayne) said.......
Maalie,
Thanks for your participation.

About being not elected and damned: What damns human beings is their sin and unrighteousness and this is a universal problem for us all. The only solution is to receive the righteousness of Jesus Christ that is obtained through faith in his atoning sacrifice on the cross. It is a free gift and is available to all who trust in HIM through faith. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

Have a nice holiday......

Jazzycat (Wayne) said......
Dave,
Thanks for the encouragment. I will look into compiling this thread into a single document post.

Maalie (Jim) said......
May I draw your attention to this ? It says for more than I ever could in simple blog comments.Thank you.

Mark Pierson said.........
Note how many times the word "possible" appears in the opening paragraph of that article. It gives the impression of a desperate grasping for straws. The atheist crusade against his Creator continues...

Jazzycat (Wayne) said.......
Maalie,
Thanks. Following up on Mark’s point, the first entry in the time line says. “The earliest life appears.” APPEARED? How? From where? To say “life appeared” is more of a statement of faith than for a Christian to assert that God is an eternal self-existent super-intelligent being. The Christian places the source of everything in super intelligence, and the evolutionist places the source of life and ultimately matter itself in nothing short of magic without a magician. Naturalists must either explain how something came from nothing and how life came from non-life through magician-less magic or admit they are basing their entire naturalist world-view on faith. It is a faith that eliminates a possibility by asserting, “We don’t know how it happened, but we know it happened other than by a creator (God).” If this is not a faith based world-view, then show me the proof of a naturalistic origin of matter and life? The bottom line is that the naturalistic world-view is based on a huge leap of faith and as such it is a Godless religion.