Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Earth Sky: How likely is an Earth-like origin of life elsewhere?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Paul Scott Anderson writes:

We know that life originated on Earth some 3.7 billion years ago. But we still don’t understand exactly how life came to be. Likewise, we know little to nothing about life on other rocky worlds, even those that might be similar to Earth. Is life a rare occurrence, or is it common? Or somewhere in between? Scientists debate the subject of abiogenesis, the idea of life arising from non-living material. If it can happen on Earth, can it happen elsewhere, too? A new paper from retired astrophysicist Daniel Whitmire at the University of Arkansas argues that it can.

Whitmire published his new peer-reviewed paper in the International Journal of Astrobiology on September 23, 2022.

Abiogenesis and our own existence

Basically, the paper is a counter-argument to the view held by Brandon Carter, an Australian-born astrophysicist. Carter asserts that our own existence constrains our observations of other worlds where life might exist. What does he mean? Essentially, he says, we ourselves happen to exist on a planet where abiogenesis did occur. But – since we only have our own planet as an example so far – it’s not possible for us to determine how likely it is for life to have emerged elsewhere.

Carter says that Earth can’t be considered “typical” yet … because there’s no set of known Earth-like planets to compare it to.

How likely is an Earth-like origin of life elsewhere?

Scientists tend to be conservative. They don’t like to speculate that something exists until they have the evidence in hand. So many scientists seem to accept Carter’s theory. But Daniel Whitmire doesn’t accept it. He contends that Carter is using faulty logic.

He points to what philosophers call the the old evidence problem. That philosophical problem concerns what happens when a theory or hypothesis is updated, following the appearance of new evidence. Whitmire says basically that Carter doesn’t take into account the long cosmic timescales at play in the universe, for example, the length of time it takes life to emerge on a planet. Whitmire writes:

… The observation of life on Earth is not neutral but evidence that abiogenesis on Earth-like planets is relatively easy. I … give an independent timescale argument that quantifies the prior probabilities, leading to the inference that the timescale for abiogenesis is less than the planetary habitability timescale and therefore the occurrence of abiogenesis on Earth-like planets is not rare.

Note: This attempt at philosophical reasoning stumbles with the loaded presupposition that life on Earth arose by natural processes, even though numerous decades of origin-of-life research have shown that any pathway to life from non-life would be exponentially more complicated than any natural mechanism ever investigated.

In late September, I wrote about recent discoveries that add to the accumulation of evidence that life does indeed exist elsewhere. In other words – from ocean moons like Europa and Enceladus, to the latest understanding of organics and ancient habitable conditions on Mars – conditions for life seem to abound, even here in our own solar system. In the vast Milky Way galaxy beyond, astronomers have discovered many thousands of exoplanets. So we know other solar systems exist. And, to me, as I write about these discoveries, the odds seem pretty good that life is out there somewhere.

Here’s another example from the realm of exoplanets. New studies suggest that some (or many) super-Earths might exist as water worlds that aren’t just habitable, but potentially even more habitable than Earth. Some may even be completely covered by oceans.

Whitmire and Carter’s approach – a philosophical approach – to the question of life on other worlds is interesting. But, as the philosophers argue the question, the pace of scientific discovery continues. And many scientists believe we’re now on the verge of finding our first definitive evidence of alien life. Some think it will come within the next decade or two … or sooner.

If Whitmire is right, that first discovery will be exciting indeed.

Earth Sky

Optimism about the possibility of extraterrestrial life has always been popular. However, for a natural mechanism to be able to generate the amount of information found in the vast amounts of biochemical complexity within a “simple” cell, known laws of physics would have to be violated. Ideas which violate established science are usually bogus, unless they’re simply refinements that apply in certain limits of physical parameters. (Such as Einstein’s theory of relativity, which modified Newton’s laws of mechanics in the limit of speeds approaching the speed of light.)

Comments
AF, do you remember the Paris attacks several years ago? KF PS. Let us not allow side tracking.kairosfocus
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
If you don’t want a gun good for you...
I don't need a gun where I live. Nobody other than law enforcement carry firearms. The US (maybe not all states, I've never been closer to the US than Canada, and am never likely to) is not normal in this respect. I know of no other country where gun ownership is so widespread and thought so necessary.Alan Fox
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT
AF Yes it is to bad I feel the need to carry. I guess when one labels me as a fascist my mind wanders “hmmm what do you to fascist’s? Do we tolerate them? Do we kill them? “ Do we jail them? Biden and the left have declared that people like me are fair game, damn right I carry a gun!! If you don’t want a gun good for you that is your right and I have a right to own one. Vividvividbleau
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT
I have a concealed carry permit and I carry especially when I go to Church to protect myself from a crazy like CD.
I'm sorry you feel the need. I have never even held a gun (apart from a sporting gun when trying clay pigeon shooting years ago) let alone considered buying one and can't imagine living somewhere where routinely carrying a weapon designed to kill people is accepted as normal.Alan Fox
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT
“Second good Christians don’t condone guns?” Well I don’t condone guns either because condoning is not their purpose .I have a concealed carry permit and I carry especially when I go to Church to protect myself from a crazy like CD. Vividvividbleau
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT
Aaron “Tru-facts the vaccine wasn’t as cracked up as it was made out to be and had quite a few adverse reactions. As Fauci stated before he retired, “the vaccine didn’t preform as advertised” So this tells me that you were willing to risk other peoples lives as long as you feel safe.” How many times do people have to be gaslit before they wake up that they have been lied to about the vaccine? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-if-vaccinated-wont-get-covid/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/22/joe-biden/biden-says-vaccinated-people-cant-spread-covid-19-/ Then there is Birks who wrote in her book that the 6 ft and 10 person gathering limit was pulled from her ass. And of course the gaslighting Fauci with the lie about masks. CD is quite the critical thinker, not! Vividvividbleau
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT
@CD Oh really you do know I what I believe because I plaster it all over the forum. Lol, are you serious?! What’s the likelihood you read anything of that, hmmmmmm I’d say none to no. So short of you probably know I hate Darwinian evolution and I’m vehemently against abortion(catholic) you know jack shit about me and my belief. Second good Christians don’t condone guns? That’s just a plain stupid statement, whether Christian does or does not condone a gun in any situation doesn’t constitute a good Christian. When did condoning guns in any situation constitute the worthiness of a Christian or any person for that matter. Guns are inanimate objects no different then a pencil or a hammer. It’s a tool, and it is as evil or as good as user. Christians are good if they got vaccinated? That’s one of the most politically liberal things I’ve heard. That’s very totalitarian of you, and shows why the “greater good” isn’t always good but often blind. My mother couldn’t get the vaccine. She has chronic lymphatic leukemia. Turns out she would’ve had an adverse reaction like her friend with MS did (she was a good Christian and got her self hospitalized and still hasn’t fully recovered I guess that just a one off). Tru-facts the vaccine wasn’t as cracked up as it was made out to be and had quite a few adverse reactions. As Fauci stated before he retired, “the vaccine didn’t preform as advertised” So this tells me that you were willing to risk other peoples lives as long as you feel safe. And there was no fraud in the 2020 election that’s just laughable! There’s fraud in every election. Your credibility can be tossed out the window. If you think your government is honest when your side wins that just makes you biased and ignorant. So pretty much you think someone is good as long as they believe and follow what you believe. That’s kinda why we need moral objectivity. You’re no different than the people you criticize.AaronS1978
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT
F/N: A summary of major Worldview options, based on C. Stephen Evans:
Polytheism: there is a plurality of personal gods, as with the Greeks and Egyptians. Monotheism: there is but one God, the personal being who created all things from nothing, and is supreme in power, knowledge and moral worth. (Sometimes simply called “theism” for short.) Animism: tends to see a High (often, a sky) God, but there is an intermediary chain of sky- and/or earth- bound spirit beings, with whom one must deal in day to day life. Sometimes it is argued that polytheism and monotheism evolved from animism. Agnosticism: the truth about “God” is not, or even cannot be, known; people should suspend judgement on the question. Atheism: Goes beyond this: “God” does not exist, save as an imaginary figure. Henotheism: There is a plurality of gods, but one serves a particular god, either because s/he is superior, or because that is the god of one’s community. Dualism: there are two gods, in mutual opposition – often one is viewed as “good,” the other as “evil.” Pantheism: rejects the concept of God as personal, and identifies God with the cosmos as a whole Panentheism: A variant on pantheism in which God is more than, but includes the universe. Deism: Agrees with theism that there is one God, but holds that God [currently] does not interact with creation. In effect, God made and wound up the clock then lets it run on its own. Absolute monism: God is an absolute unity which is somehow manifest in a less-than-fully-real world of apparent plurality. Naturalism: instead of focusing on the explicit rejection of God, this version of atheism asserts that the natural order we see around us exists on its own; often using materialistic evolutionary theories to try to explain its evolution “from hydrogen to humans.” Trinitarian monotheism: The specifically Christian contention that God is manifest through unity of being (there is but One God) and diversity in person (God is manifest as Father, Son and Spirit). Thus, it holds that the unity of the Godhead is complex rather than simple.
COMMENT: Of these, the “live” broad philosophical alternatives seem to be (a) theism, (b) pantheism/ panentheism/ monism and (c) agnosticism/atheism. (In practice, people often blend aspects of the major views – even when this involves logical contradictions; and it is particularly common for animist survivals or fragments to be embedded in other views.) KFkairosfocus
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
SG, the dictionaries may well reflect recent trends of usage but in fact the worldviews framework makes it manifest that various worldviews addressing the supernatural of one form or another are so disparate that it is poor and philosophically indefensible usage to try to lump them together; especially with dismissive intent as you showed. It is a well established longstanding usage in our civilisation that theism is short for monotheism, belief in the one supreme being who is inherently good and utterly wise, our creator and lord, eternal and even necessary in the ontological sense. Such is the context in which God receives the capital letter and in which substitutions of respect or even refraining from vowels are used, G_ d. I think you should take due notice of this, rather than trying to suggest that I am making idiosyncratic usage. KF PS, kindly observe the following jury of dictionaries:
the·ism (th???z??m) n. Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. the?ist n. the·is?tic, the·is?ti·cal adj. the·is?ti·cal·ly adv. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. theism (??i??z?m) n 1. (Theology) the form of the belief in one God as the transcendent creator and ruler of the universe that does not necessarily entail further belief in divine revelation. Compare deism [--> a subset] 2. (Theology) the belief in the existence of a God or gods. Compare atheism [C17: from Greek theos god + -ism] Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014 the•ism (??i ?z ?m) n. 1. belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (disting. from deism). [--> notice the subset issue] 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism). [1670–80; < Greek the(ós) god + -ism] the?ist, n., adj. the•is?tic, the•is?ti•cal, adj. Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved. theism 1. a belief in the existence of God or gods. 2. a belief in one god as creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of special revelation. Cf. deism. — theism, n. See also: God and Gods -Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
So, no, you do not get the privilege of inserting inferior and rhetorically convenient, prejudice laced usage.kairosfocus
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
PS, Let;s take SG at 93 on points: >>Given that the concept of objective moral truth is theistic in origin,>> 1- No, it is a common experience of humanity, with voice of conscience, voice of moral prudence, voice of justice, voice of duty to truth and to right reason, etc. These duties are primary and branch on which we all sit, including you SG in making your objection. 2- Already in thread, it is shown that the attempt to deny objectivity to core moral truth is itself a claimed objective truth on that subject and refutes itself. It is a prejudice to imagine that as an outsider one is objective but those blind men groping around the elephant are only subjective. >>and strongly held by those who follow their religious faith,>> 3- The dirty words fallacy, tainting religion, the religious and the faithful as inferior intellectually. This is the prejudice Sagan expressed in his The Demon-Haunted World, as Lewontin inadvertently exposed. 4- In fact, precisely in the context that we are finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill willed, we can readily see that a claim A requires B, thence C, etc. Infinite regress and question begging circularity being indefensible, we are left with first plausibles F, or more precisely F1, F2 . . . defining our worldviews faith points. 5- That is, ever since Agrippa or in fact Plato and Aristotle, it was understood that we all have finitely remote first plausibles of various characters; all of which face difficulties. A main philosophical method, then, is to exercise comparative difficulties analysis across factual adequacy, coherence and balance of explanatory power. 6- As we therefore all have first plausibles defining faith points in the cores of our worldviews, the issue is not whether faith, but which, why and how such fare on comparative difficulties. >> I don’t see how it can be argued that objective moral truths exist when it would be impossible to demonstrate that the proposition was not influenced by bias.>> 7- Little more than expressing and attempting to relieve cognitive dissonance by projection to the despised other. 8- This assertion neatly sidesteps what it cannot answer, namely that:
* morality is a distinct subject, regarding right conduct, duty, justice etc * truth claims, explicit or implied, claim or suggest accurate description of entities, states of affairs etc * the attempt to deny objectivity to moral truth is itself a truth claim on the relevant subject * it implies that it is well founded truth * in this particular case, projection to the other is used _________________________ * it therefore claims to be an objective truth on a distinct subject, what it denies as possible * we thus readily see, for cause, self referential incoherence
>>Their belief in objective moral truths precede any argument they make for the existence of objective moral truth.>> 9- The thesis of hopeless bias used to dismiss millions out of hand before they open their mouths as deluded, inferior, not worth listening to. Bias or even bigotry. 10- It is high time this was recognised for what it is and was turned from. Instead, going forward, we should proceed instead by recognising worldviews, their first plausibles and comparative difficulties. KFkairosfocus
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
KF: It seems that it is a common error today to forget that theism is short form for monotheism.
Contrary to dictionary definitions of theism. Let me remind you:
Merriam-Webster-Webster: belief in the existence of a god or gods Collins: the belief in the existence of a God or gods
Besides, I already explained how I defined theism in respect to my comment that objective moral truths are theistic in origin. A claim I stand by.Sir Giles
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
AaronS1978/117 I know exactly what you believe, you plaster it all over these comments, day in and day out. I didn’t designate all Christians, only evangelicals. There are a lot of good, sincere Christians that would never condone guns in churches or schools or courthouses. There are a lot of good Christians that didn’t hypocritically support a moral sleaze for president in 2020. There are a lot of good Christians who got vaccinated because it was the right thing to do, not just for themselves, but their communities. There are a lot of good Christians that know that there was no fraud in the 2020 election. There are a lot of good Christians that want their kids taught real science instead of creationism and intelligent design. And so on and on and on….chuckdarwin
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
SG, basic error of fact, Plato and Cicero were pagan. It seems that it is a common error today to forget that theism is short form for monotheism. Polytheism, dualism, henotheism, pantheism, panentheism all use the concept of supernatural being but in such radically distinct ways that it is a gross error to conflate them such as in the common rhetorical stunt that atheists believe in one fewer gods than monotheists. As to antitheism, your loaded dismissal that theism instantly locks out the possibility of objective truth on morality is absolutely telling; especially given that there has been for months at UD a reason to hold that a core of moral knowledge is in fact self evident thus warranted and objective. Until very recently with the rise of radical atheism and relativism, the amoral and untrustworthy were described by the term, unprincipled. If it walks and quacks etc like a duck, we have an epistemic right to infer, duck. KFkairosfocus
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
Hey CD I want to know the source of your information. Your comment at 112 has a lot of amazing very super insane no where near accurate almost racist allegations over a very specific group of individuals namely Christians. Not only is everything that you said just an absolute stereotype that has been perpetuated by atheist liberals FOR DECADES, but it’s mostly untrue and involves willfully misrepresenting, misunderstanding, and misinterpreting everything about Christians. I’ve gotten all over Sev for this type of falsifiable bullshit. Like this is the type of opinion you get when you decide to never ask the people you’re accusing of being a lunatic what they actually believe. Like everything you said is right from the script of people who suffer from Trump derangement syndrome on the left. Must be really hard that CNN fired all of those people that really promote that type of opinion.AaronS1978
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
“My “Darwinism” has allowed us to evolve to the point where we can discuss morality“ Lol, let my fix this for you as you continue to be the atheist trope you always wanted to be “My “GOD” has allowed us to evolve to the point where we can discuss morality” There fixed.AaronS1978
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
CD: "My “Darwinism” has allowed us to evolve to the point where we can discuss morality." Your Darwinism, besides being completely amoral, couldn't evolve its way out of a paper bag.
The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/
bornagain77
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
CD at 112, You appear to be obsessed. "Christian evangelical lunacy"??? "The practice of moral justification that you promote coupled with the Christian evangelical lunacy over guns, right to carry, castle doctrines, and conspiracy paranoia, would rapidly turn the US into a war zone. As I said before, you are promoting a morality of rage, plain and simple………….." "morality of rage"? I see THE MEDIA promoting outrage and subsequent rage. Rioting. Setting fires. Is that evangelical Christian? No. And let's break down some terms to plain English. So-called "CASTLE DOCTRINE." It comes from an old statement: "A man's home is his castle and even a King may not enter without his permission." So, even though I can't give legal advice, this very old idea is worth upholding. It is not new. Conspiracy involves a group of people working in secret toward some goal. That's it. And if a group of people have reason to believe something then that's what they will do. Believe it. "... turn the US into a war zone." Really? Based on what? In the 1970s, I heard rumors of a race war. Blacks and whites were just going to start killing each other. It seemed plausible. The Black Panthers were out there. By the 1980s, that threat disappeared.relatd
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
SG/104 Thanks…chuckdarwin
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
BA77/110 My "Darwinism" has allowed us to evolve to the point where we can discuss morality. Contrarily, I fail to see anywhere in your Bible any "moral justification" for revenge torture and killing. And, I was always taught by the Catholic priests that educated me that the Church in promoting life condemns not only abortion but also capital punishment. It is the only consistent "pro-life" policy, one in which even the state is not justified in penal retribution. The practice of moral justification that you promote coupled with the Christian evangelical lunacy over guns, right to carry, castle doctrines, and conspiracy paranoia, would rapidly turn the US into a war zone. As I said before, you are promoting a morality of rage, plain and simple..............chuckdarwin
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Jerry at 90, I think you missed a few things here. "Aside: morality is not the sole property of religion. It comes from human nature which has been discussed ad nauseam. But people want to insist it is all about religion – both sides." What is "human nature"? SERIOUSLY. WHAT IS IT? I decide to steal from my neighbor because I want what he has. That's OK? I grew up in a family of crooks so that's all I know. I don't think you really understand human nature. Or I grew up in a ghetto - dirt poor. I decide to start stealing cars or selling drugs. I don't care if people die from the drugs I sell. I didn't force them to buy them, right? It's on them. Right? Unless you have a very clear definition of what you mean by "human nature," I don't think you understand it.relatd
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
ChuckyD at 92, Nothing like a Darwinist, whose worldview was responsible for a few hundred million murders in the 20th century, hypocritically 'borrowing' the Christian ethic of turning the other cheek, i.e. the 'moral high ground', in order to try to lecture a Christian that vengeance for a moral injustice should be left to civil authorities and/or to God.
Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Matthew 5:38-40 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.
I am well aware of the Christian principle of 'turning the other cheek'. In fact, I have had to deal with 'turning the other check, and forgiving a man who had murdered my Mom. Although it took several years for me to be able to forgive him, I was finally able to do it and to finally have some sense of peace of mind about it. Sure, the 'moral high ground' would be for the man to let civil authorities and/or God handle the man who had tortured and murdered his children, but none of that lessens the fact that a man would still be morally justified if he took matters in his own hands and sought vengeance on a man who had tortured and murdered his children.bornagain77
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Paul Scott Anderson writes: "We know that life originated on Earth some 3.7 billion years ago." Actually Paul, that is not true. We do not KNOW this in the scientific sense of the word. It might be current scientific concensus, but we do not KNOW this as a fact. If he said "It is currently believed that ...." or "thought that..." or "the data seems to indicate that ....", that would be fine, but he claims to know this as fact. And even IF the timing is correct, scientists do not know whether life was created or evolved. Of course, the only answer permissible in science is that "it evolved somehow", but be that as it may, they still do not know that to be true. So this claim presents huge problems for me.tjguy
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
VL “But without further specificity we don’t know whether A or non A correspond to reality.” I think we are talking past one another. Let me repeat the above is irrelevant , how many times do I have to say this? I am not making any claim as to the nature of reality. Vividvividbleau
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
VL ““Can we agree that if I think that warbles are pink (A) and somebody else says warbles are not pink ( non A), that one of us is objectively wrong?” Is the second sentence true?” IF it corresponds to reality. As I wrote in 81 we both can be wrong but we both can’t be right. Vividvividbleau
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
CD at 92, Railing against the Bible? What do you get out of it? Cheap thrills?relatd
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
However, that there are objective unchanging moral truths is owned by theism
Replacing religion with theism. Not aware of this. What is the basis for this?jerry
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
CD, I just follow the classical definition. Belief in a supreme being or beings. And if you want a little more granularity, I would limit it to supreme being(s) that have or had a special interest in humans.Sir Giles
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
For those involved in the conversation, particularly SG and KF, it would be helpful if you defined "theist" and "theism." What these terms mean is far from universally agreed upon.......chuckdarwin
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
if it is so tiresome to repeat the obvious, why did you bother?
Every once in awhile it’s an irresistible impulse. You see I have no free will. So I just do it occasionally when there is nonsense going on.jerry
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
I misspoke. It would be more accurate to say theism rather that religion
Not aware of that. Can you justify that opinion?jerry
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 8

Leave a Reply