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
Sir Giles, again, thanks for conceding the existence of objective morality and therefore the necessary existence of God. I take it, since you are a 'raging moralist' who believes, apparently whole-heartedly, in objective morality, that you are no longer an Darwinian atheist?
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276
The fatal flaw in the atheist's moral objection that God was not morally justified in, say Noah's flood, or the destruction of the Canaanites, is that God was rendering justice for evil done against Him. And justice is punishment for moral evil. For instance, a man would be morally justified in killing another man's children if that other man had first ripped apart, limb from limb, the first man's children. In fact, the first man would be morally justified in killing that other man as slowly, and painfully, as he so desired once he had killed the other man's children in front of his eyes. Again, It is called moral justice, and it is on moral justice that the atheist's objection against God's punishment against moral evil in the OT, flounders.bornagain77
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
BA77, was it objectively morally wrong for God to order the killing of all Amalekite children? Was it objectively morally wrong for God to order the killing of homosexuals and non-virgin women? Was it objectively morally wrong for God to kill all but a handful of people on earth, including children and the unborn? Was it objectively morally wrong for God to kill almost all air breathing animals on earth? Personally, I think that any being that would do these sorts of things is utterly detestable and reprehensible. And anyone who defends these acts is equally detestable and reprehensible.Sir Giles
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Of course I did not say that. And it is typical, and pathetic, for an atheist to try to twist what I said. I said that "your objection that God does not live up to objective morality, that claim, via God rendering justice for evil, is found to be false,"
Peter J Williams on New Atheists & Old Testament (incl. The Canaanites) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulCbh_1SlwE “My last resistance to the idea of God’s wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, the region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed and 3,000,000 displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalized beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Though I used to complain about the indecency of God’s wrath, I came to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn’t wrathful at the sight of the world’s evil. God isn’t wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love.” – Miroslav Volf – Croatian theologian https://books.google.com/books?id=BkwnAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA59
Context is everything,
Sept. 2021 - So did God have good moral justification for Noah’s flood, and for, say, the often mentioned destruction of the Canaanites? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lutheran-religious-studies-prof-asks-is-methodological-naturalism-racist/#comment-737262
bornagain77
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
BA77, it is very disturbing that you believe that it is objectively morally right to kill children, homosexuals and women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night.Sir Giles
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
@Sev “If someone makes a claim and I ask for some reason why I should accept it, that is not backing the claimant into a corner, it’s asking a reasonable question. If you were to appear in court charged with a criminal offense you would expect the prosecution to present evidence to support their case. The allegation should not be accepted as proven just on their word, nor should you be required to prove your innocence while the prosecution does nothing.” Now, I wanted to post this one separately This is a spectactur strawman. You relate a very real life situation, which has very real truth behind it, and you use it to throw my argument out of context. Yes, the prosecution has to present evidence that you have committed a crime However, we are not dealing with this situation. We are dealing with an atheist who claims there is no God and theist that claims there is a God, which you agree both have to present evidence of their claim. It is common practice for an atheist to stand their ground that there is no God, and that is the default stance to take, since there’s no immediate evidence of God, guilty of not exist until proven innocent. This has been, your(atheists) argument style for years and it’s proven over and over again on this site The problem is is that you are making a claim there is no God while stating that we need to provide you with evidence. Good for me not for thee. Any evidence presented to you is often dismissed out of hand, so if we want to take your analogy, any time anyone has tried to produce evidence of their own innocence, the prosecutor (atheist) simply dismiss’ it out of hand and I remain guilty forever putting us on the defensive. You seen your analogy would really work if the atheist wasn’t the prosecutor to begin with. And the intent of you asking us to produce evidence is simply to back us into a corner by putting us on the defensive. I pointed this out to sir Giles as the was Tammies intent with her question. It is an age old debate tactic and it is 100% OK to reverse it onto the individual making the attack. Asking for evidence is one thing, but what you guys are doing is not that. You, ChuckieD, and Alan Fox are all very guilty of this. Particularly ChuckyD and AF You see there are so many different misgivings in your arguments about whether God exists or not, and many of which all fit the tropes of “good for me, but not for thee” “Guilty until proven innocent” and “dismissed out of hand” But one thing I do appreciate about you Sev Is you don’t mock the people you were arguing with that I appreciate very much. Thank you.AaronS1978
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Sir Giles, thanks for conceding the existence of objective morality and therefore the conceding the necessary existence of God, as to your objection that God does not live up to objective morality, that claim, via God rendering justice for evil, is found to be false,
Peter J Williams on New Atheists & Old Testament (incl. The Canaanites) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulCbh_1SlwE “My last resistance to the idea of God’s wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, the region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed and 3,000,000 displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalized beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Though I used to complain about the indecency of God’s wrath, I came to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn’t wrathful at the sight of the world’s evil. God isn’t wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love.” – Miroslav Volf – Croatian theologian https://books.google.com/books?id=BkwnAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA59
bornagain77
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
BA77: CD, might it be too obvious to point out to you that it is objectively morally wrong to kill six million Jews in concentration camps?
Yet it was obviously objectively morally right to massacre the Amalekites, every man, woman and child, and their livestock. And it was obviously objectively morally right to kill homosexuals and women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night.Sir Giles
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
ChuckyD claims, "Objective morality is a human-created code, adopted by the relevant group either democratically or by coercion. It can be subject to change, negotiation, mitigation, elimination" Yet objective morality is NOT an invention of man that is "subject to change". For instance, German society, (under the influence of Darwinian ideology no less), 'democratically' agreed that it was a morally good thing to try to eradicate the Jewish population from Germany. CD, might it be too obvious to point out to you that it is objectively morally wrong to kill six million Jews in concentration camps?, and that that objective moral fact is not 'subject to change'?, or does even this blatantly obvious objective moral fact have to be spelled out for you? A few notes, Darwin’s theory is not only amoral, (pitilessly indifferent, Dawkins), but it is downright ANTI-moral.
How Has Darwinism Negatively Impacted Society? – John G. West – January 11, 2022 Excerpt: Death as the Creator A third big idea fueled by Darwin’s theory is that the engine of progress in the history of life is mass death. Instead of believing that the remarkable features of humans and other living things reflect the intelligent design of a master artist, Darwin portrayed death and destruction as our ultimate creator. As he wrote at the end of his most famous work: “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”13 https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/how-has-darwinism-negatively-impacted-society/ “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Adolf Hilter himself, (whom I would hope even atheists will agree was a psychopath of the first order), directly echoed Charles Darwin’s words when he stated, “Nature,,, wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.”
“A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.” – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf – pg 248
As should be needless to say, wiping out the weak to give place to the strong is directly opposed to the primary Christian ethic of the strong looking after the weak. i.e. altruism
Matthew 25:34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
As Sir Arthur Keith noted shortly after WWII, “the (moral) law of Christ is incompatible with the (moral) law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”
“for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.” – Sir Arthur Keith, (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons – Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.15
Moreover, Hitler was hardly the only murderous, psychopathic, tyrant who based his worldview on Darwinian evolution. In fact all the leading Atheistic Tyrants of the communist regimes of the 20th century, who murdered tens of millions of their OWN people, based their murderous political ideologies on Darwin’s theory and the ‘ANTI-morality’ inherent therein.
Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their Atheistic ideology https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/david-berlinski-the-bad-boy-philosopher-who-doubts-darwinism-is-back/#comment-749756 Atheism’s Body Count * It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world. https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/
Of related note, multicellular life would not even exist unless cooperative and altruistic behavior existed at the molecular and cellular level. (which is the antithesis of Darwin’s selfish ‘survival of the fittest’ presupposition) Richard Dawkins’s ‘selfish gene’ concept is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition. Yet genes are now found to be anything but ‘selfish’ as Dawkins himself held. Instead of being ‘selfish’, genes are now found to be exist in an extensive holistic web of mutual inter-dependence and cooperation (which is, obviously, the very antithesis of being selfish as Richard Dawkins had erroneously envisioned).
Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/
Again, such extensive, even astonishing, ‘holistic cooperation’ between genes is the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’ as Richard Dawkins had erroneously envisioned genes to be via his Darwinian presuppositions., (And should, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of a religion for atheists, count as yet another powerful falsification of Darwin’s theory) it is also interesting to note that the highest possible morality within Christian ethics is the altruistic morality of someone giving his life so that others may live.
John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
Indeed, the medal-of-honor, which is the highest medal awarded for military service, is based on self-sacrificial, altruistic, morality where a man either dies, or puts his life in extreme jeopardy, for the sake of his fellow soldiers. Yet, such self sacrificial altruistic behavior, which is central, even defining, to the Christian’s entire view of objective morality, is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s one ‘general law’ of “let the strongest live and the weakest die.” Yet, if it were not for such self-sacrificial altruistic behavior in multicellular organisms, at the cellular level, we simply would not even be here to argue whether morality was objectively real or not. Specifically, ‘apoptosis’, which means programmed cell death, is a necessary part of embryological development for multicellular organisms.
Apoptosis in Embryonic Development Excerpt: As cells rapidly proliferate during development, some of them undergo apoptosis, which is necessary for many stages in development, including neural development, reduction in egg cells (oocytes) at birth, as well as the shaping of fingers and,, organs in humans and other animals. Sydney Brenner, H. Robert Horvitz, and John E. Sulston received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002 for their work on the genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/apoptosis-embryonic-development
Thus in conclusion, multicellular life simply would not even possible if the cellular level of life was not, in large measure, Intelligently Designed along, and/or based upon, the highest, altruistic, moral principles found within Christian Theism of self sacrifice. i.e. of altruism. Simply put, if certain cells did not die for the good of other cells during embryonic development, multicellular life, as we know it, simply would not exist.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Of supplemental note
Darwin’s (falsified) predictions – altruism – Cornelius Hunter Conclusions “Darwin’s theory of evolution led him to several expectations and predictions, regarding behavior in general, and altruism in particular. We now know those predictions to be false.,,,” https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/altruism
bornagain77
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Seversky October 15, 2022 at 8:33 am AaronS1978/9 “No, it is not okay to reverse the burden of proof.” Turnabout is fair play sorry you’re wrong, And if you think it’s an issue, don’t do it yourself, I’m really sorry if it takes you from being on the aggressive to the defensive which is the reason why you don’t think it’s OK “I agree. It is for anyone who makes a specific claim to support it, if they want to persuade others it has any merits.” Finally, something we can agree on. “If anything impinges on the physical Universe in any observable way then it is arguably part of the natural order. Ghosts are usually thought of as supernatural but if we were to find evidence of their existence then, however elusive they might be, they would again be a part of the natural order.” The definition of supernatural is anything, not subject to the laws of nature. Simply put if it is outside of our natural universe it is not subject to our laws it’s then supernatural. Beings from outside of our universe would very likely be subject to their laws and not our own, making them unnatural to our universe and possibly supernatural per the definition. Ghost are considered supernatural because they are no longer subject to our laws. And they would be outside of our universe. Inter-dimensional beings also would be considered this. I’m sorry if I do not accept your extended version of your universe, because effectively you make it to where everything is natural. “By that argument, inhabitants of another universe, could regard us as supernatural. Do you feel natural or supernatural?” This is a very silly strawman not your best work.AaronS1978
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
“I’m done with this childish gotcha by default nonsense. It’s not even worthy of a twisted FOX News pundit.“ Lol this coming from the king of it.AaronS1978
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
BA77/22
ChuckyD, by you admitting that such a thing as ‘evil’ exists in the world, you have just admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil and have, by default, conceded the existence of God.
I not going down this rabbit hole yet again with you or any other creationist/IDer that improperly uses the term "objective morality" when the correct term is "absolute morality" when linking it to ontology. I'm done with this childish gotcha by default nonsense. It's not even worthy of a twisted FOX News pundit. Premise No. 1 in Craig's syllogism is wrong. Objective morality is a human-created code, adopted by the relevant group either democratically or by coercion. It can be subject to change, negotiation, mitigation, elimination None of these features are present in God's absolute morality. Objective morality as I have outlined is not a "subjective" morality. "Subjective" means, literally from the "self," the individual; subjective morality is a morality of one. It can best be described as one's own personal code of conduct.chuckdarwin
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
re 19: Bob Ryan writwes, "Can life come from no-life through natural means? Not without violating the laws of physics, which can’t be broken." Life ultimately is based on physics, via bio-chemistry. You may believe that it is not possible that life could have arisen originally because of probability arguments, but the argument that getting life from non-life would break laws of physics is a different argument, and wrong. There is nothing about an amoeba, for instance, that breaks any laws of physics.Viola Lee
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
Seversky, on the one hand states, "there is nothing to prevent us from formulating our own subjective standards of good and evil", and yet on the other hand Seversky appeals to objective morality in that C.S. Lewis should intuitively know, if he saw it, that it is objectively morally wrong to murder an innocent child. And so it goes, the atheist's worldview, as Dr. Egnor has noted, is a morass of self-refuting claims,.
Self-refutation and the New Atheists: The Case of Jerry Coyne Michael Egnor September 12, 2013 Excerpt: One of the more bizarre ideological tics of the New Atheists is their indifference to self-refutation. Their ideology is a morass of bizarre self-refuting claim. They assert that science is the only way to truth, yet take no note that scientism itself isn’t a scientific assertion. They assert a "skeptical" view that thoughts are only constructed artifacts of our neurological processing and have no sure contact with truth, ignoring the obvious inference that their skeptical assertion is thereby reduced to a constructed artifact with no sure contact with truth. They assert that Christianity has brought much immorality to the world, yet they deny the existence of objective morality. They assert that intelligent design is not testable, and that it is wrong. And they assert that we are determined entirely by our natural history and physical law and thereby have no free will, yet they assert this freely, claiming truth and personal exemption from determinism.,, https://evolutionnews.org/2013/09/self-refutation/
Of sidenote, since Seversky, with the overturning of Roe, has recently come out strongly supporting unrestricted abortion, and since he has voiced anger towards those who are pro-life, one is forced to wonder whether Seversky would really know, if he saw it, that it is objectively morally wrong to rip apart, limb from limb, an innocent unborn baby or not. Or is his conscience seared to the point that even that barbaric cruelty is beyond him?
Watch (pro-choice) minds (immediately) change on abortion (after watching the abortion procedures video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWQHhqOAcg
If a psychopath did to a child what the abortion industry routinely does to unborn children, via ‘dismemberment abortions, the psychopath would be sentenced to death, and/or life in prison, and the vast majority of people would agree wholeheartedly with that punishment.
Dismemberment Abortion – Patrina Mosley, M.A. Dismemberment abortions are a common and brutal type of abortion that involve dismembering a living unborn child piece by piece. According to the National Abortion Federation’s abortion training textbook, dismemberment abortions are a preferred method of abortion, in part because they are cheaper than other available methods.1 (2018) https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF18F25.pdf 100 million views: People respond to the viral ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos Excerpt: In these videos, Dr. Levatino, who committed over 1,200 abortions before becoming pro-life, explains in detail what occurs when the life of a preborn child is destroyed during an abortion during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Each of the Abortion Procedures videos describes in detail how each abortion procedure is carried out and how the preborn child dies. The realization of abortion’s barbarity, cruelty, and inhumanity has impacted many viewers who were not expecting to see what they saw.,,, https://www.liveaction.org/news/live-action-abortion-procedures-impact/ Abortion Procedures: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Trimesters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFZDhM5Gwhk Abby Johnson Discusses Why She Left Planned Parenthood At The 2020 RNC | NBC News, (she witnessed a dismemberment abortion first hand) https://youtu.be/NXQjCuWFdzI?t=100 Michael Egnor – The Junk Science of the Abortion Lobby (Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults) https://mindmatters.ai/2019/01/the-junk-science-of-the-abortion-lobby/ Sept. 2022 - (Just) maybe we ought not rip apart, limb from limb, unborn babies in the womb? Especially unborn babies who can “Taste And Smell”, as well as display love and care towards other people? https://uncommondescent.com/human-life/at-medical-express-first-direct-evidence-that-babies-react-to-taste-and-smell-in-the-womb/#comment-765700
Verse:
1 Timothy 4:2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
bornagain77
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Bornagain77/22
ChuckyD, by you admitting that such a thing as ‘evil’ exists in the world, you have just admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil and have, by default, conceded the existence of God.
No, there is nothing to prevent us from formulating our own subjective standards of good and evil so there is no need to look for guidance to a God whose own grasp of the subject looks a bit shaky to say the least. As for Craig's argument, it fails because the premises are easily attacked.
C.S Lewis, a former atheist who converted to Christianity, (in spite of having lived through the evil of WWI), put the self-refuting failure of the atheist’s ‘argument from evil’ like this: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,,”
And the obvious answer to Lewis's facile argument is to ask him if he is saying that he would have no idea what constitutes good or evil unless God had told him. If he saw a child being murdered in front of him he would not know whether it was right or wrong unless God told him?Seversky
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Seversky/25 Yup—and one impossible to operationally define….chuckdarwin
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
Chuckdarwin/15
My organic chem professor from decades back was fond of saying “there are no mysteries, just uncontrolled variables.”
So Christians are just worshipping the biggest uncontrolled variable of them all?Seversky
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Groovamos/17
there is no such thing as the supernatural only the unknown Yes of course, nature, devoid of inherent intelligence, was somehow smart enough to create itself at the big bang. Or as an alternative, maybe “only the unknown” was the creator of nature, even. But then that would render “the unknown” as superior to nature. Indeed, as superior, rather “supernatural” such a powerful “unknown”, and extremely powerful being the “only” thing of consideration.
As we've been saying, we don't know how life arose from inanimate matter. But "don't know" does not mean the same as supernatural. What we do know is that we have inanimate matter as well as living organisms in this Universe so there is a good chance that, whether God did it or it arose naturally, life came from non-life.Seversky
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
AaronS1978/9
It is ok to reverse the burden of proof as burden of proof is often used simply to back the opponent into a corner.
If someone makes a claim and I ask for some reason why I should accept it, that is not backing the claimant into a corner, it's asking a reasonable question. If you were to appear in court charged with a criminal offense you would expect the prosecution to present evidence to support their case. The allegation should not be accepted as proven just on their word, nor should you be required to prove your innocence while the prosecution does nothing. No, it is not okay to reverse the burden of proof.
To claim there is no god is the same as to say there is. Both require a burden of proof, both are direct claims about the nature of existence. The only correct answer is to say “no one knows” and to look for proof.
I agree. It is for anyone who makes a specific claim to support it, if they want to persuade others it has any merits.
Now the definition of supernatural is something not subject to our laws of physics. I do not understand how there could not be SN things as anything out side of our universe would be, by definition SN, as our physics are very likely specific to our universe. We could know of their existence and that would not make them any less SN
If anything impinges on the physical Universe in any observable way then it is arguably part of the natural order. Ghosts are usually thought of as supernatural but if we were to find evidence of their existence then, however elusive they might be, they would again be a part of the natural order.
Now the definition of supernatural is something not subject to our laws of physics. I do not understand how there could not be SN things as anything out side of our universe would be, by definition SN, as our physics are very likely specific to our universe. We could know of their existence and that would not make them any less SN
By that argument, inhabitants of another universe, could regard us as supernatural. Do you feel natural or supernatural?Seversky
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
ChuckyD, by you admitting that such a thing as 'evil' exists in the world, you have just admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil and have, by default, conceded the existence of God.
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos - video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276
C.S Lewis, a former atheist who converted to Christianity, (in spite of having lived through the evil of WWI), put the self-refuting failure of the atheist's 'argument from evil' like this: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,,"
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. Harper San Francisco, Zondervan Publishing House, 2001, pp. 38-39.
And as Dr. Egnor explains, "Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question."
The Universe Reflects a Mind - Michael Egnor - February 28, 2018 Excerpt: Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/
Verse:
Matthew 19:17-19 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Supplemental quote: "He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”
“It is a glorious phrase of the New Testament, that ‘he led captivity captive.’ The very triumphs of His foes, it means, he used for their defeat. He compelled their dark achievements to sub-serve his end, not theirs. They nailed him to the tree, not knowing that by that very act they were bringing the world to his feet. They gave him a cross, not guessing that he would make it a throne. They flung him outside the gates to die, not knowing that in that very moment they were lifting up all the gates of the universe, to let the King of Glory come in. They thought to root out his doctrines, not understanding that they were implanting imperishably in the hearts of men the very name they intended to destroy. They thought they had defeated God with His back (to) the wall, pinned and helpless and defeated: they did not know that it was God Himself who had tracked them down. He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.” - James Stewart (1896–1990) was a minister of the Church of Scotland
bornagain77
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
BA77/18
The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth...(emphasis added)
Including all of the pernicious evil with which we have to contend day in and day out. Definitely "crisp and on target..."chuckdarwin
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
BA77, crisp and on target, AD 50 at Athens was a hinge of civilisation history. KFkairosfocus
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Can life come from no-life through natural means? Not without violating the laws of physics, which can't be broken.BobRyan
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT
"there is no such thing as the supernatural only the unknown"
Paul’s Address in the Areopagus Acts 17:22-25 Then Paul stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and examined your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore what you worship as something unknown, I now proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples made by human hands. Nor is He served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because He Himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.
bornagain77
October 14, 2022
October
10
Oct
14
14
2022
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
there is no such thing as the supernatural only the unknown Yes of course, nature, devoid of inherent intelligence, was somehow smart enough to create itself at the big bang. Or as an alternative, maybe "only the unknown" was the creator of nature, even. But then that would render "the unknown" as superior to nature. Indeed, as superior, rather "supernatural" such a powerful "unknown", and extremely powerful being the "only" thing of consideration.groovamos
October 14, 2022
October
10
Oct
14
14
2022
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
I think I saw that in The Journal Irreproducible Results.relatd
October 14, 2022
October
10
Oct
14
14
2022
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Seversky/8
From my perspective, there is no such thing as the supernatural only the unknown.
My organic chem professor from decades back was fond of saying “there are no mysteries, just uncontrolled variables.”chuckdarwin
October 14, 2022
October
10
Oct
14
14
2022
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
AS1978 at 13, I lament the loss of good, tell it like it is journalism. And this should be the case with so-called science journals. Why would they deceive us? Sell ads? Promote the "God did not do it" agenda regarding the origin of life? It seems to be both.relatd
October 14, 2022
October
10
Oct
14
14
2022
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
@ Relatd I know, it drives me crazy, just googling “created life from nothing” gets you exactly everything you mentioned. Many science articles will use this type of deception to make it seem far more then it really is.AaronS1978
October 14, 2022
October
10
Oct
14
14
2022
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
AS1978 at 11, Craig Venter. Depending on the news outlet, he "created life" or "created a synthetic life form" or "artificial life." This great lack of precision can confuse the public. He didn't build a cell using dead (inorganic) chemicals.relatd
October 14, 2022
October
10
Oct
14
14
2022
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
@ tammie I would not say it is settled science but current science supports something “extra” or “supernatural” had to occur for life to get started. It certainly looks like life has to come from life. Now you can say human ingenuity will eventually figure it out or if you’re part of the cult of scientism, “science” will eventually figure it out. But even if they succeeded in creating some form of life in the lab, that doesn’t mean that life, as we know it, wasn’t the result of special creation. Now before anything else gets started and tries to pull a “I gotcha” moment, Craig Venter did not create life. He hijacked a living cell’s dna and replaced it with his synthetic dna code. The cell already existed and was aliveAaronS1978
October 14, 2022
October
10
Oct
14
14
2022
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply