Is theistic evolution biblical?

Re: Bible continued
I have thought much about the afterlife, and I think nothingness is an option, even with a god.
I have also heard of several different interpretations to the afterlife, mostly from Judaism, which officially almost never mentions it, thus many interpretations, including no afterlife, are presented.

My favorite 2 interpretations involve heaven and purgatory, where purgatory is like hell, but temporary (finite punishment relative to the crime, rather then eternal punishment for any and all who dont qualify for heaven.

The other interpretation I like is that the afterlife is an empty estate at birth. Every good deed you build up your land/house. Every sin, you dump a bunch of garbage or knock something down. In the end, you live in whatever it is you built.
Both interpretations are based of deeds. An afterlife based on faith speaks to a vain, imperfect, possibly evil god, imo.

One interpretation from a christian that sounded ok was that if you dont have faith in god, why would you want to spend eternity with him... which sounds ok, if the alternative for good people who did not believe was something other than eternal torture.

Re: Bible
I cannot provide specific passages, only the spirit of the message in general, although I'm sure you have enough experience with the bible to refute me if I'm wrong. What I can say is that many of the sayings and narratives attributed to Jesus in the first person feel very different to the spirit of christianity as practiced in the mainstream today. And many of the practices in maintstream christianity today are justified by 3rd person accounts of Jesus, presumably by the disciples.

For example, I've heard many of the passages regarding homosexuality and how to treat homosexuals came from Paul, a person who never met Jesus except for by his own account in a vision. Paul persecuted christians prior to conversion, and seemingly brought his intolerance to the faith after conversion. Instead of embracing the sinner and finding out what lead them on that path, sin became something to shame. Nowadays gays are protested rather then welcomed by Christians. I do not believe that is what Jesus taught, but it is the teaching that has been passed down.

I certainly hope jesus, in the first person, did not put faith above deeds. If he did, rather then being convinced, I will be disappointed. But you will certainly be a greater authority on this subject then I.

1. You are right regarding the reformation, however since the reformation, there have been a vast number of protestant ideologies that came from that personal reading of the scripture. This subjectivity in interpretation is one strong proof against it being a divine word. Unless god intended for different people to receive a different message from his text, this confusion is not becoming of a divine word. I would greatly dispute how trustworthy that testament is. This testament is presented to us by humans, and it is blind faith that we assume that this is its original form. Its meaning could have been corrupted intentionally by evil men, or even unintentionally due to fallible translation.

Re: morality
Nobody claimed moralities independent of god are objective, rather I am claiming that moralities dependent on god are also subjective, as the god behind them is also subjective. You seem to support this by saying that each theistic group has "its own objective moralities." if there are numerous objective moralities, then they are not objective.

The concept of good I was referring to is subjective. I am referring to my own concept of good that was built based off the values of the society I was raised in. Although it would be comforting, I do not believe there is an objective morality, so none of my points were designed to demonstrate, defend, support, or mimic an objective morality. Simply my western definition of what is good, and my judgement of other culture's historical moralities.

It is my subjective opinion that more individual rights are better. That is based off the individualistic western society I was raised in. Many eastern cultures are collectivistic. Actually almost all human societies prior to modern western culture were collectivistic, and they valued the greater good above the individual. Personally I can understand the reasoning and certainly some aspect of that seem good, but the values of my culture seem better, at least to me. These opinions are as subjective as me saying that modern action movies are better. Many would agree with me, and I can say it with confidence, but we can all agree art is a subjective subject, despite many very decisive opinions.

It is historically agreed upon that most Germans did not know the full truth about the holocaust. There have been some atrocious moralities in history, like Sparta, but the secrecy of the holocaust shows that even Germany knew this was wrong. It was just politically convenient and lust for power overpowered the morality of those in power. I hope that answer is more palatable. Germany was, after all, a western nation with western ideals/morals.

re: intelligent design cont
the question of who set the law of physics is different from the goldilocks habitable environment rarity question which has, imo, been debunked. We have no knowledge of what is beyond our universe, or other universes if they exist, so objectively we dont know. However I do not believe the big bang was the beginning of everything, I believe in the multiverse, which may or may not allow for variable physical laws. I cannot answer this question objectively, and yes my multiverse idea is a belief, not a known fact.

The multiverse is not science, it is science fiction. Not only is it just a hypothesis, it is an untestable hypothesis. Many scientifically inclined people may support the idea, just like many scientists believe in god. but their belief doesn't translate into science until it is testable.

could you please explain how nature could be used to answer all situations? Our view of nature assumes natural laws function the same everywhere. An intelligent designer can turn rules on and off at will. Nature simply follows the same rules throughout without error. How can nature be anything but consistent? Can you elaborate?

Yes math is always theoretical as far as I can tell, a good example will easily convince me otherwise, but if you look at einstein's celebrated theory of relativity. It has long been accepted, but only after we discovered physical gravitational waves did the headlines say "einstein's theory proven." his theory was entirely mathematical, which was good enough as it never failed. But it was never empirical until we saw physical evidence of waves of the fabric of space.

I'm sorry, got distracted.

Re: intelligent design
I didn't say it was a 1:1 ratio, but i did say it is inevitable given the scale of space and time.
What I said is that although an intelligent designer can make literally anything, nature can only proceed along 1 course of action. That course of action is the one we see.
As for the dice roll, as you roll more and more dice it is increasingly likely that *overall* it will become closer and closer to 50/50, but it is also increasingly likely to get unlikely streaks. A professor from Berkley, Deborah Nolan, had a famous activity where she would have her class split into 2 groups, 1 group would make up a series of 100 coin flips, while the other group would actually flip a coin 100 times. She would always know which was based off real coin flips because it would always have unlikely long streaks in the mix. Overall both are true. if you roll enough times you will have both outsized streaks AND an overall 50/50 result. Time, scale, and repetition make the unlikely inevitable.

It is difficult to tell how unlikely a "ball of matter *of unknown origin" would result in a big bang. The fact that it is unknown leaves too many variables to result in your conclusion. We have no idea what the ball was, what set it off, or what the conditions were before it went off. It is impossible to determine likelihood objectively. Remember, the big bang is the origin of our universe, we do not know that there is nothing before our universe, or beyond it. Science does not assume or guess, it recites what we know. no more, no less. We did get slammed by a meteor, maybe even a planetoid. Its ripped off a giant chunk of our planet. That chunk is now called the moon. Life is more resilient then you give it credit for, and even if this planet was made uninhabitable, there are countless planets which would be alternative candidates. There inevitably will be a success and that success may not be as unlikely as you think.

Re: Bible

Could you provide one saying or teaching of the disciples that was in disagreement with Jesus’ teachings and that was also not rebuked by Jesus? You seem to think that the followers of Jesus in the Bible somehow had completely different teaching than Him but I haven’t found any that exist. Even if John 3:16 was a commentary by John and not a direct quote of Jesus, Jesus taught about hell more than anyone in the Bible. Again, I will admit that horrible acts have been committed by people throughout history in the name of Christianity. I will also outrightly condemn them because I think it can be clearly and plainly shown why they were not in line with Scripture. However, Jesus did demand people to turn from their evil ways and believe in Him alone or be condemned to hell for those evil deeds.

Question 1: That’s not a completely inaccurate statement by any means, but I would not personally use that generalization to describe the Reformation since it had more to do with the authority of Scripture and the nature of salvation. There is an aspect of a personal connection with God, but it is a connection with the God revealed in the Bible, not a god of your own personal creation. He has given the tools of reason and understanding so people could understand Scripture, which is the most trustworthy testimony we have. He has also set eternity in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11) as a “tool” of understanding. Don’t you ever have thoughts about what will happen when you did, or if there is an afterlife?

Question 2: I appreciate you sharing that. I definitely wasn’t just asking as a way to debunk it and somehow prove Christianity to be true, I was actually interested to hear your thoughts on it, so thanks.

Re: Morality

When I talk about objective morality being the result of theism, I just mean that each particular theistic system would have its own objective standard for humanity to follow. In my case, I am arguing for Christian theism as revealed by the Bible as the objective standard. I also haven’t seen any moral philosophies independent of a god that don’t end up being subjective in nature, but I haven’t done an exhaustive study so perhaps I’m mistaken.

The problem I see in your posts is that you seem to be appealing to objective morality in your defense of subjective morality. Let me point out why I think this. First, you are trying to point out why the Bible doesn’t fit with a “good God” but that presupposes that there is a concept of good to be appealed to.

The same could be said when you stated, “a few hiccups aside, we have been slowing marching in the direction of less atrocities and suffering, more equality and empathy.” Why is more equality and empathy desirable, and how can our subjective morality improve? That would imply that there is a standard which we should be working toward, which would have to be an objective standard that contains equality and empathy. To say that any one moral system is better than another necessarily implies that it is closer to the ideal objective moral system.

Now, I have pointed out what I believe to be an inconsistency with the position that morality is subjective. Let me put it in a practical form: I am personally not satisfied with saying the only reason to condemn the Holocaust was because essentially, America came to a different result than Germany in their vote on whether it was acceptable to exterminate Jews. This doesn’t automatically make me right and I have actually been hoping to hear arguments that speak to this point in my time on this site.

Re: Intelligent Design

You seem to be saying that chance has nothing to do with it because there is only one possible outcome, a 1:1 ratio. The problem is you are not statistically guaranteed one particular outcome when multiple outcomes are possible such as in a lottery, and you are certainly not guaranteed the most unlikely outcome. If you flip a coin, you could get 100 tails in a row. It’s highly unlikely but statistically possible. And with time and chance, it keeps becoming more likely that you will actually get an even mix of heads and tails rather than a continual result of all tails.

This is a simplistic analogy compared to the events in the universe leading to life. But in the same way that it is highly unlikely to get 100 tails in a row, it is even more unlikely that a tiny ball of matter with no known origin underwent a big bang, formed galaxies stars and planets, and one planet in particular that formed with the conditions for human life. The problem is that life coming about isn’t a probable mix of heads and tails. It requires getting tails every single time for every condition necessary for life (orbit, tilt, atmosphere, chemical makeup, etc., of the earth). If you get even one heads in the process of our galaxy and earth being formed, then no life. Or, what if a giant meteorite blasted the earth apart? That’s a different outcome that does not produce life and follows the laws of nature. Also, were the laws of nature a result of the big bang? Are they an eternal constant or could they have been different? Now I’m not forcing you to answer each question, I’m just trying to show that I don’t think we can say that there is only one possible outcome from a naturalist perspective.

I will admit that it would also be fair to say a designer could fit any situation, but so could natural formation. The question then comes down to evidence and probability.

I am also curious, do you consider all mathematical evidence empirical or philosophical?

Re: bible
being illogical usually requires contradiction. a contradiction usually requires at least 2 points. human's susceptibility to sin is just 1 point, you have to finish the sentence to complete a thought:
"A good God would not create a people so susceptible to sin, and then obsess about it as a priority."

I also followed it up with other aspects that dont fit with a "good god."
I do not find those things as depressing because there was no design intending them, and if you look back at the history of humanity, a few hiccups aside, we have been slowly marching in the direction of less atrocities and suffering, more equality and empathy. Our subjective morality has only improved, and continue to improve, with time. I have faith in humanity. Institutional secularism was one of those steps, a step that was championed by our forefathers.

your bible passages: are these the words of jesus, or the narrator? especially John 3:16, is jesus talking in the 3rd person?!? "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son." So far I have mostly agreed with sayings attributed to jesus in the 1st person, it is these disciples, the presumed narrators, that I question and am often horrified by.

question 1: Regarding my personal god... yes.
Was that not btw the reason for the protestant reformation? to make your own personal connection to god? using the tools god has given me, this is the only obvious conclusion. I believe that to be a more trustworthy source then word of mouth.
question 2: I am assuming the god of the bible, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent. However, i dont agree with the events and claims the bible makes about him. Many like the 10th plague gnaw at the root of his benevolence. hardening his heart to coerce someone in order to justify the final punishment! heck no. that is evil. eternal hell for disbelief regardless of actions, evil. only bad men are obsessed with worship.

Re: morality
I didn't say anyone lacks a world view. I said atheism is not a world view. No other group is defined by what they dont believe in or partake in. Its like saying someone is not a poker player... that says nothing about what activity they actually do. There are many moral philosophies independent of god. Saying not god doesnt say anything about what they actually believe in. Furthermore, theistic morallity is hardly objective. Which theism? They dont all agree! And considering it is possible this is a man made book, there is nothing objective about it.

Re nazis
It was their morality that what they did was right. It was our morality that they were very wrong, and justified war to stop it. It is scary. We are responsible for our own actions and decisions. Responsibility is a very scary thing. I think we live up to it.

I didnt mean anything by dominance of atheism because atheism isnt a thing. It isnt a belief. Its a lack of belief. I was using your language from your claim that an atheist minority is dictating the world view. What our forefathers did was remove religion from places of power (government) because religion cannot be trusted to not oppress other faiths. They didnt establish atheist dominance, they removed religious dominance to create a neutral society that protects all people. As it should be.

Re: intelligent design
The point of that example was to be hypothetical. To show that no matter the scenario, a designer is always an option. However for nature there is but 1 outcome... and that is the outcome that we see... too coincidental.

Nature is far from random. It may be chaotic, but everything follows precise rules. Only the elements on the top right of the periodic table are prone to easy reactivity. They are the elements that make up life. Nature is good at making small adaptations, but not starting from scratch. The eye is an excellent example: according to science, it evolved underwater, which explains why til this day ALL eyes, including our own, are filled with fluid with the exact same light bending index as sea water. Our brains must constantly compensate for the blur. Nature could not simply make a new eye from scratch, it accomidated what it had. However god could do anything. Make every animal unique and function in a different way. That is impossible for nature. The mechanism of.evolution demands slow change from an original default. Fundamentals like sugar metabolism are unchanges throughout the tree of life

Life on a random planet is unlikely, just like winning the lotto. Maybe even less. But the universe is vast, so is time. If you play the lotto 99 trillion times... your statistically gauranteed to win. Given enough attempts, the improbable becomes inevitable.

Positive evidence for intelligent design requires not the likelyhood of a design, but evidence of a designer. Right now intelligent design has evidence (arguable due to the statistical argument i just said) equivalent to the expansion of galaxies creating the big bang HYPOTHESIS. That was not proof but just a suspicion. And i do not think we well be able to detect anything of the designer any time soon. God is as of now a matter of faith, impossible to prove or disprove. Science cannot say he does not exist, and never has. But it also cannot say he does exist.

Re: Bible
Don’t worry, I think everyone is entitled to their own belief. In fact, I would say that is both constitutional and biblical!

You stated that one reason Christianity is illogical and depressing is because of human susceptibility to sin. But whether you believe in God or not, the same amount of evil is happening in the world. Do you find it less depressing knowing that violence, murder, rape, torture, death, and all the other terrible things are just meaningless events in an uncaring universe?

I will just mention that Jesus is the founder of Christianity so it would be ironic for Him to be appalled by His own teachings. Admittedly, many people have used the incorrectly used the Bible to justify evil things throughout history. However, Jesus was not simply concerned with embracing people and seeking their improvement with support and love. He taught about hell more than anyone else in the entire Bible (Matthew 13:40-43), and He was concerned about people repenting of their sin and believing in Him alone for forgiveness (Mark 1:15; John 3:16-18).

I do have two questions for you if you don’t mind me asking. You said you have an idea of a god that is unique since it does not fit any of the “varied works of men,” and you live by the “good values” of this god. Obviously I don’t have a full view of your beliefs and don’t want to presume so I’m genuinely curious: would you say that you are creating your own personal god based on your beliefs, or even holding up your personal thoughts and values as “god”?

Second, you obviously don’t believe in the Christian God and you have brought up a few disputes or disagreements with the claims of the Bible. I would be interested to know then, what you would say that your biggest problem or disagreement with Christianity is? Perhaps a different way to ask would be what is the biggest reason you don’t believe in the God of the Bible?

Re: Morality
I don’t think anyone lacks a worldview because worldviews don’t require a god, it’s simply how you view the world. Now I don’t think the distinction between “belief in no god” or “lack of belief in a god” is really all that important unless we get on to a topic such as how to determine morality. The reason is that subjective morality is consistent with atheism/naturalism (standard set by humans), and objective morality is consistent with theism (standard set by God). It seems you would agree with this at least to some degree? Either way, I think that subjective morality is a scary way to live because that means that right and wrong is ultimately determined by who has the bigger stick. A dilemma seems to rise if I were to ask you if the Nazi extermination of Jews was wrong. To say yes would be objectively imposing your morals on another society, but to say no carries serious implications for your moral standard.

Even the fundamentals that you listed such as stealing and murder cannot be assumed in subjective morality because there is no universal agreement on what stealing and murder are, or if they are actually wrong. Don’t you think it’s at least a little unsettling to think that something as important as personhood is a moveable standard that can include an individual in one society, and exclude them in another?

I’m not sure exactly what you meant by the “dominance of atheism” being established by our forefathers so this may not exactly answer that premise, but the founding fathers established our government with the principle that humans have inalienable rights given to them by God. The government does not grant rights or take them away, it only recognizes and protects them. At least that was the original intent. The basis of our constitutional rights actually presuppose God, while also not allowing the government to legislate personal belief.

Re: Intelligent Design
The problem with fitting the design story into all scenarios is that you are creating hypothetical realities to argue against actual reality. We don’t live in a universe where life and existence are near certainty and there is no reason to think that a universe such as that exists. The fact is that the fine tuning of our universe (whether by chance or design) is our reality. The intelligent design argument says that the universe is too precise to allow for random structuring to be a reasonable explanation. So really, the only scenario that the designer story fits is one where life exists because of the improbability of it. As for your biology example, I would say that many different systems or animal forms, rather than uniformity, would be a stronger evidence for randomness than design. Why would uniformity and consistency be used to describe anything structured at random, especially something as complex as the universe?

Now I’m specifically curious as to whether you think that intelligent design is scientific. You disagreed, but the arguments you applied to this theory are not the ones I had in mind so let me elaborate. The fact is that people have looked at the universe and made empirical observations about the requirements and improbability of life on earth. Even the slightest differences in the orbit, tilt, atmosphere, chemical makeup, etc., of the earth would make the existence of life impossible. These are scientific, empirical observations. People have derived mathematical probabilities of the existence of life from these observations. Whether they are right or wrong, I am wondering how arriving at a conclusion based on empirical observations and mathematical probabilities is not scientific.

If you still don’t agree that it is scientific, then what “positive evidence” would be required for it to be considered scientific?

Re: bible
Warning, i quit discussing religion because the following response upsets many of my opponents.

Ive learned parts of it as a child, If you believe in a God, it may convert you to a specific God, but it is doubtful it can make one theistic. Too fantastical. As an adult, only a personal experience will matter. I acknowledge, and am open to the idea of a god, but the only religion that makes any sense is b'hai, which pretty much said God sent each people a different message based on what they needed to learn (unity, law, tolerance, etc). Christianity is illogical and depressing. A good God would not create a people so susceptible to sin, and then obsess about it as a priority. He would not give the most insignifcant of sins an infinite punishment passed down forever (and the womens punishment sounds like it was written by a man). And he would not vainly demand endless repitions of lord and how hallowed his name is. Those are *clearly* optional, and i think he would appreciate your own words.

Even If i were to become theistic, i like wont be religious. Especially christianity which i personally think would appaul jesus. The only obsession jesus had with personal social sins (not greed and murder), was to embrace the people and seek to improve them through support and love. Not shame and tough love. Maybe christianity is as good as any other, just not the way the mainstream or at any point in history practice it. I already have an idea of god, and it doesnt fit anything in what i consider to be the varied work of men. I already live by the good values he would represent. I also appreciate this reality. If he is sentient, he will understand. If not, my appreciation is not affected. Although my "appreciation" would be different if i wasnt born so lucky. (Healthy, 1st world).

Morality is subjective. Spartans thought it was good to essentially abort in the desert already born infants. Even if we look to God different versions say different things. Society A would not think B is moral because B thinks a certain way, you see the world through your own values. We have all independently decided murder was bad, but that wasnt always the case, especially for peasants or slaves. This applies to our ancestors as well. Its nice to think there are objective unchanging morals, but that isnt the case. The bible has condoned slavery within limits. Those limits are no longer acceptable.

My worldview is my own, but i dont declare things i know are important in the grand scheme to be irrelevant just because they are irrelevant to me. Im not sure what you mean by atheism taking precedence, but if i am to take a guess its because atheism is not a worldview, its a lack of a certain worldview. If you dont like watching tv, you arent an atvist, you are a book reader, or a radio listener. We dont usually declare something by what it is not. To enforce atheism you simply dont enforce it. To enforce theism is to actually enforce it. What do you do with people who disagree? Or have a different theism then you, cause theism is not a single belief, none of.you agree on much. (Besides the fundamentals shared by all humanity, like dont kill, steal)

The dominance of atheism (as you call it) was established by theists, like our fore fathers, precisely because it is good. It is objective. And it doesnt stop you from being theist.

Continued...

Sure it can be explained by a designer. All forms of chaos and order can be explained by a designer. Just look at modern art! But nature is just a straight line of cause and effect. Simple, and consistent.

Im sorry, but the "evidence" for intelligent design is not empirical, it is philosophical.

First off intelligent design advocates do not make arguments for intelligent design. Their arguments, like the unmoved mover and the clockmaker are thousands of years old and were mostly apriori. That just hijacked a bunch of scientific terms to make it *sound* scientific. No original arguments have been presented. Instead intelligent design advocates simply assume that by questioning scientific theories, their designer will be proven by default without the need to find actual positive evidence of him.

And can you truly say that in a world where life and existence were near certainty (the opposite of the current fine tuning) you wouldn't argue that "this is too perfect, it had to be designed!" The designer story fits all scenarios.

Lets look at biology for a second. All animals are extremely similar in basic body structure (head to tail with limbs in between and a digestive system that runs the length. Same sugar metabolism, same cell structure, same dna) could be by design. But one would expect nature to simply run with a working model. Its hard to develop a whole new chemistry, and if some simplified life forms tried, established ones would eat them quick before they evolve to compete. They are starting from scratch.

However if we saw.many different systems. Physical laws that vary in different areas.. that could also be described by a designer. He designed it that way. Different rooms in my house are very different. Function, design, materials... but nature is uniform. And uniformity is what we see.

Ive already listed the uniformity of life, the universe is no different. All of it is just repeating solar systems that come out in preset ways depending on what, and how.much, you put into the original blender. Repeatedly clustered into galaxies, clustered into clusters as far as light can reach. All with the same laws everywhere.

Re: The Bible
I specifically said that archaeology has only confirmed and not controverted biblical events, locations, and people. This does not mean that archaeological evidence has been found for every detail of the Bible. But there have been over 25,000 archaeological finds which confirm the narrative of the Bible, and no archaeological finds that contradict it. I should also mention that a lack of evidence does not disprove something, it only proves that we don’t have evidence.

A single eyewitness testimony may be weak courtroom evidence, but we have four different records of eyewitness testimonies in the four gospels. They also claim that there were at least 500 other eyewitnesses, and none of them seemed to have contradicted the appearance of Jesus after His death given the massive growth of Christianity after this event. Corroborated eyewitness testimony is actually a very strong source of evidence. In “Cold-Case Christianity” J. Warner Wallace examines the gospel accounts using the same investigative techniques he uses as a cold case detective to show why the accounts are reliable.

While holy books would seek preservation, none compare to the Bible. I would agree that mass appeal does not signify truth. However, it does give a truth claim reason to be honestly examined. That is why I have read the Quran and studied the claims of Islam since that is major monotheistic religion. I think the claims are false, but I also don’t want to misrepresent what their book actually teaches. I would ask critics of the Bible to show the same intellectual diligence in actually reading the book they are critiquing so as not to misrepresent it. This is just a general statement and not an accusation by any means towards you.

The manuscript evidence is also not a direct validation of the truth of the Bible. Rather, it shows the authenticity of the Bible as an ancient document and the accuracy with which it has been preserved.

Re: Life
Let me address a specific point here. I would agree that science alone cannot give us a definition of personhood. However, you have said that the attribution of personhood should be the subjective decision of a society. So what if Society A attributes personhood at conception, and Society B attributes personhood at birth. Would you say then that it is wrong for someone in Society A to perform an abortion, but it is not wrong for someone in Society B to do so?

If that is the case, what if Society C attributes personhood at 2 years of age? Is it then alright for them to dispose of non-persons that are less than 2 years old? You can probably see where I’m going with this, but I would like to hear your thoughts on whether there is any grounds to condemn the subjective decision of a society not to attribute personhood to certain ages such as those under 2 years old.

And yes, my worldview is a personal thing. But isn’t yours as well? Also, atheism is actually a minority view both in America and the world compared to theism. So how do we decide whose worldview is correct, and why should a minority atheistic worldview take precedence over a theistic one?

Re: Scientific Method
I may need you to clarify exactly what you mean between natural design vs intelligent design as fitting certain situations. The whole point of intelligent design is that there seems to be a fine tuning in the universe so precise that it seems virtually impossible for the conditions necessary for human life to exist to come about by natural processes. To state it closer to your terms, the odds that natural design brought about our specific circumstances are so astronomically low that the only plausible explanation seems to be that there must have been an external source or mind orchestrating it all.

But I guess my main point was not to prove the theory of intelligent design or even say you have to agree with it, but rather to see if you believed it was scientific since it uses empirical evidence to draw conclusions about the universe, even though we can’t physically observe the designer.

I disagree that historical and scientific evidence have confirmed/not contradicted biblical events. The flood for example was never established as world wide, and in fact seems to be found in pre christian cultures only in that region, and with different explanations. If god came down and told the only suriving person what he did, it likely wouldnt have been so badly misinterpreted and attributed to other or many gods before returning to the "accurate" story. Many centuries/millenia later.

Historians do agree jesus was likely a real person, but his miracles have not.

Btw, eyewitness accounts are amongst the weakest version of courtroom evidence. Objective evidence from the scene, similar to what science searches for, is the gold standard. Memories are not recordings of an event. Memories are notoriously faulty.

Finally, one would expect a worshipped holy book would be perserved and copied more then most books, but what of other books, like those of hinduism that saw similar worship? They were likely spread to every temple and home as well. Its widespreadness is due to cultural importance. Mass appeal has never signified truth.

Re: life
You are conflating 2 issues.
The lack of proper definition of life/death is due to incomplete data.
The lack of scientific input on abortion is because that is not for scientists to decide. Scientists are to tell us objective data. When the heart stops. When cells stop. when the brain stops. When the breathing stops (or starts) And what happens to the rest of the systems when any of those happen. To figure out the border between life and death, we need a ton of data, and that is a major definition we should not rush. We have tentative definitions for those borders, but they are not wholly satisfactory to our standards.

Scientifically speaking, there is no objective measure of personhood/individuality. That is a social border we as a public should determine while weighing the objective data of fetal development as discovered by science. Expert opinion on personhood could come from social scientists, policy makers, social philosophers, and even lay people. It is not an objective measurement, but a subjective one based on varying criteria. Personhood is not a physiological process, brain activity is.

Science is the supreme method of aquiring knowledge, that doesnt mean it is the supreme repository of knowledge. If god is the supreme repository of knowledge, we do not have access to that repository and he has only shared his moral guidance, and zero information regarding the workings of his creation. Thus im not sure what your issue is. As far as a method of attaining knowledge, not having all the answers only raises the importance of the method to get those answers objectively.

Your world view is a personal thing. It does not account for the broader view that disagrees with you. What is gods definition of life? and how can you determine objectively that it came from god and not some joe writing fiction? There are numerous eye witness accounts of harry potters victory in his first golden thingy event, but those witnesses come from the same source

Love the new avatar pic. Perfect! Lol

Re: Dalton
Seems fair. I approve

Re: scientific method
I dont think there is much difference. I think the acid base reaction is quite similar. We mix the reactants, we get the results. But what happened in between is not observed, it is assumed based off studies and observation. Until perhaps extremely recently we did not watch the individual atoms interact. We just worked the process back logically based off of the fallout from the reaction.

We have objectively looked back at the early universe (distance = back in time due to speed of light limitations), we saw a blob of undifferentiated energy and loose matter. This is no eternal universe, this is the result of a condensed mass, and that mass is in every direction back in time. It is as indisputable as the acid base reaction. Maybe even more so cause quantum mechanics is a heck of a mess. Large scale physics are actually much better understood then quantum reactions.

As for intelligent design. It is my opinion that any situation fits intelligent design, however only a few scenarios fit natural design, and reality seems to suspiciously fit the narrow expectations of natural design. If the explanation that requires very specific circumstances to be true, ends up having all of its circumstances confirmed, the explanation that would fit any and every scenario seems less likely in comparison. I dont think i can fit a detail explanation of that claim in this post. Ill probably save it for the next round.

To verify the authenticity of the claims of Scripture, we would use a method similar to that of a courtroom (examine evidence to reach a conclusion). So no, I would not consider it a scientific method of verification. But I also don’t hold science as the supreme source of objective knowledge. The gospel accounts in the Bible can be verified by corroborated eyewitness testimonies of supernatural events (mainly, the resurrection) that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies surrounding the person of Jesus. The authenticity of the historical documents can be shown by an overwhelming amount of manuscript evidence compared to any other ancient writing. Archaeology has provided precise evidence of biblical accounts, while also not controverting anything in the Bible.

Body+Soul
There is a distinction between human souls and animal “souls” but it is drawn completely from Scripture. The simplest way to understand it would be that humans are made in the image of God and have an eternal soul. Animals simply have life (the word literally means “wind, breath, or life”) and that individual animal life is also translated into English from Hebrew as “soul.”

Re: Life
You said previously that science is the most supreme method of acquiring knowledge objectively. You have also said (and I would agree) that there is no real consensus on a definition of life or death. There also seems to be no real definition for identifying autonomous organisms in a meaningful way that would inform an issue like abortion. It seems to me that the supreme source of objective knowledge (in this case science) should be able to give us more clarity on these issues than it does. What source should we then go to in solving issues like abortion if science cannot give us this objective knowledge?

I never created a universal need for technical definitions, nor does my worldview require them. The keywords I would use are “definition” and “understanding.” God has already defined what life is, and our categorizations are either right or wrong compared to that. The problem we have is that He doesn’t necessarily give a technical definition, but He does give us enough knowledge for understanding what life is. That is why I can say a human is life even if I can’t be certain about a virus. Personally, I would say viruses are not life, but I might be biased since I’m still recovering from a mass extermination of cold viruses.

A naturalistic worldview does not have the luxury of an external source of objective knowledge, so it is up to people to ultimately determine how they want to categorize life and death. Science is only able to identify what falls within its definition and nothing more. If the definition of life doesn’t include viruses, then viruses are either not life or the definition must be changed. If a definition of death somehow includes a patient in a coma, that organism is now dead or the definition must be changed. If science cannot precisely determine what is or isn’t life based on its definition, then it is not the supreme source of objective truth and we must appeal to some other authority.

Re: Dalton and scientific theories
Let me see if I can point out where I think we may have reached some common ground on this. I agree with you that it is very difficult to find a theory established by the peer-reviewed scientific method that has been proven wrong in its fundamental principles. It seems you would agree that the original claim needs to be adjusted or given a bit more clarification to account for modifications to theories, especially as technological advancement provides further insight to them.

Does that seem like a fair assessment?

Re: Scientific Method
I don’t think we need to claim ignorance, I just think we need to recognize that there are conclusions based on observation (acid-base reactions) and conclusions based on assumption (big bang) because the event itself cannot be observed. But since you seem to not place any distinction between these two types of conclusions, would you also say that intelligent design is a perfectly rational and scientific theory, even if we can’t observe the designer?

A revelation in another thread may have helped me clarify my opening assertion. Although i say scientific principles like big bang, evolution, atomic theory, or germ theory are both fact and theory, there is a difference between big bang fact and big bang theory.

The theory is a complex description of the fact, and although the details may change (how fast the expansion, when/where the expansion, the steps of the expansion). The fact (a simple 1 sentence statement like "the big bang happened") remains true and will likely never be debunked. Daltons theory was tweeked, but overall the existence of atoms as described by him was not, and in all likelyhood, will not be debunked. Gravity, evolution, germs all definitevely exist no matter how much we may clarify their mechanisms in the future.

Unlike abiogenesis or the aether which were totally debunked from the fine details to the fundamental concept. All thrown in the trash.

Re: life
I define life in a very technical sense, meaning the organ is just as "alive" as a person, but the organ is clearly not a person. In discussions like abortion i stress the question of whether it is a person or an individual rather then is it alive. It certainly isnt dead at any point!
For the most.part i agree with the consensus tentative defintion of life. Reproduction, internal locomotion, metabolism, etc.

If your definition of life is body+soul then does that mean all animals have souls? And does that also include microbes? Most christians do not think animals have souls, but they are definitely alive. Just clarifying.

2. I was gonna comment earlier but as we have no definition of life, we have no actual definition of death. Its painfully obvious when someone is dead, but when was the moment of death? Cessation of brain activity? Maybe just the upper part of brain activity? The heart? The last cell? The last breathe? Are the brain dead actually dead? We dont know. The body is a complex interaction of many system and identifying a border is very much subject to debate.

3. "my understanding of life does not require a strict definition that encompasses all living or potentially living things. Whether a virus is alive is inconsequential."

Whether its inconsequential to you does not speak for others, and in general we try to define things technically. The existence of dictionaries is proof. And the qualification of viruses is imperative in determining that definition. Your arguments did not negate, or acknowledge, the overall need of a definition regardless of your personal disinterest.

4. I understand your source of morality, however how does one verify its authenticity vs the morality of other gods? You spoke of how science should require only direct observation and recreation for facts, is this same standard applicable here?

Re scientific method

Absolutely if it is.possible recreating the reaction is great! However how can we recreate the fusion of elements higher then helium or hydrogen in stars? We cannot. Should we surrender to ignorance despite the plentiful availability of other evidence?

We know the math makes sense, so there the theoretical proof, but to find empirical proof, we can simply identify stars of the same type and then compare their chemical makeup. Young stars have mostly hydrogen and helium, old stars have more heavy elements. Supernova cores are almost entirely heavy elements. Obviously a small survey of a handful of stars is anecdotal, but a survey of millions of stars by thousands of astronomers, or even billions by computer algorithms keep showing the *exact* same result, the proof is as strong as the assertion that the sun will rise tomorrow. We cant recreate the future today, but we have enough evidence to establish certainty (unless god decides to freeze it again)

Re: Dalton

The first time i posted dalton's theory was a direct paste. The second time with the parenthesis was to show how little changed with the parenthesis being the minor corrections.
Also the proportion was not of atoms, but atomic weights. A technical correction but it still fails in the same way with complex molecules.

Regarding your conundrum, there are many variables and questions i have. An accepted theory is not the work of 1 man, and others may add or modify parts before it becomes a consensus theory. His historic propositions were almost entirely correct, but that doesnt mean his original work was accepted without controversy or modification. However i think in this specific case it was. I will have to reevaluate my initial claim, thank you very much for stepping up to the challenge. I knew my absolute statement was a bold assertion, however the spirit of my claim rings true as this 200 year old theory regarding miniscule atoms we have just now been able to visualize, is still almost entirely accurate; that is amazing. And his limitations were entirely technological as most isobars are rare, radioactive elements likely not discovered and destroying atoms took many many many advances in technology.

What i initially envisioned as a "debunked theory" was something like the aether or the original version of abiogenesis (maggots from rotting food) where the whole thing ended up being absurdly wrong and completely barking up the wrong tree. Those "theories" were never tested or established, just assumed. They were believed by scientists, but they were in no way science.

Re: Life
1. That is a good observation to distinguish between a person and the parts of a person. That was probably carelessness on my part not to do so. We would likely differ somewhat on how to distinguish these though. I believe there is a material and immaterial part to humans. The combination of a body and soul I would refer to as “life.” The individual components would consist of living cells. I make this distinction because I would consider a body without a soul dead, even if some part of it were still functioning. A heart transplant would be a good example. The donor is no longer considered a “life” even though the living cells in his heart continue to function in the recipient. But as far as your claims that any living cell is life, you still haven’t clarified your standard for determining what is “life.” For instance, do you make any distinction between an organism and an individual organ?
2. You're right that science itself doesn't make moral judgments. However, some of our scientific conclusions inevitably affect morality. If all the things you mentioned in point #1 are considered life, then how do we distinguish what it means to end a life? How you answer that scientifically will affect your moral beliefs.
3. Please explain.
4. I would argue that the Christian God as revealed in the Bible is the standard of all morality and the source for our understanding of life, and there is very good reason to hold this position. But that will get us back into religion. I’m happy to go there if you’d like though.

Re: Scientific Method
I may have been careless in my explanation. I agree that air bubbles and tree rings are a part of empirical science because we can observe them. Ancient atmospheres would be part of theoretical science since we cannot observe them, even if the evidence we use is empirical. Theoretical science is an assumption that requires empirical science. Empirical science is an observation that does not require theoretical science.

I posed the analogy for the hopes of clarifying my point. Obviously I didn’t achieve that so let’s just forget the analogy and just look at a chemical formula. If you wanted to test an acid base reaction, how would you do it? Well, you would probably start by writing out the reaction on paper and making sure that your reactants and products balance. But you probably wouldn’t stop there because you want to verify that the reactants actually do what you think they are going to do. So you go to the lab, observe the reaction, measure the results, etc. The acid base reaction itself is the “event” that you can observe, measure, and repeat.

So my distinction could be viewed in this way then. Writing out the acid base reaction on paper is theoretical science. Once you actually carry out the experiment, it becomes empirical science. If you never actually carry out the experiment, or you are unable to do so, it remains theoretical science (only done “on paper”).

Does that make more sense?

I read too fast and misunderstood your statement about changing your intro regarding limitation statements, thank you for clarifying.

Here is a source for isobars (https://www.periodic-table.org/what-is-isobar-nuclide-definition/). They are just isotopes of two different elements that have the same atomic mass.

Dalton’s original theory said that the ratios of the elements were whole numbers (1:1, 1:2, 2:3, etc.) so it’s not that each element has a whole number, but the ratios do. 12:22:11 consists of whole numbers, but does not consist of whole number ratios (no even ration between 12 and 22 for instance). Here is one of the sites I looked at for this (https://www.chemteam.info/AtomicStructure/Dalton.html). And yes, I googled all this. I haven’t exactly kept up on my chemistry principles since college!

Also, Dalton’s original theory did not say “atoms of a given element are (nearly) identical in size, mass and other propertied.” He said they “are identical” in those ways. That's a very important distinction. The discovery of isotopes of the same element with different atomic masses disproved that statement. Adding the word “nearly” is a later correction to the error Dalton made.

You have still left me in a bit of a conundrum as far as showing a scientific theory that has been disproved or debunked. Are you saying then that as long as any concept in that theory remains accurate, the theory is not considered disproved?

Re: Life
If I may pause you, I must make some corrections.

1. they are all life. the ball of cells at conception, the sperm and egg before conception, the person, the tumor, the bacteria. All life. Being life doesn't qualify you as a person.

2. science doesn't make moral judgements. Doctors are the ones that tend to support abortion, for scientists, its usually a personal call.

3. you dont understand the definition of "definition."

4. If science alone lacks the answer, where do we get it, and how do we verify it? You say god, but another god (hindu) said cows are sacred too. possibly more then man.

There is no start to life, since the very start. Life is a continuous process. When do we become a person is the question.
For me it is the spark of consciousness that occurs when upper portions of the brain become activated. The way I see it, you can enter an incomplete ship, but you cant enter a pile of wood sitting on the shore. I suspect the entrance of the divine spark would have a noticeble effect, perhaps a sudden rush, or a focusing of electrical activity? of course i'm basing this purely on faith. Once the brain begins to interpret reality, OR, gets some sort of stream of experience, its a person. And once you qualify as a person, you dont lose that qualification until death.

a heart beat has historic and symbolic reasons for being so important. Its just a pump physiologically speaking. The only organ that matters to your identity, the only possible location of the soul if its within the body, is the brain. the rest is basically just a mech suit.

Re: scientific method

I'm sorry but indirect observation such as air bubbles in ice, tree rings, and the aftermaths of a universal events are all empirical. There is nothing theoretical about them. Theoretical evidence are unrelated to the real world, like the math equations behind string theory, or einsteins general relativity until recently (all that hype over the gravity waves... general relativity, despite decades of popularity, finally got empirical!)

so not only are all of those examples empirical evidence, theoretical evidence isn't all that bad either if its indisputable like general relativity, but unlike string theory.

And it wasn't about technical details. You are fundamentally mistaken regarding what repeatable is in reference to, and you provide a scenario where scientist A is withholding the methodology that led to his results from Scientist B. How is B supposed to confirm anything! If the data is presented, the scientist B would have no problem and your issue is a non issue.

I believe I thanked you for the info, and noted that I would have to change my intro to it regarding limitation statements, like "final," "original," "indestructible," ect. With better tech we can always look smaller or strike harder. however the actual discoveries without those speculations were spot on.

Elements are made of extremely small particles called atoms.
Atoms of a given element are (nearly) identical in size, mass and other properties;
Atoms of different elements differ in size, mass and other properties.
Atoms cannot be (subdivided), created or destroyed by chemical reactions.
Atoms of different elements combine in simple whole-number ratios to form chemical compounds.
In chemical reactions, atoms are combined, separated or rearranged.

2 extremely minor changes i could demonstrate with just paranthesis.
Never heard of isobars and a google search showed something related to meteorology. not relevant
Whole number ratios do not mean just 2. can you demonstrate thats what he meant? your molecule is a simple 12:22:11 all whole numbers. no decimals.

Life:
This might perhaps bring us back to the religion vs. science discussion that we started on. I think that we do need to have a clear understanding about what life is and I don’t believe that science alone can give us one, or at least an adequate one. The reason that clear borders are needed is because a simple definition of life is the difference between 500,000 clumps of cells being removed from women each year, or 500,000 brutal murders of children each year.

Now science is not my authority or my supreme source of all knowledge, so my understanding of life does not require a strict definition that encompasses all living or potentially living things. Whether a virus is alive is inconsequential. I know that humans are alive and have inherent value over plants and animals because God has revealed that in the Bible. I know that life begins in the womb because the Bible teaches that. I know that plants and animals are alive, but they can also be killed to aid in our survival because of our value over them. So whatever definition I come up with MUST encompass those truths.

From an atheistic perspective, how we categorize life is completely up to us. Science actually has nothing to do with it. We just have to set the goal post and science will then tell us what falls within our categorization of life. The problem is that even subtle changes to a definition of life could then exclude certain humans from that definition. If we decide that life is determined by consciousness or responsiveness, then we could destroy babies, people in comas, etc., because they are not “alive” and science has no bearing on telling us the correctness of this definition of life. If we decide that life begins outside the womb for mammals, that has serious implications. For humans in particular, if we decide that life begins with a heartbeat, we just have to empirically observe when the heartbeat begins. That's why I think a clear understanding of life is important.

Scientific Method:
You can pick apart any analogy with technical details. I gave it to help illustrate and clarify my point, not prove it. Let’s maybe distinguish then between empirical science and theoretical science (I am not putting too much weight on these adjectives, just making a distinction). Empirical science would be the observation of events (let’s say combustion) where we can see it and measure it. There’s really no need for assumption because we can continually burn things to observe that event.

On the other hand, theoretical science involves proposing an assumption that requires observations from empirical science. To use your example, we would not have a clue what ancient atmospheres look like without information from empirical science. We can observe trees growing and measure current CO2 levels. If there is ever any doubt, we can just grow a tree and watch how CO2 affects it. All of the empirical evidence obtained in this way is falsifiable by observable, measurable, repeatable methods. Now if we take our mountain of evidence that is all falsifiable by observable methods, and we make a conclusion that is not observable (the condition of ancient atmospheres), we have just made an assumption based on our empirical evidence. So the assumption (ancient atmospheres) could be categorized as theoretical, while the evidence (tree rings/CO2, ice core samples) is empirical.

I am trying to be as broad as possible to at least see if we can agree that there is a distinction in methodology between empirical and theoretical science. Again, those are somewhat arbitrary terms that I’m just using to describe the distinction.

Dalton’s Theory:
Points that have been disproven:

Atoms are indivisible-Disproven

All atoms of a given element are identical in mass and properties-Disproven by isotopes

Atoms of different elements are different in all respects-Disproved by isobars

Atoms of different elements combine in simple whole-number ratios-Disproven by complex organic compounds (C12-H22-O11)

This is not to discredit Dalton’s incredible contribution to atomic theory. However, your statement was that expansion on a theory means that nothing is disproven, corrected, or changed, and the discoveries “are as accurate today as ever.” I have just shown you major parts of Dalton’s theory were disproven, corrected, and changed.

Im not asking you to defend science, im asking you to defend your assertion that a detailed definition is required to identify life.

Chemistry explains the origins of life quite well however your expectations of a clear border is disproven by the viruses, and possibly prions. Is the virus alive?.

When you have free floating replicating material, the point where it becomes life is up for debate. Reality is rarely black or white.

Dalton's Theory:

Elements are made of extremely small particles called atoms.Atoms of a given element are identical in size, mass and other properties; atoms of different elements differ in size, mass and other properties.Atoms cannot be subdivided, created or destroyed by chemical reactions. Atoms of different elements combine in simple whole-number ratios to form chemical compounds.In chemical reactions, atoms are combined, separated or rearranged.

Accurate.

The only changes would be minute expansions on fine details.
We currently accept the standard model as the fundamental forms of matter. We hypothesize more fundamental forms, like string theory which would correct the "most fundamental" part... but none of the discoveries or predicitions of the standard model and its associated theories. It will all still work and continue to ACCURATELY explain the world on that level.

I will have to correct my statement a bit in the future, thank you, but thats more of a technical lawyer like correction rather then a disproving of the process of science.

Your combustion analogy is flawed due to simplicity. It appears to me scientist A made something up as im given no background information of how he was studying it. I may not be able to replicate the original event, but i should be able to replicate his experiment/study. For the sake of relevance, im hoping they are studying an unreplicatable historic event with some sort of measureable fallout and not a personal experience.

A more realistic analogy would be ancient atmospheres. We cannot replicate the atmosphere of ancient times, but we can get a sample of ice from different layers and compare its air pockets. Or measure specific things like amount of CO2 vs tree ring size of old trees. We can piece together information from many different sources to get a better understanding rather then interpreting single studies one at a time. A mountain of evidence is stronger then the sum of its parts.

Re: life
I am not backing away at all because I am not the one defending science, you are. The point I was trying to get at was that at if there was a time where there was nothing but non-living material in the universe, then at some point life had to come from non-life. Something is either alive or its not. If we take cell theory, it states that all living cells come from pre-existing living cells. By your own admission, a key element of a scientific theory is that it “explains all past events, and predicts future events.” At some point, a living cell did not come from a pre-existing living cell, so the theory does not explain the rise of life from non-life (a past event). Plus, if we can’t define life, then we can’t define what a living cell is which would also render the theory useless.

Re: scientific theories debunked
Dalton's atomic theory is an example of an expanded or modified theory that disproved certain points. That doesn't negate the great insight and correct concepts he provided, but it was a scientifically established theory that was proven wrong in some aspects. Your definition of expansion does not involve any disproving, correcting, or changing, which is what happened with this theory.

Re: scientific method
Let’s take a simpler example of the scientific method. If we use a plain old combustion formula, we can observe how the combination of a hydrocarbon and oxygen react to form CO2 and water. We can’t just assume that anytime we see CO2 and water that combustion must have occurred. So combustion is the event, CO2 and water are the result. We can repeat the event of combustion, observe it, and measure the quantities involved.

Now imagine if I was the first one to make a hypothesis that included the combustion chemical equation. Then, I asked you to verify it and see if you could disprove it, but to do so you could not actually test out the combustion process to see if it worked. You could only test the theory on paper, or you could observe a sample of carbon dioxide and water that may or may not have resulted from a combustion reaction. This is a generalized example but I hope it helps to illustrate my point. To carry out the scientific method, you would have to test the event (combustion) and observe the results (CO2 and water). If you simply observe the results without ever observing the event, you are forced to make assumptions about the event and assumptions are not empirical evidence.

So perhaps it would be better if you explained to me how you could carry out the scientific method on a combustion reaction without ever performing an experiment on or observing, measuring, and repeating the actual combustion process.

The key elements of a scientific theory is that it explains all past events, and predicts future events.

We look at ancient stars and see only light elements. Elements that would naturally stabilize from cooling energy. Heavier elements require fusion of the cooled lighter elements. The big bang explains why there were only light elements in early stars. It also explains why they were so massive as the young universe was full of far more dense then today.

The big bang predicts a universe expanding uniformly in all directions. we see that.
The big bang predicts a faint leftover radiation uniformly in all directions. we see that.
The big bang predicts an early universe that was much hotter and much more uniform. in the universe's baby picture, we see that.

We can see back in time to moments after the big bang, as the massive energy blob was still cooling... how do you explain the massive energy blob besides the big bang, or a god triggered big bang?!?

The evidence is clear, im sure the pros got more evidence and more technical explanations, but i think this is a shut case as is. No big bang simulation needed. that would probably be deadly. not smart.

Yes, I made a statement about all scientifically established theories. Please prove me wrong.

"the scientific method involves that which is observable, measurable, and repeatable. If something is not observable, measurable, or repeatable"

You have some deep misconceptions about science. Repeatable are the results of experiments / studies... not events. I'm not sure how that even makes logical sense,

Science considers all the evidence, including indirect evidence. It has to explain ALL the data with no inconsistencies. Its like a detective, he doesn't have to see the crime to piece together what happened. Now imagine thousands of detectives, with PhDs, working the same case, reviewing each others data, and conclusions, with incentive to debunk, as they are often rivals. We can't rebuild stars on earth, yet we know so much about them. Are you saying that we dont know anything about the stars?

Yes, that is what i'm saying. Definitions are technical and hard. Everyone knows what a metal is, can you define it without making it obvious you googled it? I asked you to define life, you backed away. Must be harder then you thought.

regarding the non life to life, not everything is simple and has a clear border. is a virus life?

You made a statement about ALL scientifically established theories that included expansion. Are you saying there hasn't been a single expansion on a scientific theory that proved some part of the original theory wrong? If that's not what you meant, then I'm not really sure what your standard is for "debunking" a scientifically established theory, or even what you consider a "scientifically established theory" for that matter.

Again, I am not stating there is not evidence that supports the big bang theory. What I am saying is that the scientific method involves that which is observable, measurable, and repeatable. If something is not observable, measurable, or repeatable, please explain to me how it can be established USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

As far as defining life, you're the one who said we can't say for sure what life is, not me. If you're main concern is a scientific systematic categorization of things, and you can't give an accurate categorization for something as important as life, then I'm not sure that science is the "most supreme method of acquiring knowledge objectively." But let's maybe move back to the original point for a moment. If everything started as non-living material and there is now life, that means at some point non-life became life. It really doesn't matter what you call intermediary stages or how much time you add to the scenario. If you believe that at some point, there was no living material in the universe, then the fact remains that living cells must have come from non-living material, right?

There is a big difference between declaring a specific thing as alive or not, and declaring a comprehensive definition of life. By all means, define it.

Newton discovered the math behind gravity. He came up with the law of gravity which accurately describes the strength of the gravity between 2 objects.

Einstein EXPANDED on his theory by explaining how gravity works, what it bends, why it works over distances. He did not "disprove," "correct," or "change" any of Newtons findings. He added to them. He EXPANDED them. Every single one of newtons discoveries on gravity are as accurate today as ever. Please do not try to interpret my words for me.

The big bang was not observed or recreated. But to think a universal event of that magnitude would leave no evidence is absurd. I guess if police dont witness a crime in action or could physically recreate it, they have to let the suspect go? No point in gathering evidence.

Well "expanded" is just another way to say "it was wrong and had to be changed." But regarding the big bang, it is a hypothetical scenario that cannot be repeated and was not observed. Again, you still have not told me how you can scientifically prove an event that is not observable, measurable, or repeatable. Sure we can observe the uniform expansion of the universe. How do you then prove, using the scientific method, that uniform expansion was caused by the big bang?

Well if we can't even define what life is, we have a whole lot more of a problem than debunking scientific theories. Are you alive? If so, by what standard? If you can't provide a scientific definition of life to scientifically prove humans are alive, should murder no longer be a crime?