Jump to content
IGNORED

disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less


justme007

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

You said “it's [presumably evolution] as logical as saying a unicorn flew past earth and life formed from a flea that fell off him. Disprove that!   haha

That’s why I propose that “disprove” is inappropriately absolutist for the OPs claim. Likewise “impossible”.

- Though your unicorn scenario is rationally inconsistent with itself – i.e. life existed in the flea and unicorn before it formed from the flea.

Even as a Biblical creationist, I think Common Ancestry can be weakly supported by facts and logic. I consider the facts and logic to be far more consistent with Biblical creation. But that, of itself, doesn’t render Common Ancestry irrational. What I do find irrational in this debate, is the propensity of secularists to overstate mathematical confidence in Common Ancestry, as though it is the only valid perspective. That degree of confidence cannot be justified or sustained, by either fact or logic. We Christians recognise that a degree of faith is required to uphold our preferred position. The secular community is generally less self-aware that their position also requires at-least as much faith.

I didn’t mention “abiogenesis”. Abiogenesis is also inherently weak (as far as arguments go); being utterly bereft of observational support. However Biogenesis is a natural law – based in ubiquitous observation. That life has only ever been observed to form from life is a strong argument for an initial Life-Giver whose existence is not founded in, or bound by, the natural universe. That is eminently consistent with Biblical creation.

True, its absolutist, nevertheless their view is worthy of mockery because abiogenesis is widely accepted yet is not even at hypothesis stage. At least creationism has an hypothesis that is not disproven.

Well panspermia as a source for life specifically on earth is not rationally inconsistent under the assumption that life formed elsewhere first. So my unicorn as a source of panspermia is not rationally inconsistent as an explanation for life on earth (haha it sounds like I'm proposing a theory here)

I agree that common ancestry has weak support. It's projecting the observed and logical adaptability of organisms into an explanation of origins. But on the balance of logic, we do not have the upper hand merely on a faith basis. Empirically science confirms that most major phyla appeared fully formed in the Cambrian, a fact that directly favors creationism over evolution. Empirically if you delve into genetics, there is no evidence that nature can produce additional unique genes that improve fitness of a species. Yet evolution as an explanation for modern life requires every organism to have more unique genes than the original LUCA. Observation of genetics instead shows a slight reduction of active genes over time, but never shows any increased unique genes that improve fitness.

So genetically it looks like organisms just appeared and are slowly devolving instead of evolving.

And regarding the fossil record it appears as if  organisms just appeared with no indication of where they came from. 

So it is not just a faith thing, empirically creation is at a huge advantage.

Edited by ARGOSY
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,323
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,301
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

13 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

True, its absolutist, nevertheless their view is worthy of mockery because abiogenesis is widely accepted yet is not even at hypothesis stage. At least creationism has an hypothesis that is not disproven.

Well panspermia as a source for life specifically on earth is not rationally inconsistent under the assumption that life formed elsewhere first. So my unicorn as a source of panspermia is not rationally inconsistent as an explanation for life on earth (haha it sounds like I'm proposing a theory here)

I agree that common ancestry has weak support. It's projecting the observed and logical adaptability of organisms into an explanation of origins. But on the balance of logic, we do not have the upper hand merely on a faith basis. Empirically science confirms that most major phyla appeared fully formed in the Cambrian, a fact that directly favors creationism over evolution. Empirically if you delve into genetics, there is no evidence that nature can produce additional unique genes that improve fitness of a species. Yet evolution as an explanation for modern life requires every organism to have more unique genes than the original LUCA. Observation of genetics instead shows a slight reduction of active genes over time, but never shows any increased unique genes that improve fitness.

So genetically it looks like organisms just appeared and are slowly devolving instead of evolving.

And regarding the fossil record it appears as if  organisms just appeared with no indication of where they came from.

So it is not just a faith thing, empirically creation is at a huge advantage.

Hi Argosy,

You said “their view is worthy of mockery because abiogenesis is widely accepted yet is not even at hypothesis stage

Ridicule or “mockery” is an irrational tool of those who can’t formulate rational arguments. It belays fair consideration of the opposing argument – probably why it’s such a popular strategy among secularists. Ridicule doesn’t contribute anything of logical substance to a debate. In my experience, ridiculing an opposing position tends to alienate people from the conversation – which makes it incompatible with my goal of revealing Christ to those who don’t know Him. We who are secure in our faith don’t need to resort to such strategies.

Abiogenesis hypothesises that life on earth arose through a convergence of naturalistic events. It is a poorly supported hypothesis, but it does technically qualify as an hypothesis. “Panspermia” is another poorly supported hypothesis. Both of these rely primarily on speculation and just-so storytelling. Facts supporting both are very ‘thin on the ground’.

 

At least creationism has an hypothesis that is not disproven

Since “disproven” is absolutist, “not disproven” represents the weakest of standards. There are many strong arguments supporting the Biblical model of reality; including your example regarding the direction of observed genetic changes. All observed natural changes to genes (including beneficial changes) have resulted from a loss or destruction of genetic information. That is consistent with God creating a “very good” world, but with subsequent corruption infiltrating the genome as a consequence of human sin.

 

on the balance of logic, we do not have the upper hand merely on a faith basis

That was not my claim. In terms of parsimony, I consider the facts to be far more consistent with the Biblical model of reality, than with the secular model. However the nature of the inquiry (i.e. historical) means that faith is logically required by both sides to attribute confidence to past claims. Christians generally understand this. I find secularists to be often offended by this, even though it is a requirement of logic (and secularists like to consider themselves to be the exclusive bastions of logic and reason). And so I agree that “empirically creation is at a huge advantage”.

 

I would be cautious about interpreting the so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’ as an indication of creation. It is better characterised as a weakness of Common Ancestry (preferring slow change over long ages), rather than a strength of creationism. I understand the instinct to interpret ‘sudden appearance’ as evidence of a creation event, but the standard creationist position is that the fossil record is an artifact of the Biblical flood.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

on the balance of logic, we do not have the upper hand merely on a faith basis

That was not my claim. In terms of parsimony, I consider the facts to be far more consistent with the Biblical model of reality, than with the secular model. However the nature of the inquiry (i.e. historical) means that faith is logically required by both sides to attribute confidence to past claims. Christians generally understand this. I find secularists to be often offended by this, even though it is a requirement of logic (and secularists like to consider themselves to be the exclusive bastions of logic and reason). And so I agree that “empirically creation is at a huge advantage”.

Thanks for the agreement. Yes creation has the empirical advantage.

 

Quote

I would be cautious about interpreting the so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’ as an indication of creation. It is better characterised as a weakness of Common Ancestry (preferring slow change over long ages), rather than a strength of creationism. I understand the instinct to interpret ‘sudden appearance’ as evidence of a creation event, but the standard creationist position is that the fossil record is an artifact of the Biblical flood.

In my own studies I have come to the conclusion that the creationist theory that explains much of the geologic layering as flood layers is incorrect.  Often each layer has its own co2 levels, oxygen levels, moisture levels and dominant fauna/flora that reflect those specific conditions.  Studies in this regard are often not explained by flood theorists.

I see the flood reflected in late Permian layers (disarticulated Permian fossils), at the PT boundary (a strong transgression and regression event) and in early Triassic (fossil free silting). Transgression and regression events are confirmation that the world experienced sea-level rises and flooding into the continental interiors and also a dramatic drop in sea levels as well, confirmed in the geologic record.

By taking such a stance one agrees with the evidence of those geologic layers, and also has undeniable geological evidence of a worldwide flood, and also has undeniable evidence that most organisms appeared fully formed in the Cambrian. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

14 hours ago, Tristen said:

Abiogenesis hypothesises that life on earth arose through a convergence of naturalistic events. It is a poorly supported hypothesis, but it does technically qualify as an hypothesis.  

Abiogenesis NEVER was and NEVER will be a Scientific Hypothesis! :rolleyes:

And to be quite frank and forgive me, but... R-Ya-Kiddin Me ??

'Technically' it's a feebly contrived (and executed) fairytale.

 

Please SUPPORT your Claim...

Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis...?  Identify the Independent and Dependent Variables for us...?

Then apply the above same to this...

Panspermia” is another poorly supported hypothesis.  :huh:

 

And, do "actual" Scientific Hypotheses exist in perpetuity or await more 'data'...? 

 

Quote

There are many strong arguments supporting the Biblical model of reality; including your example regarding the direction of observed genetic changes.

1.  'Models' are Pseudo-Science.

2.  How bout the Argument of: Where'd you get "Functional" DNA, RNA, or Protein (30 mer) Naturally/Spontaneously from their respective building blocks outside living cells/organisms ?? (Answer: It's Physically/Chemically Impossible). That's Just The Hardware!!  

Then, the WOOLLY T-REX in the Room... 

How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?

It's GAME OVER in less than a Planck Time.

 

Quote

I would be cautious about interpreting the so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’ as an indication of creation. It is better characterised as a weakness of Common Ancestry (preferring slow change over long ages), rather than a strength of creationism.

The weakness of Universal Common Descent ("Tree of Life") is... Universal Common Descent.

It's an Affirming The Consequent Formal Logical Fallacy at best; AND...

 

Dr. Craig Venter; The Grand Poobah of Geneticists, The Geneticists of Geneticists... 

"There is NO TREE OF LIFE...it's an artifact from early scientific studies that aren't holding up...

"So THERE IS NOT A TREE OF LIFE."

Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics); Arizona State Origins Project; 12 February 2011 (TIME: 9:14)

The Audience Gasped, Dawkins and Krauss turned different shades of GREEN.

 

It's beyond me why most of this is even entertained much less discussed.

 

regard

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,323
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,301
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

10 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Abiogenesis NEVER was and NEVER will be a Scientific Hypothesis! :rolleyes:

And to be quite frank and forgive me, but... R-Ya-Kiddin Me ??

'Technically' it's a feebly contrived (and executed) fairytale. ... :huh:

 

 

Hi again Enoch,

Abiogenesis NEVER was and NEVER will be a Scientific Hypothesis!

I have addressed in another discussion your propensity to conjoin “Scientific” to terms in an attempt to undermine their legitimacy – so I won’t dwell unduly on that here – at least until you’ve had the opportunity to respond.

[ https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/206492-a-question-about-science/?do=findComment&comment=2567020 ]

 

And to be quite frank and forgive me, but... R-Ya-Kiddin Me ??

'Technically' it's a feebly contrived (and executed) fairytale.

I’m not sure what you think this kind of comment adds to the conversation. I know you know enough about fallacy to know that ridicule is a fallacy.

 

Please SUPPORT your Claim...

What do you mean? The definition I provided is self-evident. But abiogenesis not my claim, so I am not obligated to justify it.

 

Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis...?

So I asked you a similar question in another conversation regarding your claim of a Law – and your response was, “I'm the Origin.  Laws aren't based on "Acceptance" (Nothing in "Science" is)...it's based on Empirical Evidence”. So you are aware, at least on some level, that there is no “formal” hypothesis-reporting mechanism in the scientific method. But since we are dealing with a past claim (that life arose from inorganic conditions) which cannot be validated by strict adherence to the scientific method, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS, this is not a scientific discussion. So requesting a “Scientific” hypothesis is inconsistent.

 

Identify the Independent and Dependent Variables for us...?”

The independent variables are undirected nature and sentient design. The dependent variable is life. But since we cannot perform experiments in the past, identification these is meaningless.

 

do "actual" Scientific Hypotheses exist in perpetuity or await more 'data'...?

I’m not sure how you think the subjective caveats “actual” and “scientific” change the definition of hypothesis. A normal, everyday hypothesis does not need any subsequent, supporting data to exist (apart from the initial observations upon which it is formulated). Though without subsequent supporting data, it remains untested speculation.

 

1.  'Models' are Pseudo-Science.”

According to your standards, models of the past aren’t any kind of science. But modelling is the only way we can investigate the past – since we don’t have direct access to observations of the past. It is not as logically robust as the strict scientific method, but the scientific method can’t be applied to such investigations.

 

2.  How bout the Argument of: Where'd you get "Functional" DNA, RNA, or Protein (30 mer) Naturally/Spontaneously from their respective building blocks outside living cells/organisms ?? (Answer: It's Physically/Chemically Impossible) …

How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?”

These are strong arguments for intelligent design. “Impossible” is an exaggeration – i.e. absolutist terminology expressing confidence beyond what can be justified by the finite limitations of the human experience.

 

It's beyond me why most of this is even entertained much less discussed

The world is desperate to justify rejection of God and His gospel.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

57 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Hi again Enoch,

Abiogenesis NEVER was and NEVER will be a Scientific Hypothesis!

I have addressed in another discussion your propensity to conjoin “Scientific” to terms in an attempt to undermine their legitimacy – so I won’t dwell unduly on that here – at least until you’ve had the opportunity to respond.

[ https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/206492-a-question-about-science/?do=findComment&comment=2567020 ]

And I Retorted.

 

Quote

 

And to be quite frank and forgive me, but... R-Ya-Kiddin Me ??

'Technically' it's a feebly contrived (and executed) fairytale.

I’m not sure what you think this kind of comment adds to the conversation. I know you know enough about fallacy to know that ridicule is a fallacy.

 

It deserved every word.  And Ridicule is a type of Ad Hom Fallacy, i.e., it's substituted in place of arguing the point of your claim.  But I argued your point in detail, which renders your appeal here "Baseless"... a Fallacy.

 

Quote

Please SUPPORT your Claim...

What do you mean?

SUPPORT your claim that Abiogenesis is 'Technically' a Hypothesis...?

 

Quote

The definition I provided is self-evident. But abiogenesis not my claim, so I am not obligated to justify it.

Huh??

This is what you said....:  Tristen: "Abiogenesis hypothesises that life on earth arose through a convergence of naturalistic events. It is a poorly supported hypothesis, but it does technically qualify as an hypothesis."  

So your appeal is Non-Sequitur Fallacy. 

 

Quote

Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis...?

So I asked you a similar question in another conversation regarding your claim of a Law – and your response was, “I'm the Origin.  Laws aren't based on "Acceptance" (Nothing in "Science" is)...it's based on Empirical Evidence”.

It wasn't a Similar Question, you didn't ask me to post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis; so how on Earth can it be similar?

And, I posted the Null Hypothesis in Support.

 

Quote

So you are aware, at least on some level, that there is no “formal” hypothesis-reporting mechanism in the scientific method.

The EXACT Opposite...

"A *Scientific Hypothesis* is based on CAUSE-EFFECT reasoning.  A scientific hypothesis does not merely state X and Y may be related, but EXPLAINS WHY they are related.

Loehle, C: Becoming a Successful Scientist -- Strategic Thinking for Scientific Discovery; Cambridge University Press, p. 57, 2010

Note: the Underlined Purple Part.

 

Quote

But since we are dealing with a past claim (that life arose from inorganic conditions) which cannot be validated by strict adherence to the scientific method, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS, this is not a scientific discussion. So requesting a “Scientific” hypothesis is inconsistent.

Yes, but "YOU" made the claim that it was "Scientific"...

Tristen: "Abiogenesis hypothesises that life on earth arose through a convergence of naturalistic events. It is a poorly supported hypothesis, but it does technically qualify as an hypothesis."  

Note: the Underlined Purple Part.


 

Quote

Identify the Independent and Dependent Variables for us...?”

The independent variables are undirected nature and sentient design. The dependent variable is life.

Huh??  

"The independent variable is the core of the experiment and is isolated and manipulated by the researcher. The dependent variable is the measurable outcome of this manipulation, the results of the experimental design."

https://explorable.com/research-variables

 

"In an experiment, the independent variable is the variable that is varied or manipulated by the researcher, and the dependent variable is the response that is measured."
http://www2.uncp.edu/home/coll ierw/ivdv.htm

 

Independent (Manipulated) Variable - variable changed by the scientist;  what the investigator is testing. 

http://www.csef.colostate.edu/ resources/vocabulary.pdf

 

1.  You can't have TWO Independent Variables in an Experiment, especially "Opposites":  undirected nature vs sentient design.

2.  You can't "Vary/Manipulate" something in the Vanished Past.

Conclusion:  You NEVER had an Actual "Scientific Hypothesis" to begin with.

 

Quote

do "actual" Scientific Hypotheses exist in perpetuity or await more 'data'...?

I’m not sure how you think the subjective caveats “actual” and “scientific” change the definition of hypothesis. A normal, everyday hypothesis does not need any subsequent, supporting data to exist (apart from the initial observations upon which it is formulated). Though without subsequent supporting data, it remains untested speculation.

Well I wanted to make sure we're not Equivocating because the Colloquial Definitions of these terms are Light Years different than the "Scientific" Context...

Theory -- :  abstract thought :  speculation .  a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

As Opposed to...

"Scientific Hypothesis - a special kind of *PREDICTION* that forecasts how the *INDEPENDENT VARIABLE* will affect the Dependent variable."

 

"A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through *REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS*."

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

See what I mean?

 

Quote

1.  'Models' are Pseudo-Science.”

According to your standards, models of the past aren’t any kind of science.

Well not exactly "Mine"...

"A *model * is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a *LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY*." 
 
Allow me to translate: Pseudo-Science!! ... There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being *'A LITTLE' PREGNANT* !!
REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story. 
Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments --- (Hypothesis TESTS).
A "model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is *UN-TESTABLE!!!* That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!

 

Quote

But modelling is the only way we can investigate the past – since we don’t have direct access to observations of the past. It is not as logically robust as the strict scientific method, but the scientific method can’t be applied to such investigations.

Ergo, Pseudo-Science.  SEE: above.

 

Quote

2.  How bout the Argument of: Where'd you get "Functional" DNA, RNA, or Protein (30 mer) Naturally/Spontaneously from their respective building blocks outside living cells/organisms ?? (Answer: It's Physically/Chemically Impossible) …

How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?”

These are strong arguments for intelligent design. “Impossible” is an exaggeration – i.e. absolutist terminology expressing confidence beyond what can be justified by the finite limitations of the human experience.

Impossible is NOT an Exaggeration.  Again...

And yes, it is ABSOLUTE that Inanimate Matter cannot create Information because the sine qua non of Information is Sentience and Intelligence.  For Information to exist, certain tenets have to be fulfilled:  Transmitter, Receiver, and AGREEMENT on: Convention, Medium, and Meaning (Animate --- the Antithesis).  If Inanimate matter could create Information, then the Law of Non-Contradiction would be Pummeled into the Incoherent Oblivion.
Follow ?  
 
As for the Physico-Chemical Molecules: "Functional" DNA, RNA, or Protein (30 mer) Naturally/Spontaneously from their respective building blocks... It's IMPOSSIBLE.  It's easy to refute... SHOW ?? (CITE SOURCE ;)).

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,323
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,301
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

On 16/04/2017 at 3:38 PM, Enoch2021 said:

And I Retorted.

 

It deserved every word.  And Ridicule is a type of Ad Hom Fallacy, i.e., it's substituted in place of arguing the point of your claim.  But I argued your point in detail, which renders your appeal here "Baseless"... a Fallacy.

 

SUPPORT your claim that Abiogenesis is 'Technically' a Hypothesis...?

...

Hey Enoch,

It deserved every word.  And Ridicule is a type of Ad Hom Fallacy, i.e., it's substituted in place of arguing the point of your claim.  But I argued your point in detail, which renders your appeal here "Baseless"... a Fallacy.”

The fallacy of ridicule is not diminished by ancillary rational argument – no matter how much you think a comment deserves it. The ridicule itself remains a departure from rational discussion, regardless of the context.

 

SUPPORT your claim that Abiogenesis is 'Technically' a Hypothesis

Abiogenesis meets the definition of hypothesis because it hypothesises that life on earth arose from abiotic conditions. If someone hypothesises something, they have formed/stated an hypothesis. Abiogenesis therefore qualifies as an hypothesis.

 

Huh??This is what you said....:  Tristen: "Abiogenesis hypothesises that life on earth arose through a convergence of naturalistic events. It is a poorly supported hypothesis, but it does technically qualify as an hypothesis."  So your appeal is Non-Sequitur Fallacy

Actually, what I first said was “What do you mean?” – indicating to any fair-mind person that I didn’t fully understand what you were asking. So accusing me of fallacy here is unnecessarily persnickety.

 

It wasn't a Similar Question, you didn't ask me to post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis; so how on Earth can it be similar?

I would never ask you to post a “Formal Scientific” anything because I know that there is no great bastion of “Formal Scientific” holdings – and so such a question has no significance - which your response to my question articulated nicely [i.e. “Laws aren't based on "Acceptance" (Nothing in "Science" is”]. I asked you the origin of your proposed law, so I could get a better handle on its prevalence and acceptance, not to challenge you (i.e. not the way you use such questions).

 

"YOU" made the claim that it was "Scientific"...”

No I didn’t. I claimed it to be an hypothesis. You read “scientific” into that word. I don’t see the definitions as different regardless. But if we are operating on the premise that “scientific” only applies to the Scientific Method, then we are not having a “scientific” discussion – and so it belies logical consistency to request a “scientific” version of my points. So given the above premise, I am more than happy to concede that hypotheses and theories concerning past events aren’t “scientific” (though I personally find the distinction meaningless).

 

Huh?? "The independent variable is the core of the experiment and …

Yes, as I stated, identification of these variables is meaningless for a claim about the past. But if we could perform experiments in the past, the variables would be as I described. But we can’t, so what are you gonna do? Requests for these variables therefore add nothing to our discussion.

 

Well I wanted to make sure we're not Equivocating because the Colloquial Definitions of these terms are Light Years different than the "Scientific" Context..

I’m not equivocating because I only recognise single definitions of these terms.

 

Theory -- :  abstract thought :  speculation .  a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

This is one of the more nonsensical definitions of theory I have come across to-date. Theory doesn’t mean any of these things in any legitimate context. A theory can be speculative, but it does not mean “speculation”. Likewise a theory can stem from “abstract thought”, but theory does not mean “abstract thought”.

 

"Scientific Hypothesis - a special kind of *PREDICTION* that forecasts how the *INDEPENDENT VARIABLE* will affect the Dependent variable."

I actually don’t have much of a problem with this definition; as applied to operational science. Hypotheses more generally just propose causal relationships.

 

"A *model * is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a *LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY*."  

I think your understanding of the use of models in science is limited. Though I agree that models of the past have particular logical limitations.

 

Impossible is NOT an Exaggeration

Unless you are omniscient God, and know every possible outcome of every possible permutation of circumstance throughout the expanse of the physical universe, then “impossible” is an exaggeration – every time – regardless of whether or not I can produce a refuting reference.

 

it is ABSOLUTE that Inanimate Matter cannot create Information because the sine qua non of Information is Sentience and Intelligence

You haven’t justified the “absolute” nature of this premise.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  289
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   45
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/25/2008
  • Status:  Offline

On 4/13/2017 at 4:46 AM, ARGOSY said:

There's some truth in your post. But it's as logical as saying a unicorn flew past earth and life formed from a flea that fell off him. Disprove that!   haha     

Apples and oranges.

The fundamental way for humans to get to a truth of any kind is by putting faith in human witnessing.

99.99% humans don't have the evidence that black holes exist. They trust with faith that the scientists as the direct contacts (eyewitnesses) have the evidence. That's how 99.99% humans get to a scientific truth by faith.

99.99% humans don't have the evidence for whatever historical events/figures happened in the long past. They trust with faith in what have been written down by the historians as direct or indirect witnesses. That's how 99.99% humans get to a historical truth by faith. If you randomly grab a history book and read through section by section with the same question "how this section is evidenced", then basically you can ignore the book as a whole. You can ignore human history as a whole this way.

99.99% humans don't have the evidence of events happening around the world. They trust with faith in what have been broadcast by the media with reporters/journalists as direct or indirect witnesses. That's how 99.99% humans get to a truth of recent occurrence in this world by faith.

 

We don't have serious witnessing/witnesses for the deeds of a flying unicorn. However we do have serious witnesses for the existence of God. They are as serious as having martyred their own lives for the witnessing of the truth of Jesus Christ. We have faith in their witnessing. That's what Christianity is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  19
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/05/2017
  • Status:  Offline

The one word nearly everyone misses in these type of debates is  "THEORY" of evolution ....look it up in your own dictionary...you see words like IDEA with NO bases in FACT !!! most REAL scientist accept this ..to a point.. they see a design in everything, begging the question..DESIGNER...

also look at symbiosis ..ie two separate things needed for existence ..eg vanilla plant and the only bee that can pollinate it (lots of dead vanilla plants until the bee evolves !?? in fact no vanilla all dead waiting !)  :(

just another smoke screen not to believe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...