[W:381:2733***]Darwinism Descending

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Uh, hello? We can, and do, develop hypotheses about possible mechanisms by which abiogenesis can occur. We can, and do, test those mechanisms in laboratory conditions. We can, and do, adjust and reformulate hypotheses in the light of those experiments. The links I posted barely scratch the surface of active inquiries and experiments on the subject.

Again, we can't go back in time and observe the first development of amino acids. That doesn't mean it is "not science." We can test, observe, and experiment on possible mechanisms of abiogenesis. We just won't know exactly what happened on Earth, billions of years ago.

I might add that according to your extremely limited interpretation of "science," fields like paleontology and cosmology don't qualify either. We can't cause a Big Bang, we can't repeat it using protocols, and we can't observe one actually happening -- does that mean that an inquiry into the nature of the origin of the universe is "not science?" We can't create black holes, and observing them poses immense difficulties; does that mean that the study of black holes is "not science?" We have only the faintest hints about dark matter and dark energy, and no completed scientific theories of what they are or how they interact with visible matter; does that mean that astronomers who are working on those issues are "not scientists?" We can gather fossils and DNA evidence, but we will never be able to develop an experiment by which early hominid species interbreed; does that mean studying early human species is "not science?"

Was Einstein engaged in a scientific pursuit, when he developed the Theory of Relativity? It wasn't even provable in 1916; he referred to it as a "principle-theory," meaning it was produced analytically rather than empirically. Decades later, we're still gathering supporting evidence, such as direct detection of gravitational waves in 2017.



So in your view, an experiment only becomes "Real Science" when a hypothesis develops into a theory? You certainly don't need to succeed in proving a theory for your efforts to become science; failure, after all, is part of the process.

I didn't say that inquiry into abiogenesis wasn't "real science." I said it was an hypothesis, and not a theory. That's because it is an hypothesis, and not a theory.

Perhaps one day it will be proven, proven again, and again, just like the theory of evolution. If that happens it will be a theory.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Argument of the stone fallacy:



Actually, what I did was not dismiss a statement, but pointed out that the same statements had been brought up many times before and had been debunked every time. Hence, repetition does not constitute proof. Did you want to argue that repetition actually does constitute proof?

No, you discarded an argument without counter-argument. You are now trying to make a new argument out of your own repetitions and my responses to them.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Uh, hello? We can, and do, develop hypotheses about possible mechanisms by which abiogenesis can occur.

Theories, actually, but yes. Some of these theories are scientific ones.

We can, and do, test those mechanisms in laboratory conditions.

Yup. These tests are upon the null hypothesis of that theory.

We can, and do, adjust and reformulate hypotheses in the light of those experiments.

Theories that are falsified are utterly destroyed. A new similar theory may arise in the void to replace it, bit it is a completely different theory.

Hypothesis stem from theories, not the other way around. A theory is an explanatory argument. A hypothesis is like a 'use case' for a theory and often takes the form of a question. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.

The links I posted barely scratch the surface of active inquiries and experiments on the subject.

True.

Again, we can't go back in time and observe the first development of amino acids.

True.

That doesn't mean it is "not science."

No, but the theory that amino acids were formed naturally as part of the chain of abiogenesis is not science. It is not falsifiable.

We can test, observe, and experiment on possible mechanisms of abiogenesis.

True. These related theories are theories of science if they survive tests against them.

We just won't know exactly what happened on Earth, billions of years ago.

True. My point exactly.

I might add that according to your extremely limited interpretation of "science," fields like paleontology and cosmology don't qualify either. We can't cause a Big Bang, we can't repeat it using protocols, and we can't observe one actually happening -- does that mean that an inquiry into the nature of the origin of the universe is "not science?"

Yes. Not because these are not falsifiable, but because science is not an 'inquiry', a 'study', or a 'research'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Was Einstein engaged in a scientific pursuit, when he developed the Theory of Relativity?

Yes. The two theories related to relativity are both falsifiable. They continue to survive to this day. They are both theories of science.

It wasn't even provable in 1916; he referred to it as a "principle-theory," meaning it was produced analytically rather than empirically.

No theory is ever proven. No amount of supporting evidence can ever prove, bless, sanctify, or otherwise make more legitimate any theory. Literally mountains of it mean nothing in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence.

Decades later, we're still gathering supporting evidence, such as direct detection of gravitational waves in 2017.

More like not finding any conflicting evidence. Science doesn't use supporting evidence.

So in your view, an experiment only becomes "Real Science" when a hypothesis develops into a theory?

You are beginning to see why this model is wrong. Congratulations. There are lot of universities out there that push exactly this argument. Unfortunately, this model allows practically any religion to be called 'science'.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Your posts are scientific theories, according to your definition, because they are falsifiable. I have falsified several of them already.

You have falsified nothing. My posts are arguments, not theories.

By mixing up abiogenesis, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Creation, and the Theory of the Big Bang, you are mixing up theories with scientific theories, i.e., comparing apples to road apples.

I have not merged nonscientific theories with scientific theories. I have clearly explained the difference. I have not mixed up any of these four theories either. I have clearly stated each one.

Calling nonscientific theories such as these 'road apples' is just ticking people off. Most people have a firm belief in one or more of these theories and probably don't like having them compared to 'road apples'.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

I didn't say that inquiry into abiogenesis wasn't "real science." I said it was an hypothesis, and not a theory. That's because it is an hypothesis, and not a theory.

Perhaps one day it will be proven, proven again, and again, just like the theory of evolution. If that happens it will be a theory.

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. There is no 'elite' vote that suddenly converts 'a hypothesis into a Holy Theory'. No theory is ever proven. Theories of science remain theories until they are falsified. Nonscientific theories remain theories forever. Proofs only exist in closed systems of function, such as mathematics or logic.

You can't seem to grasp the concept of a nonscientific theory.

A theory is an explanatory argument. A hypothesis is attached to a theory. It usually takes the form of a question, such as the null hypothesis of a theory.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Actually, it kind of does.

Genesis describes the Earth was formed by the action of God. He probably used existing materials to do it. Man and all the animals and plants were formed out of the materials of the Earth.

Nonsense. You will have to prove that this god exists.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Darwinism Descending

No need. It is an infinite universe by definition.

Non-sequitur.

False dichotomy.

What is false about it? You have provided no mathematical proof of a boundless universe.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Nonsense. You will have to prove that this god exists.

Why? I am simply quoting what Genesis happens to say.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

What is false about it? You have provided no mathematical proof of a boundless universe.

Non-sequitur.

 

[devildavid]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Actually, it kind of does.

Genesis describes the Earth was formed by the action of God. He probably used existing materials to do it. Man and all the animals and plants were formed out of the materials of the Earth.

Existing materials?

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Why? I am simply quoting what Genesis happens to say.

Genesis says nothing about entropy or a boundless universe. The primitive goat herders who wrote Genesis knew nothing of such concepts.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Non-sequitur.

Look up the meaning of non-sequitur.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Existing materials?

Logic and religion do not mix.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Darwinism Descending

You have falsified nothing. My posts are arguments, not theories.

I have not merged nonscientific theories with scientific theories. I have clearly explained the difference. I have not mixed up any of these four theories either. I have clearly stated each one.

Calling nonscientific theories such as these 'road apples' is just ticking people off. Most people have a firm belief in one or more of these theories and probably don't like having them compared to 'road apples'.

You can have all of the "firm beliefs" you want. A scientific theory and just a theory are two distinct things that you keep conflating.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Darwinism Descending

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. There is no 'elite' vote that suddenly converts 'a hypothesis into a Holy Theory'. No theory is ever proven. Theories of science remain theories until they are falsified. Nonscientific theories remain theories forever. Proofs only exist in closed systems of function, such as mathematics or logic.

You can't seem to grasp the concept of a nonscientific theory.

A theory is an explanatory argument. A hypothesis is attached to a theory. It usually takes the form of a question, such as the null hypothesis of a theory.

That makes about as much sense as it did when you said scientific theories aren't based on facts.

No, an hypothesis doesn't come from a theory, not unless you're once again conflating someone's notion of how things are (just a theory) with a scientific theory.

 

[LowDown]

Re: Darwinism Descending

What is false about it? You have provided no mathematical proof of a boundless universe.

Are you implying that you have a "mathematical proof" for the existence of any kind of universe? If so let's hear about it.

 

[LowDown]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Logic and religion do not mix.

Says one who knows nothing about either.

Logic and reasoning are, according to Methodist doctrine, one of the 4 means of knowing the Will of God. The other three are scripture, tradition, and the testimony and opinion of the church elders/witness of the Holy Spirit

Reasoning is how the Church arrived at the concept of the Trinity, a concept that is not stated in Scripture but is used to reconcile the things God/Christ says about Himself/Themselves and also experience with the Holy Spirit.

The logical methods of exegesis are as formal as any system of logic. As with any formal system of logic you start with certain assumptions or axioms. With exegesis the assumptions are based in Scripture.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Are you implying that you have a "mathematical proof" for the existence of any kind of universe? If so let's hear about it.

I was referring to the 2nd law of dynamics.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Says one who knows nothing about either.

Logic and reasoning are, according to Methodist doctrine, one of the 4 means of knowing the Will of God. The other three are scripture, tradition, and the testimony and opinion of the church elders/witness of the Holy Spirit

Reasoning is how the Church arrived at the concept of the Trinity, a concept that is not stated in Scripture but is used to reconcile the things God/Christ says about Himself/Themselves and also experience with the Holy Spirit.

The logical methods of exegesis are as formal as any system of logic. As with any formal system of logic you start with certain assumptions or axioms. With exegesis the assumptions are based in Scripture.

You are putting the cart before the horse. You assume that this god exists.

 

[LowDown]

Re: Darwinism Descending

That makes about as much sense as it did when you said scientific theories aren't based on facts.

No, an hypothesis doesn't come from a theory, not unless you're once again conflating someone's notion of how things are (just a theory) with a scientific theory.

An hypothesis may come from a theory. One may say that if a theory is correct then this or that should happen. That's an hypothesis. An hypothesis may also come from a body of observations about a phenomenon. A scientific theory is specifically one that can be tested and falsified if incorrect. A theory that can't be tested or falsified is not a scientific theory. But some non-scientific theories are nonetheless useful.

For example, after many many years of observing the motion of the sun, moon, and planets Newton proposed a mechanism that could be used to explain those motions. This was his theory of gravity. With it he could predict the motions in space of bodies like comets that had not yet been discovered. This theory proved to be correct and was used to predict and explain a number of things for many years. But some motions observed could not be explained by Newton's theory, and a new theory was finally proposed to explain the anomalies, which was Einstein's theory of special relativity. Einstein's theory cooked along really well for some time until the motions of subatomic particles and electromagnetic radiation were considered, and a new theory, Quantum Mechanics, was needed for that. And so it goes.

Some people think that Intelligent Design is an example of a non-scientific theory. I disagree, because it is possible to make predictions based on that idea and test them. For example, if there really were intelligent design then wouldn't design of living creatures be intelligent; i.e., efficient, logical, etc? And we find that in fact the design of living creatures is anything but intelligent. Instead, it's a mess. Our very DNA contains a whole lot of trash sequences that we don't need yet it keeps getting transmitted from one generation to the next.

IMHO, socialism is in practice an example of a non-scientific theory. No matter how much data there is that would seem to prove it doesn't work the theory will just be changed or modified to keep it seemingly current. No matter how many ways it is tested its proponents will claim that the tests were inconclusive or improper.

Catastrophic global warming theory in practice works much the same way.

The Theory of Evolution is another theory that might be considered non-scientific just because there's no way to falsify it. Nevertheless, it's a very useful theory, and most likely it's true.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Darwinism Descending

Really??? Have you visited the boundaries of the universe??

Have you ever understood any science what so ever???

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

You can have all of the "firm beliefs" you want. A scientific theory and just a theory are two distinct things that you keep conflating.

I have clearly stated the differences between a nonscientific theory and a scientific theory. I am not conflating them at all.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

That makes about as much sense as it did when you said scientific theories aren't based on facts.

They aren't. Theories of science are simply just that, a falsifiable theory that survives test upon that theory's null hypothesis.

No, an hypothesis doesn't come from a theory,

Yes it does.

not unless you're once again conflating someone's notion of how things are (just a theory) with a scientific theory.

I have stated clearly the difference between a nonscientific theory and a scientific theory. Theories of science must be falsifiable.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

I was referring to the 2nd law of dynamics.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy must always increase or stay the same in any system. It can never decrease. This gives a direction for heat, and defines what heat is and how to calculate it.

YOU are referring to something other than the 2nd law of thermodynamics and trying to call it the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Darwinism Descending

You are putting the cart before the horse. You assume that this god exists.

Why yes. Yes he is. You have a problem with this?

It's no different than YOU assuming no god or gods exist.