Not direct observation.Observation is essential in science.
There are many aspects to that definition; but a key aspect is the ability to procreate.
Can you draw a distinction between procreation and a chemical reaction?
Do you believe that life is nothing more than a chemical reaction?
Not direct observation.
There's many ways to reason from current observations and knowledge to arrive at strong conclusions about what happened in the past.
So the existence of, say, Napoleon or Einstein = speculation? Or Jesus?....Speculation.
Probably not; can you?
So the existence of, say, Napoleon or Einstein = speculation? Or Jesus?
I cannot observe them. Nor can anyone.
So in the end, what is the real difference?
It appears that abiogenesis is merely a later revision of spontaneous generation.
Who you calling a scoofer?
Really? You cant show me anyone who's observed Napoleon. You cant observe him yourself either. The best you have is documentary evidence. We reason from that evidence to conclude he existed.Those people have been observed. Macroevolution has not.
That is the real difference. I explained it.
To simplify it further would run perilously close to sarcasm or parody, but here goes.
Spontaneous generation: Not first life. Babies made from different kinds of stuff. No mommys or daddys. Babies just mini versions of big ones. Babies all creatures already seen in nature.
Abiogenesis: First life. Very simple. Not baby, just chemistry that copies self good, is stable, sealed from environment, responds to stuff. Made from long chains of chemicals. Is last part of long, natural process with non life long chains of chemicals becoming better at copying. Is start of new, long natural processe.
Well, it doesn't. The fact that you can't comprehend the difference between the two doesn't make the latter the former, or invalidate a single piece of research in the field.
Your failure to understand an idea isn't a defeater for that idea.
Really? You cant show me anyone who's observed Napoleon. You cant observe him yourself either. The best you have is documentary evidence. We reason from that evidence to conclude he existed.
You said observation was necessary to establish facts. Not documentation.The existence of these people is well documented. There is no credible documentation for the observation of macroevolution, nor rainbow unicorns for that matter.
You said observation was necessary to establish facts. Not documentation.
The attitude toward a factual past is identical.You introduced a subject of history to make a point. However, let's not conflate history with science.
The attitude toward a factual past is identical.
Nothing in the past is observable. I cannot see it. You cannot see it. Therefore the past is speculation. Thats where your approach leads.
Are we dispensing with your peculiar standard that direct observation is required to establish facts, either scientific or historical or any other type?Macroevolution has not been established as fact.
Are we dispensing with your peculiar standard that direct observation is required to establish facts, either scientific or historical or any other type?
What can we observe in the past? I cant think of anything. I think your standard is bogus. I know scientists do too.There has been no observation of macroevolution. We covered this already.
What can we observe in the past? I cant think of anything. I think your standard is bogus. I know scientists do too.
Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?