Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[Subduction Zone]

Another simple article on evidence:

The core of science: Relating evidence and ideas

And if one clicks on the link in the article on evidence a window opens that says:

"Test results and/or observations that may either help support or help refute a scientific idea. In general, raw data are considered evidence only once they have been interpreted in a way that reflects on the accuracy of a scientific idea."

 

[tas8831]

You really do need to study critical thinking.

Most interesting, especially in light of your claim that a Eucharist wafer became blood (to include dissolvable 'white cells') and heart muscle (enough to show that it was traumatized).

 

[DogmaHunter]

And at the end of all that rant.
You still have no shred of evidence
1/ That it actually happened - eg record of intermediates found
2/ That it continues to happen - eg record of intermediates present.
3/ End to end model for it. eg succession of intermediates with path between them.
4/ Any reproduction in vitro.

Those things would be conclusive evidence.
I told you from the start that we don't have that.
So..... yea.

So in scientific terms you have no hypothesis just a belief.
It may be right. I may even agree. It is just belief.

I'ld have to "believe" it, for it to be a belief. And I've explained that from the start as well.
So.... yea... again.

The fact that celebrity scientist atheists agree with it, does nothing for the evidential position, only for informational conformance of their believers.

Dude..............................................................

How many time are you going to repeat this lie?

Spare me the insults please.
What I said was a totally factual honest assessment.

Nothing you said in this post was honest.
All of your misrepresentations have already been identified and pointed out to you, with corrections explained.

And this entire post of yours is just a repeat of those same initial misrepresentations.

You are done. Completely done.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Now that is a straw man in this context!

When we are discussing how , not whether , living things came to exist: the mere fact of existence is evidence of noones hypothesis on how it happened, it only shows that both of us ask a real question, needing an answer!

And scientists are investigating that question in the field called abiogenesis.

 

[tas8831]

So stop pretending science supports it. Critical thinking certainly doesn't.

Critical thinking leads one to accept that a tribal deity created the universe a few thousand years ago despite there being no supporting evidence, and that this same entity breathed life into dust and a man emerged?

Got to get me some of THAT critical thinking!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Now that is a straw man in this context!

Not a straw man exactly, but I agree it wasn't quite the answer to the question you were raising.

Whatever that first life was, it was not made out angel droppings or 'pneuma'. It was made out of carbon and nitrogen and oxygen, etc.

There is a rich experimental and theoretical program for studying the question of how.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I really don't see the problem - we have evidence that there was a time before life existed on Earth, and life now exists on Earth. What hypotheses can we come up with to explain this observation?

1. Supernatural forces (e.g. god(s), magic).
2. It came from elsewhere in the universe (e.g. aliens, panspermia - but ultimately through chemical processes).
3. It arose on Earth (through chemical processes).

Which of these hypotheses is testable in principle? (2 & 3 - we can do chemistry)
Which of these hypotheses have supporting evidence? (2 & 3 - the 'building blocks of life' are found both on and off Earth).
Which of these hypotheses is likely to be most easily testable? (3 - restricting to early Earth environments narrows & simplifies the potential range of testing).

How should we proceed?

I vote we should look first at the hypothesis that has supporting evidence and is most easily testable.

That was just off the top of my head, so no doubt there are other ways to look at it, but that route seems reasonable.

I'm curious to hear alternative analyses.

 

[essentialsaltes]

1. Supernatural forces (e.g. god(s), magic).
2. It came from elsewhere in the universe (e.g. aliens, panspermia - but ultimately through chemical processes).
3. It arose on Earth (through chemical processes).

Which of these hypotheses is testable in principle? (2 & 3 - we can do chemistry)

I wouldn't want to pay for it with public money, or describe it as science, but I can imagine people gathering together some dust (or other matter) and encouraging supernatural agents to make a person out of it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not a straw man exactly, but I agree it wasn't quite the answer to the question you were raising.

Whatever that first life was, it was not made out angel droppings or 'pneuma'. It was made out of carbon and nitrogen and oxygen, etc.

There is a rich experimental and theoretical program for studying the question of how.

Agreed, it was dust....

I wouldn't want to pay for it with public money, or describe it as science, but I can imagine people gathering together some dust (or other matter) and encouraging supernatural agents to make a person out of it.

Sort of like intelligent designers taking dust and trying to form life from it in the lab?

We both agree it is going to take an intelligent designer, but man will never accomplish it.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

I really don't see the problem - we have evidence that there was a time before life existed on Earth, and life now exists on Earth. What hypotheses can we come up with to explain this observation?

1. Supernatural forces (e.g. god(s), magic).
2. It came from elsewhere in the universe (e.g. aliens, panspermia - but ultimately through chemical processes).
3. It arose on Earth (through chemical processes).

Which of these hypotheses is testable in principle? (2 & 3 - we can do chemistry)
Which of these hypotheses have supporting evidence? (2 & 3 - the 'building blocks of life' are found both on and off Earth).
Which of these hypotheses is likely to be most easily testable? (3 - restricting to early Earth environments narrows & simplifies the potential range of testing).

How should we proceed?

I vote we should look first at the hypothesis that has supporting evidence and is most easily testable.

That was just off the top of my head, so no doubt there are other ways to look at it, but that route seems reasonable.

I'm curious to hear alternative analyses.

A-ha!!
So that means that you believe 3/ on faith!!!!!!!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I wouldn't want to pay for it with public money, or describe it as science, but I can imagine people gathering together some dust (or other matter) and encouraging supernatural agents to make a person out of it.

One wonders how long they'd be prepared to wait...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A-ha!!
So that means that you believe 3/ on faith!!!!!!!

Excellent impersonation

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I really don't see the problem - we have evidence that there was a time before life existed on Earth, and life now exists on Earth. What hypotheses can we come up with to explain this observation?

1. Supernatural forces (e.g. god(s), magic).
2. It came from elsewhere in the universe (e.g. aliens, panspermia - but ultimately through chemical processes).
3. It arose on Earth (through chemical processes).

Which of these hypotheses is testable in principle? (2 & 3 - we can do chemistry)
Which of these hypotheses have supporting evidence? (2 & 3 - the 'building blocks of life' are found both on and off Earth).
Which of these hypotheses is likely to be most easily testable? (3 - restricting to early Earth environments narrows & simplifies the potential range of testing).

How should we proceed?

I vote we should look first at the hypothesis that has supporting evidence and is most easily testable.

That was just off the top of my head, so no doubt there are other ways to look at it, but that route seems reasonable.

I'm curious to hear alternative analyses.

I vote that we first build a time-machine, and then, when we can go back, (I guess? I hope?) we'll see what really happened.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Another simple article on evidence:

The core of science: Relating evidence and ideas

And if one clicks on the link in the article on evidence a window opens that says:

"Test results and/or observations that may either help support or help refute a scientific idea. In general, raw data are considered evidence only once they have been interpreted in a way that reflects on the accuracy of a scientific idea."

I particularly like this page:

Tips and strategies for teaching the nature and process of science [Misconceptions about science]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A-ha!!
So that means that you believe 3/ on faith!!!!!!!

Actually, faith is the response one expresses after deliberating over the initial encounter with beliefs. So, let's make sure we're not hitching the horse to the back of the cart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I vote that we first build a time-machine, and then, when we can go back, (I guess? I hope?) we'll see what really happened.

No need. The evidence makes the answer clear enough. Only those that will not accept the evidence tend to make this error.

 

[mindlight]

Let's review, shall we....

Evolution theory.

1. explanatory:
Evolution explains geographic distribution of species.
It explains why humans share more ERV's with primates then non-primates.
It explains anatomical similarity
It explains a ginormous amount of things.

All of which could be explained by Gods creation and then management of life. The similarity of different creatures designs then simply points to a common Creator.

2. practical application:
Exploiting evolutionary mechanisms through artificial selection. This gave us horse breeds, dog breeds, brussel sprouts, eatable banana's and other seedless fruits, broccoli..
Genetic algortims, which model evolutionary mechanisms, being awesome at optimizing a wide range of systems
Etc

Breeding and gardening are possible without any knowledge of evolution and indeed are millennia older. Copying Gods code and marvelling at it dynamic capacity for adaptive change does not support evolution at all.

3. predictability
To name just one example among an uncountable amount: tiktaalik.
Paleontologists, going by the idea that tetrapods evolved from fish vertebrates in the Devonian, looked at geological maps and pinpointed exposed Devonian rocks in locations that, back in those days, would have been favourable for fossilisation. They predicted that such locations would hold transitional fossils of "fish tetrapods". They went to the location, started digging and found exactly that: a fish/tetrapod. A previously unknown creature with both fish and tetrapod features.


It seems that evolution theory is solid science.

Create something out of nothing OR create something alive from pre existing materials OR predict the development of one kind of creature into another and you will have a solid basis for saying your theories are scientific. You cannot therefore BB , Abiogenesis and biological evolution are just guesses - explaining nothing, practically irrelevant and predicting nothing that has not already happened.

Predicting that sedimentary rock will hold fish fossils when that is the pattern across the world says nothing!!!

 

[VirOptimus]

All of which could be explained by Gods creation and then management of life. The similarity of different creatures designs then simply points to a common Creator.



Breeding and gardening are possible without any knowledge of evolution and indeed are millennia older. Copying Gods code and marvelling at it dynamic capacity for adaptive change does not support evolution at all.



Create something out of nothing OR create something alive from pre existing materials OR predict the development of one kind of creature into another and you will have a solid basis for saying your theories are scientific. You cannot therefore BB , Abiogenesis and biological evolution are just guesses - explaining nothing, practically irrelevant and predicting nothing that has not already happened.

Predicting that sedimentary rock will hold fish fossils when that is the pattern across the world says nothing!!!

Invoking god(s) when one doesnt know the answer is a non-answer.

 

[Tom 1]

All Christians subscribe to creatio ex nihilo. But BBT is in effect an attempt to marry religion with an old view of the universe. It requires billions of years to be a credible theory. Since absolutely nothing can be proven scientifically over those kinds of time spans it is just guessing of little practical worth.

Sorry to butt in but I’m not so sure about creation ex nihilo being so universally accepted. Genesis 1 doesn’t actually state that God brought everything into being, but that he brought order to some chaotic state. We generally assume that he made all the material too, but it’s not explicitly in the text.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All of which could be explained by Gods creation and then management of life. The similarity of different creatures designs then simply points to a common Creator.

No. That's just a claim, not an explanation.
Plus, you can "claim" pretty much anything when you get to invoke magic.

Breeding and gardening are possible without any knowledge of evolution and indeed are millennia older.

But it would not be possible unless there is such a thing as the process of evolution.
And having knowledge of this process, allows you to do it better and more efficiently.

Copying Gods code and marvelling at it dynamic capacity for adaptive change does not support evolution at all.

Again, calling it "god's code" doesn't mean anything at all.
And once again, if it wasn't for the existing process of evolution (wheter you know about it or not) then selective breeding wouldn't turn a single wild gabbage plant into things like brussel sprouts and broccoli.

Create something out of nothing OR create something alive from pre existing materials OR predict the development of one kind of creature into another and you will have a solid basis for saying your theories are scientific. You cannot

You are replying to a quote where an example is given of exactly such predictions, and you then say "you cannot"???????

How obvious can it be.........

therefore BB , Abiogenesis and biological evolution are just guesses - explaining nothing, practically irrelevant and predicting nothing that has not already happened.

Awesome... jumping from evolution to abiogenesis and cosmology.
Talk about moving goalposts, lol!

Predicting that sedimentary rock will hold fish fossils when that is the pattern across the world says nothing!!!

Not "fish" fossils.
Fish/tetrapod fossils!

Previously unknown creatures found by prediction.

All in all, this seems to be another extreme case of "head in sand".