Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[Astrophile]

For the last time do you believe the moon exists before you observe it?
Straight yes or no.

Of course the Moon existed before I began to observe it. There are maps of the Moon that were published centuries before I was born. Also, I believe that the Moon existed about 4.5 billion years before man appeared on the Earth.

 

[LightLoveHope]

As I stated before, the foundation of creation through random forces building complexity out of chaos, is as we know impossible because of the (3rd error) 2nd law of thermodynamics.

But lets suggest it is possible for random events to occur and randomly things accumulate to create order out of chaos.

Now if life, any known life, self replicating, feeding, reproducing, excreting, breathing life to occur we need 500,000 base pairs of dna to line up, with all the machinary to produce proteins, which also will create mechanisms of burning energy to create cell walls, movement, capture and digestion of food etc. it is literally absurd to suggest this occurred by itself.

The more we understand life, the more at the lowest levels it is phenomenally complex and designed. There is a video

This is an animation of what is going on in the cell. It is so wonderful and each part is structured and controlled. And we still do not know the how and why.

 

[VirOptimus]

As I stated before, the foundation of creation through random forces building complexity out of chaos, is as we know impossible because of the 3rd law of thermodynamics.

But lets suggest it is possible for random events to occur and randomly things accumulate to create order out of chaos.

Now if life, any known life, self replicating, feeding, reproducing, excreting, breathing life to occur we need 500,000 base pairs of dna to line up, with all the machinary to produce proteins, which also will create mechanisms of burning energy to create cell walls, movement, capture and digestion of food etc. it is literally absurd to suggest this occurred by itself.

The more we understand life, the more at the lowest levels it is phenomenally complex and designed. There is a video

This is an animation of what is going on in the cell. It is so wonderful and each part is structured and controlled. And we still do not know the how and why.

Just because you dont understand it means that its supernatural.

 

[Mountainmike]

Of course the Moon existed before I began to observe it. There are maps of the Moon that were published centuries before I was born. Also, I believe that the Moon existed about 4.5 billion years before man appeared on the Earth.

As do I
But be aware of why I asked.


You are late into the thread, and I've no intention of repeating all that was said. But you should be aware of the problems posed in quantum science, not least the removal of causality and determinism, but also what you mean by existence even.

The issue of existence prior to observation. was a hotly debated subject in physics which Einstein lost decisively, to Bohr, ( and verified in bell experiments) leading to einsteins lament " I refuse to believe the moon does not exist till I look at it" - and if you think it applies only in quantum world be careful because in larger scale it is considered the illusion not reality of large objects seeming to exist because of so called quantum decoherence.

The only way science has to rationalise it as prior existence is the just as irrational multiverse concept, out of a frying pan into a fire, in philosophy,

So then if you disregard science, and believe in objective prior existence ( as I do, even as a postrgrad electronic physicist) , then on what basis do you accept other tenets of science as fundamental to the universe, rather than as just a model of it? Unless you accept the even more bizarre. existence of infinite number of you with all possible pasts and futures. Which nobody I know truly believes, even though they accept the rule in science...

It is a serious problem for all of us that had to embrace quantum science.
It leaves you in a wilderness of lack of causality, determinism, even questioning what is reality?

The point I make to those who use science as more than a tool but also a philosophical crutch for existence, is be careful what you put your faith in!

And it questions what you mean by fact, and I believe demonstrates science is what it really is - only a model. So if science actually observes a lot, predicts a lot from the model, but explains nothing fundamentally, the field is then e,pty as explanation of why is and what is. All you can safely say is what it normally does.

Enough.
I just say to all - be careful what you think science is telling you.

 

[VirOptimus]

2 to go.

 

[Mountainmike]

Just because you dont understand it means that its supernatural.

But then just because ( you think) you do understand it, does not eliminate " supernatural" cause.

It begs the question of what you mean by " understand"

( do you just mean it is " repeatable" or has " repeated " or just that you can describe it with terms that come from repeated observation models?)

Indeed it begs the question on what you mean by " supernatural" (or " extraordinary").


Is the child who finds some Lego pieces Or blocks, who works out how to build a building from them , so " understands them " at some level, also entitled to assume:

1/ that they appeared spontonaneously , and were not manufactured, or the product of something that was manufactured? I.e. Were " natural"

2/ can the child assume no intelligent thought went into the design, even if the design seems primitive?

Craig ventner says he " understands" cells enough to create completely alien ones In the sea to create fuel: does he simply harness what was put before him? Does he understand why they are what they are, or just what he thinks can do with them, from repeating outcomes of repeating tests?

Will you still think he " understands" when he turns the oceans into unstoppable green sludge.

Jurassic park is right, he is so obsessed. With whether he can, he doesn't stop to consider whether he should. He is arrogant enough to think he can control nature. The illusion is he thinks he " understands"


These are fundamental questions. What do you mean by " understand"

 

[VirOptimus]

One more!

 

[LightLoveHope]

Just because you dont understand it means that its supernatural.

I think your logic is backwards. A car when it breaks down needs a mechanic to fix it. It does not fix itself.

It sounds like you want creative acts without a creator but have no mechanism that works because random behaviour will never be able to achieve this.

Once you start on the road to nihilism, it is an emotional road that destroys your logic, and invents statements that are the opposite of logical reality. And this is the core problem. Only if you are a functional positive human being who has no real involvement in the outcomes, can anything close to a reasonable conclusion being made.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Copenhagen / bell states that clearly that things do not exist till observed.

No, it doesn't.

From your earlier posts, you seem to be confusing the mainstream Copenhagen interpretation with a version known as the 'conscious collapse' or Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation, that was never mainstream and has long been abandoned by all but a few mavericks.

Bell was a person who proposed a theorem that local hidden variables cannot explain the predictions of QM and developed a test for this known as Bell's Inequality. This is not particularly relevant to distinguishing between QM interpretations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As I stated before, the foundation of creation through random forces building complexity out of chaos, is as we know impossible because of the 3rd law of thermodynamics.

It was wrong the first time you stated it, and it's still wrong. But by all means, explain how the 3rd LoT is relevant.

Now if life, any known life, self replicating, feeding, reproducing, excreting, breathing life to occur we need 500,000 base pairs of dna to line up, with all the machinary to produce proteins, which also will create mechanisms of burning energy to create cell walls, movement, capture and digestion of food etc. it is literally absurd to suggest this occurred by itself.

It's not absurd if you allow that it can happen incrementally and non-randomly. If you look at some of the abiogenesis hypotheses being studied, you'll find that all of them start with far simpler components than those you mention.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Arguing on this Forum on and off for some 15 years now I have noticed that many people seem unable to distinguish what can be definitely known (ie a fact ) and what is a scientific theory and what is a guess.

By many do you mean 99%?

This thread is going to offer a definition which no doubt a whole load of people will disagree with.

This is a factual statement..... but they will all be evolutionists....

FACT:A fact is demonstrable with repeatable experimentation that anybody with the right equipment and appropriate training could duplicate.

A fact can be assumed from observational evidence as well as long as it is consistent.

For example I can declare with almost a certainty the sun will rise tomorrow based upon past observations.... Of course I can not guarantee this as an absolute fact as it may go supernovae tonight, but in that case no one will care if I was wrong....

THEORY:A scientific theory is a way of explaining a lot of facts by presenting a model which handles this evidence in a plausible fashion. The value of a scientific theory is weighted by:

1) its explanatory power
2) its ability to duplicate what is described ie. A theory of lifes emergence should also be able to facilitate the creation of life or refer to credible sources with a proven track record of creating life or it is merely a guess
3) by the ability to predict events before they happen e.g. an Asteroid will hit Jupiter at 5 o clock Friday. The sun will rise on January 1st in Lagos Nigeria at precisely....

Likewise a guess that is claimed to be a theory that has an almost unlimited number of parameters that can be arbitrarily adjusted to make it fit observations is not a real theory. We call these epicycles.....

GUESS:On this Basis I would suggest that the three pillars of modern naturalistic science are all guesses and should be regarded with a degree of agnosticism at best:

1) Big Bang
2) Chemical Emergence of Life - absolutely no supporting factual evidence whatsoever!!!!
3) Biological Evolution

That is a FACT!!!!

EDIT:
As a result of the subsequent discussion I think it is worth distinguishing between historical and scientific facts. The battle of Waterloo for example is an historical fact verified by innumerable high quality witnesses and sources. But it is not a scientific fact cause it cannot be demonstrated incontrovertibly to have taken place.

And it can not be directly observed nor repeated.....

 

[LightLoveHope]

It was wrong the first time you stated it, and it's still wrong. But by all means, explain how the 3rd LoT is relevant.

It's not absurd if you allow that it can happen incrementally and non-randomly. If you look at some of the abiogenesis hypotheses being studied, you'll find that all of them start with far simpler components than those you mention.

Funny thing is I got this wrong, it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics stating entropy in the universe is always increasing, or order does not arise out of chaos, rather chaos arises out of order. For evolution to be true, a disordered universe has to become more disordered while creating greater order and complexity out of simpler parts on such a minor scale that this actually increases entropy or else it will not happen.

It is why we cannot create a never ending machine, because it will run out of fuel.
I have always wondered why such a basic principle that goes against evolution is just ignored though you can measure it by just lighting a fire.

 

[Strathos]

So you claim, but having the idea that atheists are part of a wold-wide hivemind just because two people give you the same answer they arrived at from direct observation, is dogmatism 101.

Except that's a strawman of my position.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's not absurd if you allow that it can happen incrementally and non-randomly. If you look at some of the abiogenesis hypotheses being studied, you'll find that all of them start with far simpler components than those you mention.

Absurd....

And in the end anything made simply dissolves into useless sludge...... Any molecules formed fall apart into their constituent components. Most of the experiments are incompatible with all the others. Each requires a specific condition that is destructive to the others.

What is non-randomly? Intelligently directed?????

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Except that's a strawman of my position.

Not at all. Especially since your comment in post #120 directly shows that you think that atheists are part of a hivemind. Here, read for yourself:

You don't see how you're in lockstep with each other? You're practically a hive mind. If your usernames and avatars weren't there I couldn't tell which one of you posted what.

That's in response to two different people coming to the same conclusion through different means of reading your comments. Now that's dogmatism to a T on your part.

 

[LightLoveHope]

It was wrong the first time you stated it, and it's still wrong. But by all means, explain how the 3rd LoT is relevant.

It's not absurd if you allow that it can happen incrementally and non-randomly. If you look at some of the abiogenesis hypotheses being studied, you'll find that all of them start with far simpler components than those you mention.

abiogensis hypotheses are just this.
Now we have had the theory of evolution and its projection for over 100 years, with all the modern understanding of life, biological systems, and still there is not a good actual model of how it worked.

We can artificially create part of the systems of life, but this creates massive manipulation and very controlled environments. So being truly scientific, life creation must be very rare and very unusual. At what point one admits it is actually a creative act. Saying this does not admit who or what did the creative act, just it happened. Is this such a hard thing to admit the possibility of? I am happy to admit life could be a system of some sort without a consciousness that I understand or could define. I just believe in the one I have found and the more times goes on, the stronger this conviction grows based on the evidence, because it supports rather than opposes it.

 

[Strathos]

Not at all. Especially since your comment in post #120 directly shows that you think that atheists are part of a hivemind. Here, read for yourself:


That's in response to two different people coming to the same conclusion through different means of reading your comments. Now that's dogmatism to a T on your part.

I was specifically referring to the atheists posting on this thread, and those who are ideologically indistinguishable from them, which is a rather large group.

 

[VirOptimus]

I think your logic is backwards. A car when it breaks down needs a mechanic to fix it. It does not fix itself.

It sounds like you want creative acts without a creator but have no mechanism that works because random behaviour will never be able to achieve this.

Once you start on the road to nihilism, it is an emotional road that destroys your logic, and invents statements that are the opposite of logical reality. And this is the core problem. Only if you are a functional positive human being who has no real involvement in the outcomes, can anything close to a reasonable conclusion being made.

Nope.

You position is; I dont understand it, therefore god(s).

That is not logicaly or intellectualy sound.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was specifically referring to the atheists posting on this thread, and those who are ideologically indistinguishable from them, which is a rather large group.

Which is stereotyping and is an example of dogmatism from certain Christians on this website. Just because people can reach the same conclusion on a topic does not mean they are all a part of a hive-mind.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Nope.

You position is; I dont understand it, therefore god(s).

That is not logicaly or intellectualy sound.

There is a simple reality of design. Go to an art museum, or see a printed book with printed pictures in it. So say it randomly existed would be insane.
It is obviously the work of a creative mind ie man.

Understanding something is always limited but its structure gives indication of the mechanism of its creation.