What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

AV1611VET said:

Post 3072 please.

Click to expand...

It pleases me that your looking into the Beguines. Wiki is where I stated too when I first began looking into these wonderful women. What you'll find out though if you dig deeper is that you can't really categorize them into a single way. Wiki gives only a shallow skim of the Beguines. Just like any Christian community there was variety. Many were married. And many others while married took a vow of Chasity. And some stayed on for a few years and then went back to intimate lives with their husbands.

A great read on the Beguines is Bernard McGinn's book The Flowering of Mysticism: Men and Women of the New Mysticism: 1200-1350

Again, they were not a club where a person has to take an acceptance test for entry. It was a personal venture for those who want a deeper exploration of the mystery.

Bertrand Russell White said:

We assume things that go beyond physics all the time as convenient tools to figure out and understand this world. Most of our ideas, theories and models even in science have aspect that go beyond physics. For example:

1. Principles of logic - the universe may not actually be logical, how do you know?
2. Principles of non-contradiction - (case of 1.) not A and A can't be both true at the same time. May be they are?
3. Nature is not capricious - Maybe nature doesn't ultimately follow any laws
4. etc...

Click to expand...

Science (certainly Physics) 'grabs' hold of useful ideas for the purposes of generating testable predictions. Some may test out, others may not, and those ideas which produce predictions which don't test out, are (mostly) discarded .. meaning they then don't form the basis of Physics' Objective Reality but more specifically: they don't exist within that particular Objective Physics context. This also doesn't necessarily mean that their existence as possibilities in other related fields of study, is necessarily ruled out. Examples of this might be found in notions 'ejected' from Classical Physics re-appearing in Quantum Physics.

The three examples you give above, I would classify as being philosophical principles of rational thinking. They should be keep distinct from Physics, as their inclusion also allows for the inclusion of the existence of absolute truths (which themselves, are objectively untestable). They may appear in untested models, but even in the scenario where those models eventually 'test out', (ie: predictions verified), those three notions, themselves, never get objectively tested .. they are, after all, axioms. They are included for the purposes of contributing to the consistency of the hypothesis under test .. and that is all.

Bertrand Russell White said:

I would suggest you learn a little bit more about philosophy, philosophy of mathematics and Science before you are so quick to just glibly dismiss areas of philosophy and some of its areas out of turn. Science is built on philosophy and mathematics. Specifically, Physics is built on philosophy and mathematics, chemistry on physics and biology on chemistry/physics. Biology and geology are way down on the hierarchy of science.

Click to expand...

From an historical perspective, science may have started out being based on philosophical notions, but I think science, nowadays, stands as a distinctly 'aloof' mode of thinking from its initial philosophical 'foundations', largely due to the vast abundance of objective data which is only just beginning to distinguish the influence our thinking has on our own perceptions .. (and thence, on what we have 'the universe' mean for us).

At some point, complex fields (like science), become less related to their initial starting points and take on a life of their own, and in the case of science; whilst maintaining a clear focus on the distinctions of the numerous modes of human thinking, which it can then use to go on in making practical predictions about the behaviours of what we call: 'the universe/nature/environment' ..
AI for instance, is demonstrably capable of making non-human-like predictions and acting on them .. and I think the leading edges of science might be at that same point(?) (IMHO).

SelfSim said:

Science (certainly Physics) 'grabs' hold of useful ideas for the purposes of generating testable predictions. Some may test out, others may not, and those ideas which produce predictions which don't test out, are (mostly) discarded .. meaning they then don't form the basis of Physics' Objective Reality but more specifically: they don't exist within that particular Objective Physics context. This also doesn't necessarily mean that their existence as possibilities in other related fields of study, is necessarily ruled out. Examples of this might be found in notions 'ejected' from Classical Physics re-appearing in Quantum Physics.

-The examples I give are generally just taken for granted to exist at all times and places. However, they are still implicitly in the models and theories.

The three examples you give above, I would classify as being philosophical principles of rational thinking. They should be keep distinct from Physics, as their inclusion also allows for the inclusion of the existence of absolute truths (which themselves, are objectively untestable). They may appear in untested models, but even in the scenario where those models eventually 'test out', (ie: predictions verified), those three notions, themselves, never get objectively tested .. they are, after all, axioms. They are included for the purposes of contributing to the consistency of the hypothesis under test .. and that is all.

I agree with most of what you say. The point is that they are objectively untestable and givens. So they can be thought of a metaphysical - beyond physics. Unlike something like the assumed consistency for the speed of light in a vacuum, see this as axiomatic as you say. However, perhaps they are not always (as very inconvenient that might be) in the same way that some people today are starting to have doubts that the speed of light is constant over long distance in a vacuum.

From an historical perspective, science may have started out being based on philosophical notions, but I think science, nowadays, stands as a distinctly 'aloof' mode of thinking from its initial philosophical 'foundations', largely due to the vast abundance of objective data which is only just beginning to distinguish the influence our thinking has on our own perceptions .. (and thence, on what we have 'the universe' mean for us).

It really can't stand aloof from philosophy entirely because it involves mathematics heavily. Mathematics is predicated on logic which is a large part of philosophy. I know that a lot of scientists (such as Hawking) tried to downplay this. But of-course, Hawking as a consummate mathematician and non-conformist knew better. The closest thing today to a universal philosophy of science is still based on old ideas of logical positivism (although from what I've seen, much less sophisticated than the original Vienna Circle). As you imply, there really isn't a universal philosophy of science like logical positivism was supposed to function like so things are kind of left dangling. Science obviously works well without a strict structure like positivism.

At some point, complex fields (like science), become less related to their initial starting points and take on a life of their own, and in the case of science; whilst maintaining a clear focus on the distinctions of the numerous modes of human thinking which it can then use to go on in making practical predictions about the behaviours of what we call: 'the universe/nature/environment' .. (IMHO?).

Click to expand...

I agree that different areas bifurcate into many other types (like organisms). Religion, magic, philosophy and science were once very much indistinguishable. Today you see many different areas of engineering splitting up into many different sub-fields and sub-sub-fields.

dlamberth said:

It was a personal venture for those who want a deeper exploration of the mystery.

Click to expand...

I prefer the mysteries of the Bible.

Paul mentions seven of them.

AV1611VET said:

I prefer the mysteries of the Bible.

Paul mentions seven of them.

Click to expand...

Yep, as you should as a Christian.
The Beguines being Christian used the Bible extensively as the foundation in their exploration of the mysteries.

Bertrand Russell White said:

I agree that different areas bifurcate into many other types (like organisms). Religion, magic, philosophy and science were once very much indistinguishable. Today you see many different areas of engineering splitting up into many different sub-fields and sub-sub-fields.

Click to expand...

Science is very much a human way of thinking and there's no objective evidence of it 'discovering things' independent from our perceptions. This does not make science dependent on axioms merely posited as being 'true', in order for things to 'objectively exist'.

The explanation of biological origins inferred from inorganic, followed by active organic chemistries, via a non branching, thermodynamics based model, can thus produce testable (hypothetical) instances of emergent life .. where the only obvious dependency there then, is the inference part of that .. (just like the entire rest of science).

Bradskii said:

Indeed. And now having the read the last umpteen posts I'm wondering why the discussion continues. If we met a guy in a bar who regalled us with nonsensical statements then we'd do our best to avoid him. But in forums, we make a point of interacting. And I have an uncomfortable theory as to why that is (and it includes me as well).

I don't know about you, but if I read someone who is obviously a couple of pay grades above me regarding intelligence then it pays me to shut up and listen. Adult in the room, Bradskii. You might learn something. Pay attention! But if I read something incredibly dumb then it has the effect of making me feel smarter than I actually am. So there's a sense of wanting to show off by reacting to it. And I know that I'm guilty of this.

A good debate is like a clean fight under Marquis of Queensbury rules. You take a few shots and land a couple and there's a degree of respect between the two opponents. It's good sport. Shooting fish in a barrel isn't what I call sport. But we all seem to enjoy it.

Just thought I'd mention it is all.

Click to expand...

We?

Estrid said:

We?

Click to expand...

Everybody who gives air time to it I guess.

Bertrand Russell White said:

Couple of points:

1. I haven't ever been convinced on the "something coming from nothing arguments". When physicists use terms like something from nothing such as Lawrence Krauss, they are not talking about "nothing" in the traditional sense. Quantum theory allows for fluctuations in the vacuum to produce matter.
2. Strictly speaking you are right? There is no way that past events could be 100% probable based even on like planets to earth being observed to have chemical evolution going on. It would, however, more likely than not to have happened on earth if such is observed. However, unlike lots of skeptics, atheists and agnostics I don't believe that lab work by intelligent humans to produce complex components of life or life in lab conclusively proves that evolution occurred on a primitive earth. However, I wouldn't just equate this with blind faith like some religious people have.

Click to expand...

Well yeah, nature isn't a lab and creating something in a lab isn't in any way convincing. It's like saying a computer can program itself after creating itself. In the lab, you already have your "computer" and your intelligent beings to create a program and they still can't do it.

Bradskii said:

Everybody who gives air time to it I guess.

Click to expand...

Go forth and air no more.

Hans Blaster said:

'Cause they want to understand how evolution works?

True

Dawkins works on that subject are quite readable, and should only cause offense if one ties their faith to creationism, which only a minority of Christians do.

This is absolutely true. Many Christians are not offended or very little

His most famous book is quite anti-theistic and polemical as I understand it. I have not read it, but heard several large excerpts and lots of quoting from it.

His public speeches tend to include his anti-religion opinions these days even when talking mostly about evolution.

This seems to have been because of the vicious attacks of a few fundamentalist Christians. People that show such great contempt toward others (including the majority of other Christians) that they don't deserve the name Christian. Christians are supposed to be mainly about promoting love and peace. They should stay in that business. What did Jesus say the two greatest commandments were - "Love the LORD your god with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. And the second is likewise - love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus made it clear that neighbor included your enemies. These kind of Christians (if they really are) are of the worst kind because they so clearly violate their Masters commands.

It is possible to be a believing Christian and have nothing but contempt for the promoters of creationism. I've known many such people and been one myself.

Click to expand...

Double thumbs up and a resounding YES on this statement too!

renniks said:

Well yeah, nature isn't a lab and creating something in a lab isn't in any way convincing. It's like saying a computer can program itself after creating itself. In the lab, you already have your "computer" and your intelligent beings to create a program and they still can't do it.

Click to expand...

Although they could very well in the future. This is of-course allowed even in Christian theology because humans are supposedly created in the image of god. This implies a great deal of ability to create. There is also no reason that machines can't created themselves in the future. Although doing so at every stage to create a close loop would be quite an astounding engineering feat.

Bradskii said:

Paaarp. Sorry, no cigar.

Dawkins isn't simply anti-religion. In fact, if you checked, he quite likes some aspects of Anglicanism (in which he and I were both brought up). And, big surprise here, he doesn't class himself as an atheist, but as an agnostic. I think that he thinks that atheism is generally taken to be hard atheism (there is no God). And he's a scientist. So it goes completely against the grain to state that he believes in anything with 100% certainty. In fact, on a scale of 0 to 7 (don't know why he picked 7) he says his lack of belief is a six. Which is a lot less than mine...

No, if you've read any of his books (and from previous discussion, you have only read what people have said about him) then you would see that what he argues against is fundamentalist thinking. And the people he derides aren't Christians per se. But those like yourself who hold to fundamentalist beliefs in the face of painfully obvious scientific evidence.

He's not putting down religion. He's putting down you.

Click to expand...

From what I can see this is true. There are lots of other people who are Anglicans and in large mainline denominations that would agree. Many Christians agree and actually encourage scientists to deride fundamentalist type of thinking because their beliefs are so bad "in the face of obvious scientific evidence." It is embarrassing when your cousin is the equivalent of an "intellectually social drunk"

Frank Robert said:

Wasn't Jesus criticized for eating with sinners?

Click to expand...

Yes selective use of the Bible is a staple of fundamentalist thinking and actgion. Other Christians have pointed this out many times in the past. Any argument that they can't deal with, instead of humbly admitting they don't know or is a problem they deflect to something else (often in conflict of other Bible passages or a red herring).

renniks said:

I'm not in jail.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ - Check your mind!

Hans Blaster said:

If a god showed up in a way that wasn't to be confused with hallucination, then that would falsify the position of non-belief or non-existance regarding gods.

What many atheists have said is they would not *worship* such a being. I would not as I am unaware of any being know to exist or described that I would worship or feel is worth of such worship.

Click to expand...

Worshiping something strikes me as what an immature god, such as Greek demigod would insist on. Any god worth its salt wouldn't be so insecure as to demand worship. This type of thing is just a projection of human insecurity onto a perceived greatest type representation of themselves. Nothing like that is ever worth having high regard for.

AV1611VET said:

That is correct.

James 3:11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?

One of the jobs of the Holy Spirit in this dispensation is to keep demonic activity in check, until He is taken out of the way in the Rapture.

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Click to expand...

This particular type of Christian thinking of the many flavors is crazier than most. Although it arose in a very emotional time in Christian history so I guess it should be expected. You need an omnipotent and omniscient being to keep something in check (why not just send it to spiritual jail, better still destroy it or best of all never allowed for its existence in the first place! Not much of a powerful god!!!). Jesus also clearly stated his imminent return. When it didn't happen, what did Christians do, wrote other material to say that god is allowed to take his time because a 1000 years is like a day and.... I would suggest that they write some other stuff saying that ..... You put it whatever arbitrary thing you want - it is a holy book so it MUST BE TRUE AND WE WILL FOLLOW IT COME HELL OR HIGH WATER - with apologies to Noah.

renniks said:

Please explain your fascination with thinking people are fascinated with him. He certainly wouldn't make my list of the most fascinating people in the world.

Click to expand...

Popular spokesperson who tries hard to popularize where we came from for ordinary people. People are naturally curious and people like Dawkins, Brian Greene and others do society a very great service to bring complex and sometimes arcane science to everyone. Nothing complex about understanding this unless you are - closed minded, ignorant, living with a medieval and pre-modern theology and don't take the responsibility to "... in understanding be men" at their own good book says.

AV1611VET said:

Irregardless of what you want to think, I am neither Apparent Age, nor YEC.

Click to expand...

BTW Irregardless isn't a word. Regardless is the word

SelfSim said:

Science is very much a human way of thinking and there's no objective evidence of it 'discovering things' independent from our perceptions. This does not make science dependent on axioms merely posited as being 'true', in order for things to 'objectively exist'.

The explanation of biological origins inferred from inorganic, followed by active organic chemistries, via a non branching, thermodynamics based model, can thus produce testable (hypothetical) instances of emergent life .. where the only obvious dependency there then, is the inference part of that .. (just like the entire rest of science).

Click to expand...

Actually not quite. For example, it must assume a form of naturalistic uniformitarianism - processes and laws tend to remain constant over time. This is a reasonable and pragmatic assumption but it is an assumption - and may break down over long time frames and distance. There are others. Scientists assume these things (assuming they are aware of philosophy which some don't seem to be) but they rarely think about them closely because their models don't come up against them. When QM and GRT were developed, people had to go deeply into the nature of assumptions, and understanding of what nature was like. We may have to do this in the future for such things and there is no real way to know.