What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Bradskii]

Any atheists here want to agree with this statement?

You'll be asking us if we think Thor is responsible for thunder next.

 

[AV1611VET]

You'll be asking us if we think Thor is responsible for thunder next.

You're talking to someone who believes Thor existed and was worshiped at one time.

Leviticus 17:7 And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.

 

[dlamberth]

Do you think they would accept you as their cousin?

Kind of like what happened with Jane Goodall? Don't know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Kind of like what happened with Jane Goodall? Don't know.

Goodall gave them what they wanted: food.

 

[SelfSim]

I would recommend you take a course or two on the history of science and the philosophy of science at the university level. Without building on good foundations (parts of philosophy and mathematics), science may be done but not done well. It may also be done well without realizing or acknowledging it is being done well because the person is abiding by good foundational principles of mathematics and philosophy. Ignorance does not nullify the basis must be based on principles in mathematics and philosophy.

And so the ignorance evident from insisting that science relies on assumptions drawn from philosophical Realism, as being a consistent basis for science, implies you haven't achieved a sufficient level of understanding of what science is all about, nor what science requires from philosophy.

I would recommend you suspend pondering about science and go and actually do a course where you have to demonstrate scientific prowess.

 

[Astrid]

And so the ignorance evident from insisting that science relies on assumptions drawn from philosophical Realism, as being a consistent basis for science, implies you haven't achieved a sufficient level of understanding of what science is all about, nor what science requires from philosophy.

I would recommend you suspend pondering about science and go and actually do a course where you have to demonstrate scientific prowess.

Pretty funny, it does appear our Obi-Wan is looking in
the mirror as he prescribes for others.

 

[SelfSim]

Your statement "There's no pre-conditions needed prior to doing science ..." Assumptions and other factures are always part of science especially social science.

Demonstrate your claimed dependency, in a core field of science like Physics, (seeing as your claim is a generalised one, covering all of science) .. As opposed to just waxing lyrical(ly) about it then.

There are no presumptions implying the existence of some truth, in the well published and widely taught scientific method. You have been caught out by that simple fact.

However, even in pure science, the human element is involved as QM has demonstrated. Good science tries to off-set as much of this as possible. However, the human factor and current issues always can influence methodological design of experiments etc. Science does start with certain pre-assumptions of reality otherwise there would be no interpretative framework at all ... again I would suggest learning more about the philosophy of science.

Interpretative frameworks are not science .. Interpretations are based on Philosophically posited (untestable) truths and there are various interpretative frameworks known, none of which ultimately impact any of science's results.

I'll give an example; all of science is based on operational definitions which are objectively testable. There are no exceptions to this. Show me the objective test which unequivocally leads to the conclusion that some 'independent reality' exists 'out there' (independently from our minds) .. and then I might pay your claim about science relying on say, Philosophical Realism some attention .. Good luck with doing that!

 

[SelfSim]

Pretty funny, it does appear our Obi-Wan is looking in
the mirror as he prescribes for others.

I'd say an over-developed Philosophy lobe is well exposed in several voluminous postings.

Science stands independent from philosophies .. but interpretations of scientific findings call for a philosophical viewpoint which is consistent with science's results and method .. and Realism can be shown as not delivering on that need. Unfortunately, history is rife with philosophers who have left indelible marks all over science (eg: Karl Popper). However new sciences, like QM, have leap-frogged those (out)dated views .. (which is where I'm mostly coming from in most of my postings). Unfortunately those indelible marks are .. well .. indelible .. especially among those who pride themselves on being students of the history of Rationalism.. and not so much students of Science.

 

[dlamberth]

Goodall gave them what they wanted: food.

And Love.

 

[AV1611VET]

And Love.

If you read the Wikipedia article on her, she also caused tension among them to the point that they became combatant with each other.

 

[Frank Robert]

Such as?

I know it is a waste of time because your one-sided attitude but some lurkers may be interested.
Dawkins: Awards and recognition

 

[Frank Robert]

I think Dawkins has struggled to free himself from the religious Anglican (C of E) indoctrination he suffered during his youth(?)

A few years age ago Richard Dawkins shared his reasons for his religious de-conversion on the NPR Diane Rehm Show. What struck me most about it was my own feelings of being deceived. At the time I thought that Dawkins, and still do, that he was unable to get beyond those feelings which is at least partly due to his visceral attacks on religion.

 

[Frank Robert]

Cars? Please, so primitive compared to God's creations.

We should definitely be grateful for the laws of nature responsible for our humanism and many people thank God for those laws.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Quite right.

And in passing, I believe I made some derogatory comment directed at you when you first started posting. Something along the lines of you being a troll. No excuses - I was wrong, and I apologise.

You are a gentleman and a scholar! No problem. I could see why you and others would say what you did looking back. Lots of the religious types don't realize that many atheists, agnostics, humanists and skeptics come out of Christian backgrounds. I myself come out of a very liberal wing of Christianity in Canada called the United Church of Canada (UCC) (merger in 1925 of Methodist Church of Canada, Congregational Church of Canada and about 70% of the Presbyterian Church of Canada) with some of the parts of this union accepting evolution since the early 1880's and German higher Criticism of the Bible at about the same time. The UCC has always stood with other mainline churches (such as Anglicans) against fundamentalist and sloppy thinking by other groups.

I did a lot of simple lab work in science on chemical evolution when I was in grade 10 and won national recognition for trying to come up with an evolutionary mechanism to explain L amino acids over D amino acids - The L form is universal in life (I had read an entire issue of Sciam that talked about this for early chemical evolution and the issue covered all other parts of evolution). It was interesting to learn about the early work of people like Oparin on coacervates etc. However, from my reading in science, philosophy and mathematic I became convinced that doing lab science on historical issues was not enough. It could point in the right directions possibly but not establish chemical evolution for certain (or at least how it happened exactly) without seeing it in action in nature.

However, in discussing these issues on this forum, what I think above can be gotten around by either:
1. A future telescope that can scan the universe and zero in on planets that are undergoing different stages of chemical evolution and catalogue this evidence or'
2. Advanced probes that can visit planets in the universe and record chemical evolutionary stages in action and catalogue them.

Neither of these things are currently possible, at least not to my knowledge, but there is no reason why it couldn't be at some future date. However, I would agree that there is no reason not to expect that chemical evolution has taken place in some way with all of the supporting evidence from other fields of science.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

If nothing else, I'd say that they were written through a distinct religious lens.

Yes, I suspect so. Most writing seems to have been to some extent back then. I've not been on this forum for long, do you consider yourself a mystic? I find mysticism interesting - I have read some of the Christian mystics in the past and excerpts from such as St. Victor, Madam Guyon, etc. They show great insight.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

I like the diversity of our family. Nothing to be embarrassed about. There is lots of family sacredness going on there.

Yes, I would agree. When I was young, I was embarrassed to be around handicapped people. When I reflected on my feelings as a young person, I realized it was because of fear of what I didn't understand. The more I came to understand, the less I feared and came to be able to have meaningful interaction and friendship with them. As Jean Vanier said, there is much wisdom and insight to be gained from even the least person if we would but listen and learn. I would agree with that.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

In your opinion, maybe.

Not really. Many Christians and non-Christians agree with me on this. Their is overwhelming evidence of this. But you seem to be a person who redefines evidence whenever it suits you. Why is that? Why do people like you do this?

 

[AV1611VET]

They show great insight.

Into what?

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

No we aren't the original creators of anything. We only create imitations of what God already created.

This contradicts what you said earlier, but whatever. Robots could therefore create like us which was my point. I excuse primitive humanity for postulating a god to explain where things came from. In their limited time on earth (a few decades until more recent times) all they saw was similar creatures being born and dying. They had no reason to even consider the gradual transformation of very simple living structures to humans over 100's of millions or billions of years. They also had no concept of these time frames. (Some very bright and insightful people did actually think in these terms but they were in the minority and way ahead of their time)

However, we can conceive in these terms today. Holding on to very primitive explanations and ideas is like getting caught in some evolutionary cul de sac. Most organisms that find themselves in this position go extinct. This is exactly what is starting to happen to Christians in some parts of the world like Canada and Europe (and soon I expect the USA).

 

[AV1611VET]

When I was young, I was embarrassed to be around handicapped people.

When I was young, I heard that was considered as being "a donkey in a world of horses."