10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyYour evidence is rooted in assumption and circular reasoning.
We have evidence for abiogenesis. I already gave it to you so you make no sense if you are saying we need evidence for abiogenesis we already have.
My point of view is rooted in direct observation and recreatable experimentation.
Which is a more scientific point of view?
10 Oct 17
3 edits
Originally posted by @eladarNo it isn't. You haven't told us either this 'assumption' not this 'circular reasoning'
Your evidence is rooted in assumption and circular reasoning.
My point of view is rooted in direct observation
Then your opinion is false. It is irrelevant to how 'indirect' the observation is. All that matters is the strength of evidence, not how 'direct' it is.
Which is a more scientific point of view?
ours.
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyThe assumption is that everything has a natural explanation.
No it isn't. You haven't told us either this 'assumption' not this 'circular reasoning'My point of view is rooted in direct observation
Then your opinion is false. It is irrelevant to how 'indirect' the observation is. All that matters is the strength of evidence, not how 'direct' it is.Which is a more scientific point of view?
ours.
The circular reasoning is that if the universe started with the big bang and evolved from there, at one point life must have come from non life. Why? Because everything has a natural explanation.
Originally posted by @eladarNO, assuming nothing. If I see evidence for Godidtit then I will believe it. I have no use for any assumption that everything has a natural explanation and in fact often conclude an unnatural man made explanation.
The assumption is that everything has a natural explanation.
The circular reasoning is that if the universe started with the big bang and evolved from there, at one point life must have come from non life.
how is that deduction "circular"? For reasoning to be "circular reasoning" there has to be something "circular" about it.
If the universe started with the big bang then life couldn't exist at the big bang else it would have been instantly vaporized therefore life must have come to exist in the universe sometime after the big bang and how else can it come to exist in the universe if life did NOT at some point come from non life? This is valid deduction, not circular reasoning. If there was a time when there was no life and then there was a time when there was life HOW can you can go from no life existing to life existing WITHOUT life coming from none life? If there was first only none life, logically, there be nothing else from life to come from OTHER than none life!
Why? Because everything has a natural explanation.
No. Because everything presumably has an explanation whether it be a natural one or not. If the proof of the big bang coincidentally showed a goddidit then I would believe goddidit. I have never assumed everything has a natural explanation.
10 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarWhat are these assumptions I have that you keep referring to but don't define?
Feel free to believe what you wish based on your assumptions.
Humy said that the evidence for abiogenesis is the need for it.
My point of view does not necessitate abiogenesis. I will believe it can happen when I see it.
Who has a more scientific view of abiogenesis?
Your stated assumption that "Everything has a natural explanation" has no bearing on evolution. Evolution has very strong anatomical, genetic, bio-geographic and physical (fossil) evidence to support it, and can be directly observed and measured (albeit on a small scale).
Put beliefs aside for now (this is the science forum), and all of the false assumptions, and explain the evidence.
10 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarYou do know know that science oberves things that can only be detected indirectly by observing the effects of the way it affects surroundings. This is true for macro and micro science.
Which means we limit science to what is directly observable and repeatable.
Natural explanations rooted in science are not science. Only what is observable and repeatable are science.
If one thing explodes, that is not science. If similar things are seen to explode, then this makes it both observable and repeatable.
To be useful, we must be able to ...[text shortened]... ormation to our advantage. Otherwise that knowledge and 50 cents will buy you a cheap candy bar.
10 Oct 17
1 edit
Whats going on here?
Eladar is surely having fun with us here . He just takes an oppositte argument and flips it, thinking this will give him a few points won in this debate. Sad to say that you have made exactly zero inroads into destroying/ changing science. However science has once again taken seemingly good ideas and more or less relegated them to pure mythology . Now i could be wrong and so could science , this is part of the scientific process
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassThe assumption is that the natural explanation is the only acceptable explanation. Explanation by the Bible doesn't work for you. Perhaps natural evidence would be a better description as far you as you are concerned.
What are these assumptions I have that you keep referring to but don't define?
Your stated assumption that "Everything has a natural explanation" has no bearing on evolution. Evolution has very strong anatomical, genetic, bio-geographic and physical (fossil) evidence to support it, and can be directly observed and measured (albeit on a small scale).
...[text shortened]... for now (this is the science forum), and all of the false assumptions, and explain the evidence.
You claim it has not bearing, but then support it with natural evidence. You talk yourself in circles.
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelWhen the events are directly observed and repeatable, they are science.
You do know know that science oberves things that can only be detected indirectly by observing the effects of the way it affects surroundings. This is true for macro and micro science.
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarApparently astronomers are indirectly observing evidence for planets/suns/(moons? ) that they cant see directly but are sure are there.
When the events are directly observed and repeatable, they are science.
Same could be said of quantum science. Thats on such a small scale that we cant see the interactions of sub-atomic particles but can deduce a lot of the invisible stuff going on at that level.
But dont take my word for it
10 Oct 17
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelA lot of invisible stuff that you don't understand and trust to be true.
Apparently astronomers are indirectly observing evidence for planets/suns/(moons? ) that they cant see directly but are sure are there.
Same could be said of quantum science. Thats on such a small scale that we cant see the interactions of sub-atomic particles but can deduce a lot of the invisible stuff going on at that level.
But dont take my word for it
11 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarI may not fully understand the mechanics and origins of the universe but I know for a fact you know less than me.
A lot of invisible stuff that you don't understand and trust to be true.
You should've been conceding points to humy on page 1. But instead you've gone beyond 100 posts in unmovable denial. You have not shown any basic comprehension when replying to any of the posters here.
There is no conspiracy here. We are all indepedent posters ..(at least I am)
11 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarlike quantum?
A lot of invisible stuff that you don't understand and trust to be true.
I heard that a lot of modern computer technology and the like is based on trusted quantum mechanics.
(perhaps someone could post a link to this- or point out my mistake)
11 Oct 17
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelI meant you trust in certain things you don't understand because smarter people than you tell you it is true.
like quantum?
I heard that a lot of modern computer technology and the like is based on trusted quantum mechanics.
(perhaps someone could post a link to this- or point out my mistake)
11 Oct 17
7 edits
Originally posted by @eladarregardless of whether that is true in that particular case, you do realize that the are many people here, including many on this forum, that are way smarter than you and I?
I meant you trust in certain things you don't understand because smarter people than you tell you it is true.
The default assumption should always be that what a person smarter than you tells you about what you don't understand is probably true unless you have reason to think otherwise and it is extremely arrogance to assume they must be wrong just because you don't understand the subject.
In this particular case @karoly-aczel suggestion of "a lot of modern computer technology and the like is based on trusted quantum mechanics." is 100% correct and I know this from my university-gained knowledge on this field.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/everyday-quantum-physics/
"...This information age, of course, came about because of semiconductors and solid-state physics, which were enabled by quantum mechanics.
...
Without quantum mechanics there would be no transistor, and hence no personal computer..."
Do you deny these scientific facts (or, more generally, just scientific facts) because you don't understand what people smarter than you do?