Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed. Why not apply both philosophies? If scientists are trying to crack a nut, why not use both inductivism and empirical falsification?
TBH, reading this made my eyes glaze over: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
I'm a user of tech, not an engineer. I admire scientists and all the work they do but most of it's too tedious for me to be an active participant. Once I wanted to be a test pilot, but unlike the days of "kick the tires and light the fire", it's mostly repetitive tests such as high speed taxi tests for six months. Application is a lot more fun than R&D.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
I disagree. R&D is more fun.
Sure playing with the finished product is fun, but how many years did it take engineers to design, test and build one of those? Tedious.
BTW, I still say it'd look better with a 40 watt Plasma rifle on each shoulder.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Years and years of yuge houses with yuge backyards for kids.
LOL.
Battle bots is fun.
LOL. I love that one with the spinning saw. Didn't work though.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Your choice. You keep writing your made up fallacies and I won't bother with you.
BidenPresident
Verified User
No, criticism does. A concept that evades you.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Why do you believe it came from somewhere?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
The word abiogenesis denotes life arising out of lifeless matter—somehow or other.
You have faith that it really happened that way, right?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Correct. If you have evidence on how the happened, please contact the nearest University. They have a Nobel Prize they'd like to win.
As for faith, you're the one pushing Creationism. Everyone else seems to file it under "UNKNOWN".
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Correct. If you have evidence on how the happened, please contact the nearest University. They have a Nobel Prize they'd like to win.
As for faith, you're the one pushing Creationism. Everyone else seems to file it under "UNKNOWN".
I’m open to the possibility it *didn’t* happen and that it’s *scientifically* impossible for lifeless matter to self-arrange into living things.
If that makes me a ‘creationist’ so be it.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
did you point that out to the fellow who posted the fallacy in the OP?......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
science has concluded it had a beginning........
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
I'm open to the possibility that the only people claiming they know how life began are fucking morons.
If that makes me an arrogant asshole, so be it.
No.
Believing that inert chemicals organized themselves into self replicating cells was somehow providential does not make you a creationist.
In common parlance, a biblical creationist is someone who believes all life was created as it exists today by divine intervention, and literally consistent with the mythology written in the Jewish scripture of Genesis.
Last edited:
I wiah I had not mentioned Karl Popper several months ago, becasuse now you decided to latch on to his philosophy of science and make it your religion, and Popper your deity.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Even my own personal theory,
that the universe and all that exists within it are merely the result of the random confluence of sub atomic particles in the vacuum of infinite space,
cannot explain the source of the sub-atomic particles.
The big bang's initial super-mass had to itself have a source before exploding into an infinite expansion which is the universe as it exists today.
And what came before that?
We as a species haven't the bio/chemical/mechanical computing power to figure that out, obviously.
We can only think in time -relative terms.
But we've been all too good, it seems,
at making shit up.
The Talmud.
The Bible.
The Koran.
The Internet.
that the universe and all that exists within it are merely the result of the random confluence of sub atomic particles in the vacuum of infinite space,
cannot explain the source of the sub-atomic particles.
The big bang's initial super-mass had to itself have a source before exploding into an infinite expansion which is the universe as it exists today.
And what came before that?
We as a species haven't the bio/chemical/mechanical computing power to figure that out, obviously.
We can only think in time -relative terms.
But we've been all too good, it seems,
at making shit up.
The Talmud.
The Bible.
The Koran.
The Internet.
abiogenesis is not a hypothesis, that is why it is not falsifiable.
Abiogenesis is a fact, by the standards of science.
Self-replicating cells really did emerge from a pre-biotic soup in the remote past, and this can be demostrated by fossil evidence and isotopic data.
Abiogenesis actually happened, so no one is wasting their time trying to falsify it.
Scientists should ultimately be able to devise experiments to corroborate or refute the proposed hypothetical mechanisms for abiogenesis, aka the RNA hypothesis, the metabolism-first hypothesis, etc.