Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[Into the Night]

I see how you shifted the goal posts rather than admit you were unaware of that an ancient fossil record of bacteria exist in the geologic record.

Fossils do not denote geneology. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[Into the Night]

Poor wording. Organized implies thinking or planning. Evolution is random. The changes that are beneficial stay. The ones that are harmful perish.

Define 'beneficial evolution' and define 'harmful evolution'. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection forms a paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

I believe I either said, or directly implied, it is a scientific fact.

Nope. Religion is not science. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Science cannot accept supernatural explanations.

Yet you are trying to use one. What is 'natural' about suspending the 2nd law of thermodynamics for even a moment?

It cannot be proven that abiogenesis was a providential miracle. Maybe it was.

It would have to be.

But that is the realm of theology.

The Theory of Abiogenesis is a religion.

The fact that all cells, all DNA molecules, all genes, all proteins, all amino acids are all constructed from a few basic elements found widely in the environment - carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus -- indicates scientifically that life arose from a pre-biotic soup of inert chemicals.

Nope. No science here. Religion isn't science. Speculation isn't science. Science has not theories about past unobserved events.

That is abiogenesis. There is no other way scientifically to read those facts.

That is not abiogenesis. The Theory of Abiogenesis states that life originated on Earth through a series of random unspecified events...not what elements life is made up of.

Even the cop out of saying life was seeded from another planet cannot escape the conclusion that life emerged from the complex organization of very basic and common chemicals. At the elemental and atomic level, there is nothing exotic about life. Atomically, it is made up of the same stuff the universe is.

Meta argument fallacy. Paradox.

The question is, we do not know what the chemical or physical mechanism is that kick started biological emergence.

The Theory of Abiogenesis doesn't need to know.

 

[Into the Night]

Natural selection is not random. Life is "organized" through natural selection.

The 'Theory of Natural Selection' builds a paradox. It's not a theory. It's not a valid argument. It is irrational.

 

[Into the Night]

Well, it's also observable & logical.

So, there's that.

Irrationality is not an observation. A paradox is not an observation.

 

[Into the Night]

Well, at least you backed off the ‘fact’ bit.

Wait for it.....

Right: science operates in such a way as it *excludes* certain influences at the outset. Which is all well and good as far as it goes and I’m not arguing to change it.

What does science exclude at the outset? Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

But, it also means science can be ‘blinded’ by it own commitment to philosophical naturalism.

Science isn't 'naturalism'. It is not something that is 'blinded'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. The only requirement of any theory of science is that it be falsifiable.

And in the instance of abiogenesis it could keep is from discovering the truth.

The Theory of Abiogenesis isn't a scientific theory. It is not falsifiable.

Regarding the notion that there is ‘nothing exotic about life on the atomic level’: you keep making the same mistake.
Life is absolutely ‘exotic’ in the sense that it ALWAYS operates according to an informational code in either DNA or RNA.

A valid argument .

Furthermore, the existence of this code *cannot* be explained as a mere consequence of matter and natural laws. Or natural selection.

Also a valid argument.

 

[Into the Night]

Please expand upon that point in relation to the creation of our universe.

Panentheism and pantheism imply intelligence. I lean toward ill-defined panentheism.

A dog is intelligent and not necessarily self-aware.

A dog is not aware of itself? It never feels hungry? or cold? or hot? or bored?

 

[Into the Night]

I wouldn't use the term "creation". But I have always floated the ideas of patterns that have always existed. For example, the structures of molecules and atoms. How they are arranged. That's mathematical and doesn't change. It is just there.

It is not 'mathematical'. It does follow simple rules, however.

Does math exist or is it a human invention? That's the question.

Math is a human invention. It is a closed functional system defined by axioms (the founding rules of the game). From these axioms, proofs extend mathematics, but it MUST always operate within the rules set for it. Hence, the system is closed.
Only in a closed functional system does the power of prediction exist, and with it, the power of the proof.

Different Domains of mathematics is created by changing one or more of these axioms.

Logic is another closed functional system, based upon it's founding axioms.

Science is an open functional system. A theory may be created on any subject and at any scope. The only requirement is that the theory must be falsifiable.
Philosophy is an open functional system. Any argument or its reasoning may be presented. The only requirement is that you must present your own arguments and your own reasoning for it. You cannot use the arguments or reasoning of another.
Religion is an open functional system. Although a specific religion may have a set of rules, arguments extending that religion can take any form.

 

[Into the Night]

Math exists, by Proof of Identity (?A->A)

 

[Into the Night]

The human brain is another area where strictly scientific answers are lacking.

Science isn't 'answers'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Let me give your buddy in the video some help before he gets too far down the rabbit hole lol: math is a consequence of *mind* and mind isn’t explicable in terms of matter and natural law.
And it’s no coincidence that ‘math works’.

No coincidence at all. Math works because we designed it that way.

 

[Into the Night]

Math is a human invention to understand reality.

Define 'reality'.

It's a tool.

That it is.

The nature of our Universe remains constant regardless of human interpretation.

Define the 'nature of our Universe'. Describe how it's constant. Describe this in terms that cannot be observed.

A Qless asshole can tell me he can fly all day long but if he steps off a pier then the constants of our Universe remain constant due to the gravity of the situation.

Flying requires gravity.

Math is a way to calculate his fall.

It's also used to describe flying.

Math is a tool for understanding, it can't change his fall.

Sure it can. It allows him to create a jet pack, so when he steps off the pier, he doesn't fall anymore. He's flying.

 

[Into the Night]

Think about it this way.... humans invent math, correct? Now will aliens arrive at the same equations elsewhere? Is the number pi the same everywhere and will always be derived everywhere? Think Contact.

Unknown. Contact is fiction.

 

[Into the Night]

How would we know it remains constant?

It doesn't. Suns are created and destroyed, their planets are created and destroyed, everything is moving, etc.

 

[Into the Night]

Pi,

Can only exist if numbers exist. Numbers can only exist if certain axioms are created and followed.

the Pythagorean theorem,

A relation of the same numbers.

the gravitational constant,

is only constant for that user. Natural constants serve to convert a relation to our units of measurement. Nothing more.

the Boltzmann constant

Another natural constant, serving to convert the relation to our units of measure.

are innate dimensionless/unitless properties

Natural constants have units and dimensions. The units are the units of measure used at the time.

of reality.

Define 'reality'.

So it seems math exists independently of human logic.

Of course it does. Logic is a closed functional system, and math is a different closed functional system. They are independent of one another.

 

[Into the Night]

Aren't the same principles at work? Why is the hexagon superior to the square in nature?

A hexagon isn't superior to a square. It's simply another shape.

Math is a tool for divining the truth. <--

What 'truth' is that?

Lugnut design is man following nature's rules.

What about square lugnuts? They do exist, you know. They work perfectly fine too.

Isn't that man using natural selection as a guide for his tools?

No. It's simply easier to center a tool on a shape that has more sides than one with fewer sides, particularly if space is restricted for the tool.

What 'natural selection' are you talking about?

 

[Into the Night]

You just proved my point.

Math (hexagons specifically) have always existed before humans were around.

Nope. The shape may have existed, but only WE call it a 'hexagon'.

 

[Darth Omar]

be a heretic thumper......its more fun.....

It’s more fun to keep them guessing lol.

 

[Darth Omar]

I assume you are referring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Yes...this is a valid argument against the Theory of Abiogenesis.

It actually may not involve the 2nd Law unless you can apply it to information systems.

 

[Darth Omar]

A hexagon isn't superior to a square. It's simply another shape.

What 'truth' is that?

What about square lugnuts? They do exist, you know. They work perfectly fine too.

No. It's simply easier to center a tool on a shape that has more sides than one with fewer sides, particularly if space is restricted for the tool.

What 'natural selection' are you talking about?

Well, that would be artificial selection lol.

You deny NS works? NS is a fact of science. The problem is that it’s *assumed* to apply in abiogenesis and it’s *assumed* to not have any limitations once life begins to exist.

Those two assumptions are dubious IMO.

 

[Darth Omar]

Unknown. Contact is fiction.

Wrong.

Since math comports with and describes natural laws math has to be universal—unless, the physical constants are different in the next galaxy. And we know they’re not because even galaxies evolve into different shapes according to physical law.

In fact, it’s inevitable that other sentient beings would discover math and come up with Pi after they invented the wheel. Assuming there are any.

IOW, you can’t make up a ‘different kind of math’ because it would be useless.