No. It simply is.
No. It simply is.
No. She simply is.
No. It simply is.
Yes. I assume the Earth will keep on spinning, just as it did yesterday to create the same phenomenon.
No. While the future sunrise is based on faith (the other items are not). There are no extending arguments from it.
Atheism IS a religion. It is based on faith, and has extending arguments from the initial circular argument.
Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science doesn't figure anything out. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Assuming that we actually DO synthesize life in a laboratory, is that indicative of the Theory of Abiogenesis or the Theory of Creation?
Where we eventually figure it out. Same difference.
Neither the twain shall meet, because they are mutually exclusive theories. One of them MUST be False.
You're dead wrong.
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. Thomas Paine
Not necessarily; because I see it as thus:
If I spend my life believing in God and when I die I find that He doesn't exist, then I've just wasted my time; but if someone spends their life denying God and when they die they find out He does exist, then they've just wasted their life.
SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.
Of course. You can misuse Occam’s Razor all you want.
Well, it may turn out that something recognizably like evolution by natural selection was involved in the formation of the first replicators from the get go, and some research in abiogenesis is along these lines, so I think my ‘technically’ is defensible, but this is just quibbling. We’re in agreement that abiogenesis is outside the scope of evolutionary theory as it stands.Not even technically. The Theory of Evolution doesn't even mention it. It simply assumes one exists.
You’re free to define words however you want, of course, but declaring that figuring out how to synthesize biochemical molecules isn’t biochemistry like saying synthesizing organic compounds isn’t organic chemistry, when that’s actually a huge part of organic chemistry.Not biochemistry at all. There is no 'bio' yet!
I don’t share your conviction that eyewitness testimony is the only way of knowing anything, or that it is even the best way of figuring things out.And never will. We can never go back in time to see what actually happened.
It’s true that demonstrating one way life could have come about through spontaneous processes is not the same as demonstrating that this is the way it did in fact come about, but it would demonstrate that the ID claims that life simply couldn’t have come about through spontaneous processes was in fact wrong, which is really their whole argument. But proof is for mathematics and baking. Science tries to hold all things provisionally, based on the best available evidence.Let's say we DO manage to create a living cell purely from nonbiological materials. It replicates, it grows, and does all the functions of any naturally occurring cell. Is this indicative of Abiogenesis, or Creation? It's obviously not a proof of either.
Who said anything about ‘nothing’? I don’t know that ‘nothing’ describes the starting conditions of the Big Bang: I have certainly never asserted any such thing. Nor do I know that you’re correct about your assertion that something can’t come from nothing. You might look at virtual particles, which seem to flit in and out of existence ‘from nothing’, by certain definitions of ‘nothing’.You can't make something from nothing. You are bringing the Theory of the Big Bang into this, another nonscientific theory, and another religion.
If you want to deny all the lines of evidence pointing to the Big Bang, and the testable predictions that have come out of that theory, you can do so, but I don’t think you burying your head in the sand is evidence that any particular Cosmological theory is a religion.
Never said they did. Proof is for mathematics and baking. But they do render prior supernatural explanations superfluous: an unwarranted multiplying of causal agents.True, but not a proof. Natural explanations do not prove the non-existence of any god or gods.
Thunder from Thor’s hammer, lightning from Zeus’s spear, hail kept in storehouses by the Queen of Heaven, to pick a biblical example, etc. pick up any decent tome on mythology and you can find dozens more.Can you provide a specific example?
Nope. I have no idea what your definition of faith is, other than that you seem to declare eyewitness testimony as the only thing not faith based. I don’t think your definition of religion as ‘anything with a scrap of faith in it’ is reasonable, either. Nor do I see how an inductive argument to a probability is the same as faith, even if it can’t produce 100% certainty. You have all sorts of assumptions in your definitions I don’t see any reason to accept.Then you acknowledge the fact that atheism is a religion, based on faith, right?
If I get in my car, I have a certain amount of ‘faith’ that other drivers are not going to try to hit me. This is based on their own self-interest, and on the inductive argument that no one has tried to hit me in the past. But I drive defensively in case this is my unlucky day and I encounter some attempted suicide by car.
By your definitions, I don’t see how driving my car isn’t a religion, since it involves ‘faith’ and inductive reasoning. I don’t think this is a useful definition of religion, and I don’t think it reflects how anyone else uses the word ‘religion’.
I don’t know why it’s so important to you that atheism be a religion or faith based. It seems like some desperate need to level the playing field.
kudzu (01-02-2019)
Well that's because is science there is no such thing as "just a theory". You're using the term theory in its colloquial tense and not it's scientific one. That's why Scientist cringe when neophytes do that. When you have reached the theoretical stage in science you are in heady waters supported by factual observations and often, as is the case in evolutionary theory, by laws of nature.
You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!
You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!
Phantasmal (01-03-2019)
Phantasmal (01-03-2019)
Cypress (01-03-2019)
Popper is full of shit.
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25322
Well as Ronald Reagan once said "There you go again.".
If I were to go digging into a Morrison geological formation and found a nest of fossilized puppies I would have just falsified Evolutionary theory. Sorry pal but you're wrong again. Evolutionary theory is easily falsifiable in principle.
You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!
Cypress (01-03-2019)
No, that's not what evolutionary theory says. Evolutionary theory is stated as a shift in allele frequency within a population over time. Evolutionary theory predicts that all living systems had common ancestors and a vast body of fact and knowledge backs that observation up. So sorry...you're wrong.
You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!
Bookmarks