Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[AProudLefty]

Bees make the strongest shape and don't know math.

https://buffaloarchitecture.org/wp-c...alElements.pdf
What is the strongest geometric shape?

The hexagon is the strongest shape known. Not many people know this but if you
want something to hold a lot of weight pick a hexagon. Hexagonal patterns are
prevalent in nature due to their efficiency. In a hexagonal grid each line is as
short as it can possibly be if a large area is to be filled with the fewest number of
hexagons. This means that honeycombs require less wax to construct and gain
lots of strength under compression. It's also one of the only shapes which
tessellates perfectly (think tiles, if you tiled a wall with hexagons then there
wouldn't be any gaps.

In other words, math existed before they designed and constructed them.

[Doc Dutch]

In other words, math existed before they designed and constructed them.

The facts are the facts. Math is a way to describe/communicate those facts.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/hexagon.html

[Darth Omar]

In other words, math existed before they designed and constructed them.

Math is a ‘thing’ that is neither matter nor natural law. Yet it can describe them in an elegant sort of language.

Since nothing else can describe them it would have to be universal. Aliens would have the same math as us just with different symbols.

[PostmodernProphet]

I’m a Christian who thinks it doesn’t matter how Genesis is interpreted with respect to origins. So I’m a heretic to one camp and a Bible thumping creationist to the other.

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

[PostmodernProphet]

Militant atheists? WTF

like the folks here who feel compelled to start threads like "Terrible News for Creation Science Museum".........

[Into the Night]

Your choice. You keep writing your made up fallacies and I won't bother with you.

Denial of logic. Inversion fallacy. No argument presented. You also seem to be bothering with me, making you a liar.

[Into the Night]

No, criticism does. A concept that evades you.

An argument of the stone is a fallacy, dude.

[Into the Night]

The word abiogenesis denotes life arising out of lifeless matter—somehow or other.

You have faith that it really happened that way, right?

Apparently he does. So?

[Into the Night]

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.

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

[Into the Night]

science has concluded it had a beginning........

Science is not conclusions. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Science has NO theory about past unobserved events. It does not say anything about whether there was an ultimate beginning.

[Into the Night]

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.

Not morons, just religious.

[Into the Night]

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.

Nope. Not even a biblical creationist automatically discards the effects of evolution.

[Into the Night]

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.

Fixation. Argument of the stone fallacy. No argument presented.

[Into the Night]

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.

Fine.

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?

According to the Theory of the Big Bang, there was nothing before that. No universe...no nothing.

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.

We are locked in time, marked by our own births and deaths. Outside of this, time has little meaning, other than the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

But we've been all too good, it seems, at making shit up.

Such as?

The Talmud.
The Bible.
The Koran.
The Internet.

So I gather you believe all these works to be fiction, including the entire contents of the internet itself.

[Into the Night]

abiogenesis is not a hypothesis,

Correct. It is a theory. A nonscientific theory. It is also a religion.

that is why it is not falsifiable.

Nope. It is not falsifiable because no one can go back in time to see what actually happened.

Abiogenesis is a fact, by the standards of science.

Religion is not science. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

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.

Fossils are not pre-biotic soup. Isotopes do not contain genetic information nor indicate any history.

Abiogenesis actually happened, so no one is wasting their time trying to falsify it.

It is not possible to prove any circular argument True or False. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Attempted proof by assertion.

Scientists should ultimately be able to devise experiments to corroborate or refute the proposed hypothetical mechanisms for abiogenesis,

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

aka the RNA hypothesis, the metabolism-first hypothesis, etc.

Word salad. Try using English. It works better.