Abiogenesis Fact?

Originally posted by @eladar
Not if he denies that watching a plane fly is seeing science put into practice.

Sure, the first one, say a new jet with more efficient engines based on engine research and wing research, such that NASA does, a lot of science in the background but when a plane is built using the science generated by NASA and others, the engines have a design, bill of materials and wing to spec 400XR. Rev D. then those parts are CNC'd out, punched out, welded, and so forth and they do that 1200 times. The science has been done and all they have to do now is deal with knowns and parts lists done by designers.

So plane # 2 of that series has no new science in it, only old science and the scientists involved go on to further refine the parts and such so new science and technology goes on in the background for some newer plane but the scientists don't have to pay much attention to the 1200 planes already built unless one explodes in flight because of a design fault, which has happened but that is usually the responsibility of engineers who see that say, some wire goes through a fuel tank (that actually happened) and they thought it was safe but lead to an explosion under the right circumstances. The scientists had little to do with the failure analysis and they just redesigned the wire flow so it will never happen again. But there was no science involved, only engineering details.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Sure, the first one, say a new jet with more efficient engines based on engine research and wing research, such that NASA does, a lot of science in the background but when a plane is built using the science generated by NASA and others, the engines have a design, bill of materials and wing to spec 400XR. Rev D. then those parts are CNC'd out, punched out, ...[text shortened]... flow so it will never happen again. But there was no science involved, only engineering details.

Any experiment that can be repeated is good science.

Looking at evidence and then telling people must have happened is not good science.

Originally posted by @eladar
Any experiment that can be repeated is good science.

Looking at evidence and then telling people must have happened is not good science.

A “good” (viable) evidence does more than to convince us that a certain theory of reality is true. For the theory explains why the evidence in question is considered viable. This is done by referring to relations between viable evidence and deeper causal fields that link different concepts regarding the way in which the reality unfolds.

Any experiment that can be repeated does not necessarily lead to “good science”. Gravity is existent under causes and conditions; this ain’t mean one has to conclude that “G-d made it happen by means of creating gravity” when one tries to find out the reason why that apple fell from that apple tree on one’s head, and then come up with a “scientific” theory according to which the apples ultimately fall down because this the law of G-d.

In fact, looking at evidence and then telling people that they must blindly believe what (in your opinion, which is in full accordance with your “objectively true” religious beliefs) must have happened, is neither “good” nor “bad” science. It is simply no science😵

Originally posted by @eladar
Any experiment that can be repeated is good science.

Looking at evidence and then telling people must have happened is not good science.

All well and good but at what point do people go no shyte sherlock when say they measure the boiling point of water at sea level and pronounce exitedly, water boils at 100 degrees C.

Where is the science in that?