Originally posted by @humyWhat I am saying is that it is possible that new revaluation could change how we view gravity. Although the law we have now works in the limited view we have today, advances in what we can do might bend those laws.
so what here do you imply? Do you mean, for example, the law of gravity will cease to operate once we know it is 'false', or that we will cease to believe things are made of atoms, or what exactly?
Physicists understanding (but never yours) of the laws of physics will improve over time but we will still think there is these things called gravity / atoms / c a ...[text shortened]... y and completely wrong? -and then would our computers suddenly stop working as a result of this?
Originally posted by @eladarActually, what is used now is routinely shown to be inadequate for all explanations, often at complete odds with reality.
What I am saying is that it is possible that new revaluation could change how we view gravity. Although the law we have now works in the limited view we have today, advances in what we can do might bend those laws.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by @eladarDoes not compute. If you believe life came out of non-life, that is abiogenesis, by definition. If you believe that life came out of life, you still have to explain the life that the life came out of. If you believe that life came out of nowhere, you're denying your own question.
If we are to have a natural explanation for the origins of life, what explanation is there other than abiogenesis?
Originally posted by @eladarOf course they would be wrong on many fronts. They at least knew Earth was round. We have come so far it is unlikely any basic science like gravitation will be totally thrown out in 100 years. We have 3000 years on the Ancient greeks, and at least 400 years of scientific growth never before seen in human history and 99% of that will never be overturned. Like chemical reactions, you know good and well you can burn oil and no amount of research will overturn that. Optics, physics, marine biology, medicines, not much is going to be totally overturned.
How would Greeks have viewed what science might look like in the future? Do you think they would be correct?
Originally posted by @freakykbhhow so? Can you give just any one example of these incidences when the law of gravity (which is what we were talking about) is "routinely shown to be inadequate for all explanations"? References please...
... what is used now is routinely shown to be inadequate for all explanations, ....
2 edits
Originally posted by @eladarright, physicists (not you) may greatly improve their understanding of gravity. But we will never credibly discover the basic law of gravity to be wrong.
What I am saying is that it is possible that new revaluation could change how we view gravity.
Originally posted by @humyI never said it would. I simply stated science could advance to the point that what can't be done now could be done later.
right, physicists (not you) may greatly improve their understanding of gravity. But we will never credibly discover the basic law of gravity to be wrong.
If this is so, nothing impossible for science now is proven falsified. It is also true that whay science believes could be possible based on our limited view is actually possible.
The obvious conclusion then is that a belief that abiogenesis is the source of life is grounded in faith. It is no different in nature than a belief in Creation by way of God. It is just a different dog with the same fleas.
Originally posted by @eladarTheory of creation falls outside the domain of science - because it depends of supernatural intervention. Take your preaching to spiritual forum where it belongs.
I never said it would. I simply stated science could advance to the point that what can't be done now could be done later.
If this is so, nothing impossible for science now is proven falsified. It is also true that whay science believes could be possible based on our limited view is actually possible.
The obvious conclusion then is that a belief that a ...[text shortened]... nature than a belief in Creation by way of God. It is just a different dog with the same fleas.
Originally posted by @fabianfnasTut-tut.
Theory of creation falls outside the domain of science - because it depends of supernatural intervention. Take your preaching to spiritual forum where it belongs.
Don't you go take your ball and head home just cuz you're getting beat now, son!
Take your lickin' like a man!
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladar
I never said it would. I simply stated science could advance to the point that what can't be done now could be done later.
If this is so, nothing impossible for science now is proven falsified. It is also true that whay science believes could be possible based on our limited view is actually possible.
The obvious conclusion then is that a belief that a ...[text shortened]... nature than a belief in Creation by way of God. It is just a different dog with the same fleas.
science could advance to the point that what can't be done now could be done later.
now you are talking about technological advancement, right?
i.e. us being able to technologically do things previously considered impossible, right?
You are unclear.
The obvious conclusion then is that a belief that abiogenesis is the source of life is grounded in faith.
Assuming you were just talking about technological advancement;
No, it isn't. Obviously false inference.
How is us being able to do technologically do things previously considered impossible imply our theories based on the observations of the past are wrong or based on 'faith'?
Using the same 'logic', belief in the existence of gravity will be grounded in 'faith' when technologically do things previously considered impossible.
What is 'faith' is basing beliefs not on observations nor reason such as belief there exists a God or a Santa.
If you were NOT just talking about technological advancement, what were you referring to? Can you give a specific example?
Originally posted by @sonhouseIs this what the Greeks believed? That their view of science would not be changed much?
Of course they would be wrong on many fronts. They at least knew Earth was round. We have come so far it is unlikely any basic science like gravitation will be totally thrown out in 100 years. We have 3000 years on the Ancient greeks, and at least 400 years of scientific growth never before seen in human history and 99% of that will never be overturned. Li ...[text shortened]... rn that. Optics, physics, marine biology, medicines, not much is going to be totally overturned.
Originally posted by @humyI am talking about advances in understanding how things work. What we think is impossible now may not be impossible 100 or a thousand years from now.science could advance to the point that what can't be done now could be done later.
now you are talking about technological advancement, right?
i.e. us being able to technologically do things previously considered impossible, right?
You are unclear.
[quote] The obvious conclusion then is that a belief that abiogenesis is the so ...[text shortened]... ng about technological advancement, what were you referring to? Can you give a specific example?
Originally posted by @eladar"No one has been able to create the correct conditiins for abiogenesis."
No one has been able to create the correct conditiins for abiogenesis. It has never been reproduced. No one has ever seen it happen.
Can anyone falsify the idea of abiogenesis?
Not even God?
1 edit
Originally posted by @shallow-blueDoes not compute. If you believe life came out of non-life, that is abiogenesis, by definition. If you believe that life came out of life, you still have to explain the life that the life came out of. If you believe that life came out of nowhere, you're denying your own question.
Does not compute. If you believe life came out of non-life, that is abiogenesis, by definition. If you believe that life came out of life, you still have to explain the life that the life came out of. If you believe that life came out of nowhere, you're denying your own question.
Abiogenesis, coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1870--- the same Huxley, Darwin’s Bulldog, who came up with the term agnostic the year before--- simply means ”spontaneous generation (of life without parent organisms.”
Or, more articulated:
”the hypothetical process by which living organisms first arose on earth from nonliving matter,” emphasis on “the hypothetical process,” as we have literally never seen such a thing.
Compared to biogenesis which means “the principle that living organisms originate only from other living organisms closely similar to themselves.”
[Interesting side note on Huxley: self-taught and yet holds a place in history as an expert in comparative anatomy.
Weird.]
It may be too fine a nuance for some to consider, but what is in focus here is the process by which life exists.
Either it comes about by the natural means, i.e., a supporting parental organism, or it comes about on its own.
There is a third alternative, which neither abio- or bio- adequately describe: another, otherwise non-parental source of life being initiated... third party in other words.
Putting aside all three of them, however, what belies explanation altogether is the mere existence of life itself, regardless of the impetus.
We say “natural means” and yet know nothing of that process, other than to describe the known steps, outside looking in.
We don’t know what causes cell division: sizer? timer? adder?
Hard to say definitively, but what is known is what is not known: we don’t know how all of these things together actually add up to life.
It’s simply beyond our current ability or vocabulary to understand at the basest level.
That being said, since God is life, the Christian doesn’t consider the act of creation a portrait in abiogenesis OR biogenesis, but rather, existent energy uniquely expressed.
His energy cannot be explained.
Science’s insistence that all can be known is a red herring which is leading us to sure and imminent destruction.
The cancer which destroys the quest of science is what made science in the first place: misplaced importance, wrong scale of values.
Despite all of the advances we’ve realized directly or indirectly attributed to our use of science, we cannot begin to count or measure the harm the pursuit of this knowledge has wrought.
And yet we persist in our insistence that this knowledge is not only useful, it is required--- all without ever articulating the end goal.
What can we possibly gain from knowing everything there is to know about this physical reality?
The important questions--- the ones which have been driving us since ever--- will remain unanswered.
We have opted to make our own revelation regarding reality instead of accepting God’s revelation for our better understanding.
Burned the pictures for the ashes, as it were.