Originally posted by frogstomp Science has neither the amount of time or the scale of the laboratory to duplicate biogenesis. And quantum mechanics , being what it is, doesn't guarantee an exact duplication anyway.
So where did you get the guts to call 'abiogenesis' Science?
Originally posted by scottishinnz Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.
Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.
That sho ...[text shortened]... the parallel universe theory - let me know when you find any empirical evidence, won't you?
Could you quote the pertinent section? IIRC -- having read Hawking's "A brief history of time" -- he didn't postulate the spontaneous generation of matter ex nihilo. I'd be very interested to see the "theoretical physics" in question.
Oh, as for the parallel universe theory - let me know when you find any empirical evidence, won't you?
Huh? You are the one who claimed that nothing exists outside the universe by definition. As such, you have the burden of proof. Stop squirming.
Originally posted by Halitose Huh? You are the one who claimed that nothing exists outside the universe by definition. As such, you have the burden of proof. Stop squirming.
You can't prove that nothing exists outside of the universe as it is a negative. You can however prove that something exists outside of the universe (well you could if something did).
So clearly the burden of proof lies on those who claim the positive.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ You can't prove that nothing exists outside of the universe as it is a negative. You can however prove that something exists outside of the universe (well you could if something did).
So clearly the burden of proof lies on those who claim the positive.
You can't prove that nothing exists outside of the universe as it is a negative.
This makes Scott’s ludicrous pontificating even more crumbly; thanks for pointing it out.
I'll simply withdraw my claims to the contrary -- as they have no bearing on my position and were only given as a rebuttal to Scott's non-sequitur -- sit back and wait pleasantly for Scott to either acknowledge the intenability of his position or offer proof for his universal negation.
Originally posted by scottishinnz Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.
Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.
That sho ...[text shortened]... the parallel universe theory - let me know when you find any empirical evidence, won't you?
Hawking, of course, accepts the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
It is commonly thought that Many-Worlds is an unprovable hypothesis, experimentally indistinguishable from the Copenhagen Interpretation, but this may not be the case. It may be possible to observe experimentally one of the predicted effects of Many-Worlds: quantum interference between adjacent worlds. It has even been suggested that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle derives from this quantum interference; after you make a measurement (which of course splits the world), you can't be sure about the subsequent state of the observed system, because you can't be sure which world you are in.
Originally posted by Halitose [b]You can't prove that nothing exists outside of the universe as it is a negative.
This makes Scott’s ludicrous pontificating even more crumbly; thanks for pointing it out.
I'll simply withdraw my claims to the contrary -- as they have no bearing on my position and were only given as a rebuttal to Scott's non-sequitur -- sit back and wait pleasan ...[text shortened]... ither acknowledge the intenability of his position or offer proof for his universal negation.[/b]
As I'm sure you know there also isn't a way to prove that God doesn't exist. That doesn't mean the logical answer is to believe in him anymore than the fact that is impossible to prove the lack of existance of the Easter Bunny implies that logically one should believe in said Bunny.
Ever hear of Occam's Razor?
Originally posted by XanthosNZ As I'm sure you know there also isn't a way to prove that God doesn't exist. That doesn't mean the logical answer is to believe in him anymore than the fact that is impossible to prove the lack of existance of the Easter Bunny implies that logically one should believe in said Bunny.
Ever hear of Occam's Razor?
As I'm sure you know there also isn't a way to prove that God doesn't exist.
Uh... that's not entirely true... If you have the case of a qualified God (i.e. God G, with characteristics X, Y, and Z) -- then it is possible to disprove G's existence due to the incompatibility of X,Y,Z with observable reality.
That doesn't mean the logical answer is to believe in him anymore than the fact that is impossible to prove the lack of existance of the Easter Bunny implies that logically one should believe in said Bunny.
I wasn't arguing for a belief in God. Scott was the one who brought it up. I find it amusing that in this instance it is the atheist who has to keep dragging God into it.
13 Nov '06 09:411 edit
Alternatives to Evolution
Back to Top