Originally posted by amannionDid I call it a scientific model where the starting point had fully
No that's not right.
I understand what you're saying, but that's not how scientific theories work - including evolution.
What you're talking about there is more akin to mathematical theorems - which are built upon axioms that must be taken as true for the theorem itself to be true. Axioms cannot be proven - they're just accepted.
This is not the case f ...[text shortened]... aneously around the Earth, which can have no proof for it. That isn't a scientific model.
developed life? No, I did not, I believe that is a matter of faith.
You ever see life spring from non-living material and turn into
more complex living systems over time? If not I'd say we both
have something we believe took place that we cannot prove.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by KellyJayAmbiogenesis is, as you well know, NOT a facet of evolution. Evolution purely concerns the development of life, not the change from non-life to life. Ambiogenesis is also not beyond proof or disproof, in fact most of the stages needed to create earth like life have been replicated in the conditions that existed on the early earth, and the building blocks from which life is made, found in outer space. Whether or not you want to contest the possibility of ambiogenesis, it is not in any way relevant to a discussion about evolution.
Did I call it a scientific model where the starting point had fully
developed life? No, I did not, I believe that is a matter of faith.
You ever see life spring from non-living material and turn into
more complex living systems over time? If not I'd say we both
have something we believe took place that we cannot prove.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by KellyJayNo you have misunderstood me.
I'm sorry how is C any different than B in what is real or testable?
You seem to think that we cannot test in B as we could C, but I do not
see the difference between them, and why that would be the case?
There isn't any illusion in B if true, only assumptions about age which
is the same thing we could have in C. You look at what is there, and it
is th ...[text shortened]... s
valid as it is in C, I don’t see how or why you make a distinction
between the two.
Kelly
Let me rephrase my point.
We live in a universe that look's like option C. (the universe appears to run on a well defined set of rules, has a history spanning billions of years.... and so on and so forth.)
However option B (where the universe was made much more recently) could also look like this, if it was made with several billion years already on the clock as it were, made by an entity that perhaps didn't want to hang around for 10 billion years waiting for amoebas to turn up.
And option A, could look like this because it could frankly look like anything.
All three options then can potentially look identical, however all three only look identical when all three look like option C. It would be possible for example to make an option B universe with an inconsistent or missing history, and an option A universe could look like anything. But option C can only ever look like option C. Thus from a purely statistical point of view, options A and B have an infinitely larger phase space of potential properties than option C. so statistically speaking if the world looks like option C then odds on that because it is option C.
Philosophically speaking, If there is no way to tell the difference between the three options, then what is the difference between a universe that behaves in an identical way to option C, even at the finest detail, and one that IS option C? Is there any difference between the two? Does it matter?
Basically I am saying that as we verifiably live in a universe that looks like option C, it is almost certain that we do live in option C, and even if we don't, we live in something that is identical to option C, so is there really any difference?
Originally posted by KellyJayNo you didn't but you certainly suggested something comparable between a natural and a supernatural origin of life.
Did I call it a scientific model where the starting point had fully
developed life? No, I did not, I believe that is a matter of faith.
You ever see life spring from non-living material and turn into
more complex living systems over time? If not I'd say we both
have something we believe took place that we cannot prove.
Kelly
And you're wrong about the last bit - that is the difference between your model and the abiogenesis model. Yours can't be proved. Abiogenesis can, since it's a scientific model.
I'm not saying it has been proved or can be proved now, but it's possible to imagine evidence and experiments that could prove it.
Can you describe an experiment that would prove your model?
Originally posted by amannionROFL, you can tell me when it occured, how it occured, under what
No you didn't but you certainly suggested something comparable between a natural and a supernatural origin of life.
And you're wrong about the last bit - that is the difference between your model and the abiogenesis model. Yours can't be proved. Abiogenesis can, since it's a scientific model.
I'm not saying it has been proved or can be proved now, but i ...[text shortened]... eriments that could prove it.
Can you describe an experiment that would prove your model?
conditions it occured, and so on? Perosnally, I believe the 'best'
you can do is give me a 'it might have happened this way,' because
you don't know, and since you don't know it is a matter of belief on
your part! You may have a model you can test and your model may
give you everything you think it should, and that still does not mean
that you got it right, it only means that your model does what you
think it should nothing more.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayLikewise. The difference is, we're not even sure your model exists.
ROFL, you can tell me when it occured, how it occured, under what
conditions it occured, and so on? Perosnally, I believe the 'best'
you can do is give me a 'it might have happened this way,' because
you don't know, and since you don't know it is a matter of belief on
your part! You may have a model you can test and your model may
give you everything y ...[text shortened]... t right, it only means that your model does what you
think it should nothing more.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'm not offering you a model either am I? I have maintained that
Likewise. The difference is, we're not even sure your model exists.
the distant past takes us into faith, and I'm content in saying my
beliefs are faith based. I think it is a little sad that others who
should know better think their 'beliefs' about what happened in the
distant past have something more than faith, because they can
attach science to their beliefs. If you look at only life and evolution
as it is small changes over time, that does not address the beginning
of the process as it has been pointed out, so it does not deal with
either creation or abiogenesis, those are different subjects altogether
either creation or abiogenesis can be true and life will still behave like
we see it today, one has nothing to do with the other.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, of course you are. Your model is that God created the world some 6 - 7,000 years ago, with the impression of greater age.
I'm not offering you a model either am I? I have maintained that
the distant past takes us into faith, and I'm content in saying my
beliefs are faith based. I think it is a little sad that others who
should know better think their 'beliefs' about what happened in the
distant past have something more than faith, because they can
attach science to their ...[text shortened]... d life will still behave like
we see it today, one has nothing to do with the other.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzImpression of a greater age, I don't think so, it is what you like to
Yes, of course you are. Your model is that God created the world some 6 - 7,000 years ago, with the impression of greater age.
believe, so you do. The universe is simply what it is, nothing more.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe universe is what it is, your claims of age are as meaningful
So how do you reconcile a 6,000 year old planet with one that appears to be 4,500,000,000 years old?
as mine are. You think you have a handle on the age of the
universe, that is between you and the universe and God, I do not
care. I don't have a firm fix on the age, I just think your idea of
age is purely between your ears and does not mean it reflects
reality only your belief system.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayMine are based on evidence, yours on opinion. Do not try to equate the two.
The universe is what it is, your claims of age are as meaningful
as mine are. You think you have a handle on the age of the
universe, that is between you and the universe and God, I do not
care. I don't have a firm fix on the age, I just think your idea of
age is purely between your ears and does not mean it reflects
reality only your belief system.
Kelly