The Definition of Real Science

[ChristB4us]

OK, you have no interest in an honest discussion.

The premise for those questions are flawed and you know it. You gave a lot of room for a fourth option to be possible because you know it.

I'm willing to answer any question you ask me as long as you reciprocate, but you are unwilling to do that.

I had addressed those very questions for why I see them as flawed.

And the question I'm asking you is not a trick question, either; it's actually something that anyone with a modicum of knowledge about how the world works understands and could answer. But you won't.

You admitted to another poster that there may indeed be a fourth option.

I'm not going to continue this conversation with you. Best wishes.

Why don't you answer your own questions then? That ought to be fun for you. Just play it out where there is no straying or room for doubt for how you reach your conclusion in leading the readers to where you want to go. You know, for the sake of others reading your post.

 

[Gus Bovona]

The premise for those questions are flawed and you know it. You gave a lot of room for a fourth option to be possible because you know it.

Then suggest the 4th option! Go for it!

I had addressed those very questions for why I see them as flawed.

You admitted to another poster that there may indeed be a fourth option.

Why don't you answer your own questions then? That ought to be fun for you. Just play it out where there is no straying or room for doubt for how you reach your conclusion in leading the readers to where you want to go. You know, for the sake of others reading your post.

 

[ChristB4us]

Then suggest the 4th option! Go for it!

The crime scene ( as presented by false science ) is contaminated and rigged to throw off the detectives and they do not even know it.

 

[Gus Bovona]

The crime scene ( as presented by false science ) is contaminated and rigged to throw off the detectives and they do not even know it.

So that means that no detective can solve a case without an eyewitness, right?

 

[Mikeuk]

I am still waiting for someone to challenge my post 27

In my view much of the challenge of theists against atheists is fought on the wrong battle grounds.
It is easy for theists to win by picking the right field in which to fight..
Pick cellular level not macro evolution.


For example Behe in the irreducible complexity/ intelligent design court case picked a flagellum which was far too easy to challenge.

If only he had picked the first living thing. Ie abiogenesis the athesists would have had an impossible fight.
Even today, nobody knows when, where, how or what happened to produce the first living thing. There is no process conjectured for it. It does not repeat and cannot be repeated. We have never seen the precursors in the places we are told to look, like volcanic pools they say! Since we do not know what the first cell was made of, we can have no idea what the non living building blocks were that came together to form it.

Therefore we can conclude that abiogenesis is neither a valid theory nor even a valid hypothesis. It is pure conjecture of what or whether it happened.

On evolution, theists should stay small. Fight the fight there as well.

The building block of modern life is a cell. Even the simplest is a massively complex chemical factory of tens of thousands of proteins.
Nobody has the first idea how the first life (they cannot define) evolved to become that modern cell. What were the intermediate stages?
It is a complete gap from start to finish. With nothing in between.

Which leads to the massive conclusion...
SCIENCE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE OR EVOLUTION!!!!
Other than we can breed horses with longer necks. Do not look now, but that is intelligent design by man! Man doing what he does best. Finding patterns in observations and using them.

All we know is that the first life is irreducibly complex, by virtue of the definition. "self sustaining capable of darwinian evolution". Therefore as a minimum it needs energy production, a genome, structures to allow reproduction, and to avoid cloned replicates it needs two to reproduce and a gene pool. That is massively complex. We know that trying to remove redundant function fails below hundreds of genes. The cells wont reproduce. So we cannot back engineer it either.

Behe in the court case should have asked those who opposed irreducible complexity to define how the first cell came to be! they cannot!

So how did that appear from non living things. It cannot have had RNA as a genome since it is not natural. So I will keep asking abiogenesis believers what was the first genome. They cannot answer. I know from information theory, that the genome carries information, so it has a minimum complexity. Therefore irreducible complexity. So all you people who dispute irreducible complexity must think again.


So science knows nothing about abiogneis or evolution at cellular level either.
Science has no idea about origin of life. None.


So my advice to theists is you choose the battle ground.

One other point disputed here that science "favours" materialist views of life . No doubt about it.

As you may all know I am well informed on the science of eucharistic miracles - beyond reasonable doubt heart tissue was created from non living bread in a way that cannot have been falsified by any known technology. Certainly not by a priest in a poor parish!
So there is our evidence of creation.
Those samples disprove darwinian evolution by the very test darwin set.!


But along that journey tesoriero and others took samples to (for example) stuttgart university who were leaders at the time in DNA testing. They (and other institutions ) refused to test the samples because of the origin. One australian university went on to say - we cannot do this because we are founded on Darwinian principles. This test might force us to close down!! So much for objectivity. The gate keepers of science defend what is allowed in to fit atheist materialist belief. . Whenever academia gets near theistic phenomena it loses all objectivity

 

[Mikeuk]

In my view - People also need to get their heads around what a theory "is" and science "is"
The scientific model is just that. It is just a model from patterns in observations. It is not the universe.

Just like microsoft flight simulator is not an aircraft. It lives on computers. It is just a model of an aircraft.

Gravity does not "explain" anything. You do not know what gravity "is" ,or why gravity "is", or where gravity came from.
It is a pattern in observations of movement. And that is all science "is". A formulation of patterns of observations.
But they do not fit everywhere. The much lauded "dark matter" is actually the name of an error term in the model. Gravity does not work well as a model either in the shapes of galaxies. These models break down at singularities. In the world of the small even "existence" and "place" and "causality" are disputed. The model is definitely fraying at the edges!!

Gravity is man doing what he does well. Using patterns in observations to help improve life!
The model predicts so well now, it is easy to confuse the model with the underlying reality it attempts to model. But the two are not the same.

So the scientific model does not "underpin the universe" or explain it. It is an observation model of the observable parts of it.
It cannot say what is there. Or how many dimensions it has. It can only say what we detect.
It is a suit of clothes that fits the body of the universe more or less well depending on where you look...
The suit of clothes is not the universe.
The theories are come today and gone tomorrow replaced by a better model!

 

[Sereni-tea]

I am still waiting for someone to challenge my post 27

I am not here to speak for or against evolution - that is not my field.

I think it is very important for Christians who enter these discussions to do so with a good understanding of what the Bible does, and doesn't say, as I have seen too often over zealous Christians make claims that are not supported by Scripture or scientific evidence.

 

[Sereni-tea]

The theories are come today and gone tomorrow replaced by a better model!

Science is ever-changing. The theories (or models) of today look very different to 100 years ago and in 100 years time they will look different again. This is one of the strengths of science but can also be a weakness when some place too much trust and turn science into 'Scientism'. Science is a great tool for explaining the physical universe. But it cannot be used to answer all of life's questions.

 

[makesends]

Mikeuk said:
I am still waiting for someone to challenge my post 27

You do not need to go to macro evolution to see The pseudoscience of materialists in action.
Despite the loud noise in media and the billions thrown at OOL research here are the facts about abiogenesis.

1/ Nobody knows when , where , how or what happened to create the first living thing. There is no process conjectured for the step from non life to life. So it is pure conjecture. Abiognesis is not ony not a valid theory, it is not even a valid hypothesis. There is nothing to test. What is certain is the first living thing (by definition of Harvard and NASA ) was complex, and therefore a highly unlikely chemical event to happen from random chance. Nobody knows what the building blocks of life are, because nobody knows what the first living thing was made of!

Therefore any who believe in abiogenesis, have a faith, not a scientific justification for it!!!

It gets worse.

2/ At a cellular level the minimum cell we know is a massively complex , self designing , self repairing, factory of tens thousand proteins
Nobody has any clue how the first living thing( they cannot define ) evolved to be the present minimum cell. Indeed every attempt at backwards engineering by knocking out redundant function has failed below 500 genes!!! So there is no "science" of the evolution to present cells either!


So nobody knows how life started and nobody knows how it evolved from there at a cellular level. There is ony belief

IN SUMMARY SCIENCE KNOWS NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT ORIGIN OF LIFE

It is talked up, only because for atheists it is the "ony way" life can have started

Meanwhile
3/ in buenos airies, tixtla etc, bread in the eucharist really did become recently livibng cardiac tissue. Multiple forensic scientists and cardiologists in multiple locations confirmed it.

They are Life from no life.
Or as the atheist forensic pathologist lawrence stated "credible evidence of created tissue"
That alone is enough to disprove Darwin by the test darwin set in his book. Life that did not come from progressive small change.


So Christians have the evidence of science, abiogenesis believers none at all.
So why are schoolkids taught the wish beliebe abiogenesis faith instead of science?

You end post #27 with, "So why are schoolkids taught the wish beliebe abiogenesis faith instead of science?" I have heard that it was said by a school district official that when he was asked that question after being forced to admit that he too could see no reason to teach children that theory as proven fact, "What other alternative do we have?" Apparently his argument went something like that the Genesis account was untenable and superstition, and that Biblical reasoning (the Cosmological argument, etc, and Creation) was against the first amendment.

 

[Mikeuk]

Mikeuk said:
I am still waiting for someone to challenge my post 27


You end post #27 with, "So why are schoolkids taught the wish beliebe abiogenesis faith instead of science?" I have heard that it was said by a school district official that when he was asked that question after being forced to admit that he too could see no reason to teach children that theory as proven fact, "What other alternative do we have?" Apparently his argument went something like that the Genesis account was untenable and superstition, and that Biblical reasoning (the Cosmological argument, etc, and Creation) was against the first amendment.

Indeed.

The kizmiller judgement is farcical if you read it. How the guy ever made it as judge with logic like his is beyond me! He clearly did not understand science.

The reality is most of our knowledge of evolution is evolution by intelligent design. Man has been selective breeding agriculural , livestock and domestic animals throughout recorded history so much of what you see in the landscape is intelligent design by man. Many drugs are now produced by intelligent design of virus, bacteria and so on. It is what man is good at. Observing patterns and using them. That does not mean he understands why the patterns exist or what created them. Only that they are reliable enough to use.

The big hoorah of the moment (which has nothing to do with abiogenesis because it is not non life to life- is sleight of hand by abiogenesis beliefevers )
is self catalysing polymers and enzymes .
And yet all of them are the product of intelligent design! they were designed by teams of Phds and even they cant keep the reactions going.

The alternative the educationalists have is the scientific one.
The nul hypothesis. From science they do not know.

Anyones conjecture then, consistent with fact is as good and bad as anyone elses.

Indeed the whole idea of "natural" explanation is in itself a philosophical misnomer.
The fact we can model nature does not ofer an explanation of why it is, only an observation of what it normally does in our time and space.
If God is part of what acts in nature, then what He does is natural too!

Much of the nonsense is predicated on the "theory of evolution". There is no such theory!!!!

There is a mish mash of theories and hypothesis and pure conjecture in various states of evidence. It is not one theory at all.

There are theories about common descent (which incidentally is not provable or indeed even likely on presumed abiogenesis which must recognise multiple starts to life if it considers it a chemical process. So there is common descent, progressive small change, survival of fittest, molecular biology theoriesfrom mendel to theories of chromosomes and genes etc etc etc.
So there is not one "theory of evolution" despite kids being taught there is. There is a mish mash.

Indeed the thrust of Darwins conjecture on evolution (his so called theory of evolution) was that "all life is the result of progressive small change" Since he clearly cannot test that, he has a hard job promoting it to the status of even "hypothesis". And even darwin admitted he had no idea of how life started.

But as I keep point out - Darwin did give his own falsification criterion - if any evidence can be found of an organism that did not come from progressive small change, my theory absolutely fails.
I can report that it has. The cardiac tissue of eucharistic miracles certainly did not come from progressive small change. So darwin is dead. Long live darwin.


I despair of how kids are being misled.

I first read an article in new scientist 50 years ago about protocells. I despair of the fact the pictures drawn now differ little from what was drawn then. Nobody in reality has any idea of first life.

 

[Mikeuk]

I am not here to speak for or against evolution - that is not my field.

I think it is very important for Christians who enter these discussions to do so with a good understanding of what the Bible does, and doesn't say, as I have seen too often over zealous Christians make claims that are not supported by Scripture or scientific evidence.

With respect I think you need to go back a step.

Science concerns itself with modelling only that which repeats or can be repeated. It has little to say on anything else.
It offers no explanation of why the universe does what it does, ( eg why "is" gravity??) it simply observes what it does, and the patterns arising are very useful.

So - there is no necessity for support by scientific evidence to claim as conjecture something is true.
If there is evidence that the statement is false, then clearly that needs explaining.

As I have pointed out - On The origin of life till recently nobody had evidence for.
Therefore any postulation consistent with fact is a viable postulate.
The forensic and scientific evidence there is now, points at creation, and disproves darwin. That is a big statement. It is also true..

People may contest the idea that the world was created in more recent time complete with dinosaur fossils and microwave emissions in the far reaches of the galaxy that hint at tens of billons of years ( I am not YEC by the way) .. But Other than by using occams razor it is a hard idea to disprove. There is no evidence for or against it. Other than to claim other explanations are simpler!!

Where I draw the line completely and makes me angry is scientism. That is materialist atheists stating they have evidence they simply do not have or claiming the imprimateur of science when they do not have that either.

There is no evidence of when where how or what happened to create the first living thing. It does not repeat and cannot be repeated. There is no process for it. There is no process or evidence for the journey from there to the minimum cell we know. In short the origin and development of life is a big unknown, not least because of "consciousness" which materialists cannot explain.
.
Atheists claiming the imprimateur of science are cheating. And that includes billion dollar budget research facilities whose mission has been hijacked to prove their a priori assumption not what it should be - to find the truth.

 

[Gus Bovona]

OK, let's see where this might go.

You do not need to go to macro evolution to see The pseudoscience of materialists in action.
Despite the loud noise in media and the billions thrown at OOL research here are the facts about abiogenesis.

1/ Nobody knows when , where , how or what happened to create the first living thing. There is no process conjectured for the step from non life to life.

I want to be sure I understand you. You're saying that there is no process conjectured. That is, no one has any hypothesis for any part of abiogenesis?

So it is pure conjecture.

If there "is no process conjectured," how can it be pure conjecture?

Abiognesis is not ony not a valid theory, it is not even a valid hypothesis.

What does "valid hypothesis" mean? What distinguishes a valid hypothesis from an invalid one?

There is nothing to test. What is certain is the first living thing (by definition of Harvard and NASA ) was complex, and therefore a highly unlikely chemical event to happen from random chance. Nobody knows what the building blocks of life are, because nobody knows what the first living thing was made of!

Therefore any who believe in abiogenesis, have a faith, not a scientific justification for it!!!

It gets worse.

2/ At a cellular level the minimum cell we know is a massively complex , self designing , self repairing, factory of tens thousand proteins
Nobody has any clue how the first living thing( they cannot define ) evolved to be the present minimum cell. Indeed every attempt at backwards engineering by knocking out redundant function has failed below 500 genes!!! So there is no "science" of the evolution to present cells either!


So nobody knows how life started and nobody knows how it evolved from there at a cellular level. There is ony belief

IN SUMMARY SCIENCE KNOWS NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT ORIGIN OF LIFE

It is talked up, only because for atheists it is the "ony way" life can have started

Meanwhile
3/ in buenos airies, tixtla etc, bread in the eucharist really did become recently livibng cardiac tissue. Multiple forensic scientists and cardiologists in multiple locations confirmed it.

They are Life from no life.
Or as the atheist forensic pathologist lawrence stated "credible evidence of created tissue"
That alone is enough to disprove Darwin by the test darwin set in his book. Life that did not come from progressive small change.


So Christians have the evidence of science, abiogenesis believers none at all.
So why are schoolkids taught the wish beliebe abiogenesis faith instead of science?

 

[ChristB4us]

So that means that no detective can solve a case without an eyewitness, right?

In respect to the evolution theory for which you are applying this for, correct.

The radiocarbon dating is based on the assumption that there had been no global calamity within the last 5,000 years. So what if you are wrong about the Biblical global flood as not a real time event?

Thus the crime scene is contaminated and therefore rigged when "science" insists on that assumption that there has been no contamination that would affect the rate of decay.

 

[Mikeuk]

OK, let's see where this might go.

I want to be sure I understand you. You're saying that there is no process conjectured. That is, no one has any hypothesis for any part of abiogenesis?


If there "is no process conjectured," how can it be pure conjecture?


What does "valid hypothesis" mean? What distinguishes a valid hypothesis from an invalid one?

On the first point.
"nobody has any hypothesis"

As a scientist, I can state without fear of contradiction , that science relies on accurate definitions. The entire scientific model interrelates them.
I can say nothing about "electric field density" or " wave function collapse" or "particle wave duality" without a lot of precise definitions.
I cannot relate them or have hypotheses or theories for them, without precise definitions for them.

So the definition of abiogenesis is the step from "non living to living". OOL researchersdefine life as "self sustatining, capable of darwinian evolution" (and similar...)

No chemical process from "non living to non living" is therefore abiogenesis.
No process from "living to living" is abiogenesis.
Life is defined by such as Harvard as "self sustaining , capable of darwinian evolution".
So the precursors to abiogenesis by definition were non living, either not capable of darwinian evolution , or not cabable of self sustaining.

So you say "any part of abiogenesis" if you mean the non living steps before, (eg self catalyzing polymers or enzymes) then whether or not they are valid hypotheses they are not part of abiogenesis
Nor was how the first living thing becoming the second a hypothesis for part of abiogenesis, PROVIDED only that the first living thing can do so, which is needed for evidence of darwinian evolution.

So the idea of "part of abiogenesis" is a misleading phrase.

There is only one step that matters. The structure of the first living thing. And how it assembled from non living precursors.
That step is the part that is abiogenesis. And only hypotheses for that are hypotheses for "part of abiogenesis"
(That step has serious problems with irreducible complexity but let that pass)

On the second point.
Since nobody knows when where or how it happened, there is no process defined or speculated it does not repeat, it is therefore pure conjecture whether it did happen AT ALL.

By way of comparison - If I said to you a miracle happened, I cannot tell you when where or how it happened, or even what happened. Your first statement to me would be to question whether it happened at all. Rightlty so. And so it is with abiogenesis (in the form materialist atheists assume)

On the third point
Since here is no structure for it, no evidence of when where or how it happened, nobody can repeat it, it does not repeat naturally. No process even speculated. Without those - none of the entry points for a scientific hypothesis exist. Hypotheses rely on the ability to test. With no first cell structure defined, nor evidence of what , how or where it happend, and no abililty to repeat it, there is nothing to test.

So by defintion of abiogenesis there can be no hypothesis for it since there is nothing to test starting non living ending living.
And without a hypothesis tested nor can you have a theory.

Let me ask you a question. What was the structure of the first living thing? What genome did it have? ( which is clearly needed for the definition of life as "capable of darwinian evolution". Nobody can answer. What you can say for certain it was not RNA since RNA does not exist naturally and in any event is far too complex to appear by accident from non living chemicals. If abiogenesis happened at all, the first cell structure had to be far simpler than our present cells.
Since nobody can say what the first living thing was made of, nobody can describe the precursors, so without that nobody can talk about the "building blocks of life" either. They do not know what they were.

A pile of bricks is not evidence of self designing, self building houses! Much as Miller Urey and seemingly every OOL researcher since would have us believe it. It is remarkable they still have to mention miller urey. That so little has been achieved in the last half century they refer to an experiment way back then!

Abiogenesis is pure faith. Whether, how what or when it happened!

Let me be clear here.
If anyone comes up with a plausible structure and can confirm how it could have happened, I might start to believe it to.
But I dont, because there is no evidence or process for it. It is pure speculation.

 

[ChristB4us]

I am not here to speak for or against evolution - that is not my field.

I think it is very important for Christians who enter these discussions to do so with a good understanding of what the Bible does, and doesn't say, as I have seen too often over zealous Christians make claims that are not supported by Scripture or scientific evidence.

@makesends @Gus Bovona @Mikeuk

Okay then what does Genesis say about creation?

Genesis 1:1 is the topic with the following verses is how God did it.

Genesis 1:2-5 is the creation of light of the day for that evening and morning that first day. Time has been created. The earth was not there at all but just water.

Genesis 1:6-8 is the starting of the creation of earth of gravity by dividing the water planet from the upper atmosphere.

Genesis 1:9-13 is the completion of the creation of earth with the one large land mass and the sea all in one place on that third day.

Genesis 1:14--19 was when the universe was created as God created them to give her lights to govern the earth that fourth day

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

That means the universe was not there in the beginning until that fourth day for God spoke and they came into existence filling the gaps with her lights to shine on the earth that day.

So can you tell the age of the universe and the earth by the speed of light? No. You cannot when in respect to His words that they did not exist nor had her lights shine on that earth until that fourth day.

 

[Gus Bovona]

In respect to the evolution theory for which you are applying this for, correct.

No, I'm talking about detectives, not scientists. I don't know how to be more clear. Can detectives solve cases correctly with eyewitnesses?

The radiocarbon dating is based on the assumption that there had been no global calamity within the last 5,000 years. So what if you are wrong about the Biblical global flood as not a real time event?

Thus the crime scene is contaminated and therefore rigged when "science" insists on that assumption that there has been no contamination that would affect the rate of decay.

 

[ChristB4us]

No, I'm talking about detectives, not scientists. I don't know how to be more clear. Can detectives solve cases correctly with eyewitnesses?

You are giving that example to which I am supposed to apply towards scientists in respect to the evolution theory and yet you are ignoring the premise by how science is being deceived by erroneous assumptions made by the evolution theory.

It is akin to saying "the butler did it" in every crime committed and so the detectives has to go that route or be discredited as detectives.

 

[Gus Bovona]

You are giving that example to which I am supposed to apply towards scientists in respect to the evolution theory and yet you are ignoring the premise by how science is being deceived by erroneous assumptions made by the evolution theory.

No, you're not supposed to apply it towards scientists until you state your position on the need for eyewitnesses JUST FOR detectives. We establish the general principle first, and if modifications have to be made when applying that general principle to scientists, then there's time for that. But first things first.

 

[Sereni-tea]

With respect I think you need to go back a step.

Science concerns itself with modelling only that which repeats or can be repeated. It has little to say on anything else.

Sure but the evidence can be direct or indirect. Not every field of science has be ability to make direct observations.

It offers no explanation of why the universe does what it does, ( eg why "is" gravity??) it simply observes what it does, and the patterns arising are very useful.

I agree.

So - there is no necessity for support by scientific evidence to claim as conjecture something is true.
If there is evidence that the statement is false, then clearly that needs explaining.

If the evidence shows that a scientific hypothesis/theory/model is incorrect, then obviously it needs to be modified or discarded.

As I have pointed out - On The origin of life till recently nobody had evidence for.
Therefore any postulation consistent with fact is a viable postulate.
The forensic and scientific evidence there is now, points at creation, and disproves darwin. That is a big statement. It is also true..

As I said, I am not here to prove or disprove evolution, but I am keen to hear the ideas of others.

People may contest the idea that the world was created in more recent time complete with dinosaur fossils and microwave emissions in the far reaches of the galaxy that hint at tens of billons of years ( I am not YEC by the way) .. But Other than by using occams razor it is a hard idea to disprove. There is no evidence for or against it. Other than to claim other explanations are simpler!!

As I said earlier, I think as Christians, we need to make sure we are reading the Bible correctly as well as science.
Making unsubstantiated claims does not honour God and makes Christianity look foolish.

Where I draw the line completely and makes me angry is scientism. That is materialist atheists stating they have evidence they simply do not have or claiming the imprimateur of science when they do not have that either.

I completely agree.

There is no evidence of when where how or what happened to create the first living thing. It does not repeat and cannot be repeated. There is no process for it. There is no process or evidence for the journey from there to the minimum cell we know. In short the origin and development of life is a big unknown, not least because of "consciousness" which materialists cannot explain.
.
Atheists claiming the imprimateur of science are cheating. And that includes billion dollar budget research facilities whose mission has been hijacked to prove their a priori assumption not what it should be - to find the truth.

Do you think science can prove creation?

 

[Sereni-tea]

Okay then what does Genesis say about creation?

I think this is a topic for another thread as it is likely to derail this one if we go down that road.