Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,051 Year: 5,308/9,624 Month: 333/323 Week: 177/160 Day: 13/38 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Witnesses
ringo
Member (Idle past 518 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 140 of 215 (660413)
04-25-2012 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by angletracks
04-24-2012 9:07 PM


Re: What I See
angletracks writes:
If a process cannot be repeated, or measured in its singular occurrence, and if there is in fact no validated model to support it, can it be considered a fact?
Facts don't have to be repeatable. In science, the observation of facts has to be repeatable.
You don't have to be able to replay the eruption of a volcano. You only have to be able to observe the ash layers, lava flows, etc. to infer what happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by angletracks, posted 04-24-2012 9:07 PM angletracks has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by angletracks, posted 04-26-2012 1:08 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 518 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 142 of 215 (660512)
04-26-2012 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by angletracks
04-26-2012 1:08 PM


Re: What I See
angletracks writes:
I mentioned processes being repeated. And what are we going to repeatedly observe to support our fact claims if we don’t observe a process?
For example, we can observe objects moving in the universe and from those observations we can infer that that motion must have had a beginning. We don't have to observe the Big Bang directly to know that it must have happened.
angletracks writes:
Where has anyone observed a natural process (no manipulation by intelligent agency) which resulted in organisms being produced from anything other than another organism?
We have observed the chemistry. We understand the individual steps petty well. All that's missing is the exact sequence of steps required to form an organism.
(By the way, no intelligent agency can do anything but manipulate the natural behaviour of the chemcals.)
angletracks writes:
BTW, how are things in good ole Stubblejump?
It's still pretty early in the season. The stubble is pretty short but I can't jump as high as I used to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by angletracks, posted 04-26-2012 1:08 PM angletracks has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by angletracks, posted 04-26-2012 3:28 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 518 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 147 of 215 (660523)
04-26-2012 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by angletracks
04-26-2012 3:28 PM


Re: What I See
angletracks writes:
I don't see evolution as the explanation for the origin of life having the same kind of evidential support.
In the case of the Big Bang, we infer an origin from the observed motion of "heavenly bodies". In the case of abiogenesis (not evolution), we infer an origin from the observed chemistry of organisms. Where's the difference?
angletracks writes:
You say we have observed the chemistry but not the exact sequence of steps to form an organism. So, in short, there is no scientific explanation at this point [though perhaps you believe there will be one sometime, maybe soon].
It's incorrect to say we have "no scientific explanation". We have a scientific explanation that isn't quite complete. You're suggestng that there's no road from New York to Los Angeles just because a few miles haven't been paved yet.
angletracks writes:
Ringo: (By the way, no intelligent agency can do anything but manipulate the natural behaviour of the chemcals.)
Sorry, not sure where you were going with that.
I'm saying that it's all natural processes. No intelligence that we know of can do anything but tweak the natural processes that already exist. Intelligence is a complete non-answer to the question of origins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by angletracks, posted 04-26-2012 3:28 PM angletracks has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by angletracks, posted 04-26-2012 4:35 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 518 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 151 of 215 (660533)
04-26-2012 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by angletracks
04-26-2012 4:35 PM


Re: What I See
angletracks writes:
History is full of abandoned theories and projects that were "almost" and "so close."
Certainly. And if the road we're on turns out to be a dead end, we'll abandon it. But for the moment, there simply is no alternative. It's the only road we have and it would be silly to stop in our tracks just because there may be some unforseen obstacle ahead. Instead, we should be prepared to handle the obstacles when we do meet them.
angletracks writes:
If one is willing to consider that there may be realities that extend beyond the material, then a similar tweaking of natural processes by a divine mind can be inferred quite easily.
You're just adding another unknown. Why not go with what we do know instead of hypothesisizing some spooky miracle?
You seem to be suggesting that because there might be some impassible stretches on the road, we should rely on aliens to teleport us to LA. I'm suggesting that we should just get in the car and drive until we can't drive no more.
Edited by ringo, : Add'd an apostrohe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by angletracks, posted 04-26-2012 4:35 PM angletracks has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by angletracks, posted 04-26-2012 5:50 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 518 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 159 of 215 (660599)
04-27-2012 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by angletracks
04-26-2012 5:50 PM


Re: What I See
angletracks writes:
What I intended to insist was that we should not say we have arrived until we actually have, and that calling abiogenesis a fact seems inaccurate to me.
Saying that abiogenesis is a fact is not the same as saying that we've "arrived". Abiogenesis is a fact in that there once was no life and now there is life. Abiogenesis happened, whether by ordinary every day chemistry or by God-given miracle. We haven't "arrived" at a complete expanation yet but we do know a lot about how it could have happened naturally. We know absolutely nothing about how it could have happened miraculously - and we never can know.
angletracks writes:
I rather think that I am positing one unproven entity instead of another less plausible one....
I find it odd that you consider partial knowledge of how chemstry works "less plausible" than zero knowledge about how God works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by angletracks, posted 04-26-2012 5:50 PM angletracks has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024