Why male and female?

Originally posted by humy

So you are saying that you believe in abiogenesis, although you can't show that it happened by the Scientific Method.

Couldn't the use of just applying flawless logic on some trivial observations not be scientific method?

It is just a trivial observation that life exists and physically exists today.
Therefore, given that life exists, ...[text shortened]... a beginning or not, either way, you should rationally assume abiogenesis must have happened.

If you can't test it or recreate it, then you can't say you are using the Scientific Method. If you believe in something that can't be tested, then you are simply believing it by faith.

If you want to claim that you simply believe what has been tested by science, then you are limited to what can be demonstrated. Now this does not mean you can't rationalize why your beliefs are correct, but that is just self delusion if you are unwilling to face the obvious facts.

Originally posted by Eladar
If you can't test it or recreate it, then you can't say you are using the Scientific Method. If you believe in something that can't be tested, then you are simply believing it by faith.

If you want to claim that you simply believe what has been tested by science, then you are limited to what can be demonstrated. Now this does not mean you can't rationali ...[text shortened]... are correct, but that is just self delusion if you are unwilling to face the obvious facts.

If you want to claim that you simply believe what has been tested by science,

No, obviously I don't want to claim that and I never have. Where did you get that from? If I observed myself sneeze, i believe I have just sneezed and this fact has not been tested by science.

If you can't test it or recreate it, then you can't say you are using the Scientific Method.

If that was true, then I assume there would hardly be such thing as the science of pure mathematics nor the science of epistemology for both are purely deductive.
But, even if you are right (which you are not) and applying flawless logic to observations is never correctly defined as “ Scientific Method” then that doesn't in anyway discredit observation and flawless logic thus my deduction still stands unshaken -logic dictates that you must rationally assume abiogenesis happened (for the reason I explained in my last post)

You have said nothing to counter argue my argument in my last post.
perhaps you should consider reading and comprehending it? then you can tell us all exactly what is wrong with it.

Originally posted by humy

If you want to claim that you simply believe what has been tested by science,

No, obviously I don't want to claim that and I never have. Where did you get that from? If I observed myself sneeze, i believe I have just sneezed and this fact has not been tested by science.

[quote] If you can't test it or recreate it, then you can't say ...[text shortened]... nsider reading and comprehending it? then you can tell us all exactly what is wrong with it.

Rationalize if you wish, I'm sure it makes you feel better about your firm grasp on the nature of our existance. If it makes you feel good, then I suppose it is serving a purpose.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are getting desperate now, for that is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard from a a persom claiming to know how science works. It has already been proven that the universe had a beginning and that the earth had a beginning and that living things on the earth also had a beginning. Those are the accepted facts by the scientist of today.

Wha ...[text shortened]... n this topic are speculating on discovering the maximum age of these unknowns.

The Instructor

It has already been proven that the universe had a beginning and that the earth had a beginning and that living things on the earth also had a beginning.

Can't you read you moron? I never said it wasn't proven. I said “extremely hypothetically....”. The rest of your post is the usual pure crap.

Originally posted by Eladar
Rationalize if you wish, I'm sure it makes you feel better about your firm grasp on the nature of our existance. If it makes you feel good, then I suppose it is serving a purpose.

It doesn't make me feel good or bad in particular just to base my beliefs on flawless logic applied to observation. I do not need to rationalize my beliefs because I do not want to believe the particular conclusions of by flawless deductions but rather I want to believe whatever conclusions follow from by flawless deductions regardless of what exactly those conclusions are and I want this because I want to know the truth regardless of whether that truth is one that I like or dislike or even bitterly hate.

Obviously the total absence of any counter argument from you to my argument shows you have no counter argument.

Originally posted by humy
It doesn't make me feel good or bad in particular just to base my beliefs on flawless logic applied to observation. I do not need to rationalize my beliefs because I do not want to believe the particular conclusions of by flawless deductions but rather I want to believe whatever conclusions follow from by flawless deductions regardless of what exactly those con ...[text shortened]... tal absence of any counter argument from you to my argument shows you have no counter argument.

Flawless logic is in the mind of the beholder.

What do you know of proof by recursion?

Originally posted by Eladar
So you are saying that you believe in abiogenesis, although you can't show that it happened by the Scientific Method. In other words, you admit that you simply have faith that abiogenesis is how life came into existance.

No, where did I say I believe in abiogenesis?
I didn't actually say, but this is what I think (not believe, as it is not religious):
1. Life exists now.
2. Life did not exist at the big bang.
3. Life must have started at some point.
4. The most reasonable explanation to date is abiogenesis on the earth.
5. I am however open to the possibility of abiogenesis on some other planet and life travelling to earth.
6. I consider the existence of God and his creation of life by whatever means to be an unreasonable and unnecessary explanation ie I see no evidence pointing towards it and no evidence pointing against purely natural abiogenesis.
7. I am not sure if any of the above is what you might call 'the scientific method'. The evidence it is based upon however was gathered via the scientific method, although probably not as you seem to think the scientific method is to be interpreted.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, where did I say I believe in abiogenesis?
I didn't actually say, but this is what I think (not believe, as it is not religious):
1. Life exists now.
2. Life did not exist at the big bang.
3. Life must have started at some point.
4. The most reasonable explanation to date is abiogenesis on the earth.
5. I am however open to the possibility of abi ...[text shortened]... ee no evidence pointing towards it and no evidence pointing against purely natural abiogenesis.

Your argument is that you believe the natural explanation of abiogenesis is better than God created life because you discount the existance of God.

Pretty circular reasoning there.

Originally posted by Eladar
If you want to claim that you simply believe what has been tested by science, then you are limited to what can be demonstrated. Now this does not mean you can't rationalize why your beliefs are correct, but that is just self delusion if you are unwilling to face the obvious facts.

So please clarify what you mean by the above. Are you saying for example that if we can't put a bit of the sun in a test tube, then we cannot know it is made of hydrogen and helium and is powered by nuclear fusion? What sort of 'testing' is acceptable?
For example if I test a rock to determine its age, am I using the scientific method?
Or are you like Kelly who believes that we cannot know anything about the past (unless of course it is not controversial, then he has no problems whatsoever).

Originally posted by twhitehead
So please clarify what you mean by the above. Are you saying for example that if we can't put a bit of the sun in a test tube, then we cannot know it is made of hydrogen and helium and is powered by nuclear fusion? What sort of 'testing' is acceptable?
For example if I test a rock to determine its age, am I using the scientific method?

I'm saying that if you believe in something that you can't see at all and have never seen happen, then you are taking a leap of faith.

Originally posted by Eladar
Your argument is that you believe the natural explanation of abiogenesis is better than God created life because you discount the existance of God.

Pretty circular reasoning there.

How is that circular?
1. I do not believe in God.
2. I know of no reason why purely natural abiogenesis could not have taken place.
3. I do not invoke God as an explanation for the existence of life.
Where is the circle?

Do you believe in God?
Do you invoke God as an explanation for everything from the color of the sky to the fact that water flows down hill? Do you use circular reasoning when you don't invoke God as an answer to anything?

Originally posted by Eladar
I'm saying that if you believe in something that you can't see at all and have never seen happen, then you are taking a leap of faith.

So for you, the planets, atoms, supernovas, virus' etc etc are all 'a leap of faith'? If not, can you be more specific as to why not?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So for you, the planets, atoms, supernovas, virus' etc etc are all 'a leap of faith'? If not, can you be more specific as to why not?

If you can make models describing how things work based on your understanding and the models are accurate, then I accept them as workable.

Science is not perfect. Our understanding is not perfect. I'm sure that at some level our understanding of planets, atoms, supernovas, virus' ect our understanding isn't exactly correct. In the future our understanding will be revised, just as science has been revising its understanding all along.

Originally posted by Eladar
Flawless logic is in the mind of the beholder.

What do you know of proof by recursion?

Flawless logic is in the mind of the beholder.

So?

What do you know of proof by recursion?

This is completely changing the subject -right? I know a lot about it for I did mathematics at university.
What about proof by recursion? How does this relate to my argument for abiogenesis if at all?

Originally posted by Eladar
If you can make models describing how things work based on your understanding and the models are accurate, then I accept them as workable.

What a turnaround. A moment ago, just about everything was a matter of faith.

Science is not perfect. Our understanding is not perfect. I'm sure that at some level our understanding of planets, atoms, supernovas, virus' ect our understanding isn't exactly correct. In the future our understanding will be revised, just as science has been revising its understanding all along.
I fully agree. And if and when there is an alternative model proposed for how life got here other than abiogenesis, and that model fits the data better, then i will accept it as the most likely explanation.

I must point out however that once science gets a good idea about something then the revisions tend to be minor, or only applicable in certain circumstances.
For example, even with Relativity, Newtons laws remain applicable to most circumstances, and gravity still exists whether you consider it a force of some kind or the bending of spacetime, or the Higgs Boson, or whatever.
Similarly, it is obvious that the earth is quite old, that life evolves and has been evolving for some time. These are things that are so well known that science will never change with regards to them. Only small details will change.