Non-Sense of Macro Evolutionary Faith

[billvon]

Science provides no basis for morality.

Rational self-interest and game theory does.

Science provides no empirical basis for understanding how we got here

It provides a great deal of empirical bases for understanding how we got here. Fossils, carbon dating, DNA analysis and comparative anatomy all provide empirical evidence for our evolution.

How do you use Science to get rid of fortune and fame seeking, when it uses both?

?? You may have science confused with reality TV or something.

How would you use Science to remove greed, and arrogance, for example?

I wouldn't. Those are vices, not science.

How will Science stop evil and stop the abuse of power?

Well, by placing more power in the hands of people, for example.

 

[(Q)]

Science provides no empirical basis for understanding how we got here, other than assumption based on assumption based on more assumptions. Scientists do not even agree on how we got here.

There you go again, making false statements. How do expect to achieve anything when you haven't a basis for morality yourself?

 

[DaveC426913]

Love is caring for others and wanting the best things possible for them. Love includes both respect and truth.

Thread has been reported for OP's bait-and-switch. Started off as one thing but has devolved into nothing more than preaching about God.

 

[paddoboy]

Ok, so what is your plan to heal the world and stop all wars in the future?

It would be really handy to know how to do this!

Science provides no basis for morality.

While science and the scientific method is not perfect, [nothing is] do you realise that since around 2000 when the ISS was completed, that we have had humans in space every day since?
Do you understand the amount of co-orporation that took between the two super powers, the USA and RUSSIA, or more correctly their science departments, like NASA and Roscosmos?

Science provides no empirical basis for understanding how we got here, other than assumption based on assumption based on more assumptions. Scientists do not even agree on how we got here.

That is a lie...so much for god, religion and the other virtues you preach about.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

That is a lie...so much for god, religion and the other virtues you preach about.

Ok, please just answer one simple question.

Did life begin in a prebiotic soup, or in the sea, or on another planet entirely?

Just pick one, any one, and you will automatically disagree with many Scientists, and many here as well.

So which do you choose?

A) Prebiotic Soup
B) In the Sea
C) On Another Planet
or
D) All of the Above

And please prove your answer, Empirically.

OK?

I really don’t think you know.

 

[paddoboy]

Ok, please just answer one simple question.

Did life begin in a prebiotic soup, or in the sea, or on another planet entirely?

Just pick one, any one, and you will automatically disagree with many Scientists, and many here as well.

So which do you choose?

A) Prebiotic Soup
B) In the Sea
C) On Another Planet
or
D) All of the Above

And please prove your answer, Empirically.

OK?

I really don’t think you know.

You're correct, I don't know. But I do know like the professionals that Abiogenesis is a fact...the exact pathway or methodology is at this time unknown. No one has ever said science knows it all...but that will always be the goal, bit by bit by bit by bit.
Stop being so dishonestly pretentious.

 

[(Q)]

Ok, please just answer one simple question.

Did life begin in a prebiotic soup, or in the sea, or on another planet entirely?

While the answer to that is still not known definitively, scientists understand that life came from non-life, not by mythical and magical thinking, but by the laws of physics and chemistry, naturally over extremely long periods of time.

And, we know that you believe your God waved his magical hand and *poof* the universe suddenly appeared out of nothingness in all it's glory. Halle-friggin-lugah!!

 

[billvon]

Did life begin in a prebiotic soup, or in the sea, or on another planet entirely?

We don't know for sure yet. We will find out.

 

[Hipparchia]

Science provides no basis for morality.

This is a two part response:
1st Part: Why would you expect science to provide a basis for morality? That is not its function. Would you expect a kindergarten to provide a basis for mining copper? The function of science is to provide a better understanding of the world for the dual purposes of satisfying our curiosity and providing beneficial technology.

2nd Part: While science is not designed to provide a basis for morality it turns out that it does. By giving us an appreciation of the nature of the universe, our place within it and an understanding of how humanity evolved physically, socially and culturally, we can more readily discern what is appropriate behaviour. The environmentalist who notes that we hold the planet in trust for those who come after is on a higher moral plane than the fundamentalist Christian who insists God created the plants anad animals for our exclusive benefit.

Science provides no empirical basis for understanding how we got here, other than assumption based on assumption based on more assumptions.

Either you do not know what the word empirical means, or you have been very determined in keeping your eyes closed and your mind shut. We have evidence from anthropology, from archaeology, from biology, from genetics, from palaeontology and more besides that give us a quite detailed picture of "how we got here".
Of course science uses assumptions. Assumptions that are then rigorously tested, abandoned if they fail, or adapted in the light of the test results, so that our understanding is progressively improved.

Scientists do not even agree on how we got here.

Nonsense. They argue about details, but the broad picture is clear. If you think otherwise produce some citation of scientists disagreeing over the general picture.

How do you use Science to get rid of fortune and fame seeking, when it uses both?

It is not the function of science to get rid of fortune and fame seeking. (By the way, very few persons enter science in order to acquire a fortune, and very few of them succeed.) I notice Christianity has not always been successful of getting rid of those. In fact a large number of tele-evangelists have used Christianty to attain both. I don't blame Christianity for that. I blame the individuals.

How would you use Science to remove greed, and arrogance, for example?

You don't use science. You use the findings of science. Science tells us something of the sources of greed and arrogance. Knowledge is a prerequisite for any solution. I favour the knowledge that has been acquired through rigorous scientific investigation than the dull interpretations of ancient texts.

How will Science stop evil and stop the abuse of power?

Not the job of science, but of indivuals and populations who have an informed knowledge of the world. You may remain part of the problem by remaining ignorant. It is your choice. It just makes things a little harder for the rest of us.

 

[(Q)]

Nonsense. They argue about details, but the broad picture is clear. If you think otherwise produce some citation of scientists disagreeing over the general picture.

Response to this question will often produce articles from the Discovery Institute which Seti has done in the past.

 

[Hipparchia]

Response to this question will often produce articles from the Discovery Institute which Seti has done in the past.

I look forward to the opportunity to deconstruct, dismember and devalue those.

 

[Yazata]

Ok, please just answer one simple question.

Did life begin in a prebiotic soup, or in the sea, or on another planet entirely?

I don't know.

Just pick one, any one, and you will automatically disagree with many Scientists, and many here as well.

No scientist knows how life originated and certainly nobody here on Sciforums knows. If any of them did, they should publish it along with the justification for it, and collect their Nobel prize.

It's true that many scientists publish hypotheses about how it might have happened. Not all of the hypotheses are consistent with one another. And few if any of them address the entire question of life's origins, but only various sub-questions, such as how the first nucleic acid chains might have polymerized.

So which do you choose?

A) Prebiotic Soup
B) In the Sea
C) On Another Planet
or
D) All of the Above

How about E) Don't know.

And please prove your answer, Empirically.

If you mean "prove" literally, I think that you are misusing the word. If you mean it colloquially to mean 'produce a convincing argument for', then...

As long as we continue to lack time-scopes that enable us to observe the past, and time-machines that allow us to go back and collect physical samples, we won't know what actually happened. The surviving geological remnants of the hadean and early archaean periods is too fragmentary, too distorted by subsequent geological processes like plate tectonics. Its interpretation too hypothetical in its own right to answer the kind of minute biochemical questions we need to answer about the origin of life.

The best that science can seemingly do is try to figure out what kind of physical conditions existed on the early Earth. Even that is little known and hugely hypothetical. Then the biochemists can propose possible mechanisms that might take place in those hypothetical conditions. Of course we still won't know if those precise mechanisms actually occurred. A big problem there is that there may be a multitude of biochemical pathways that might conceivably have led to life. Different steps in different orders. It might be forever impossible to know which hypothesis is the correct one.

I really don’t think you know.

Nobody does. Certainly nobody on Sciforums. Anyone who pretends that they do is just expressing their own faith.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

There you go again, making false statements. How do expect to achieve anything when you haven't a basis for morality yourself?

How, when, and where did life begin?

We are not even close to knowing this Empirically.

If this is a false statement then simply prove it is false with Empirical Evidence.

Some others here are even saying we don’t know.

I am not the only one.

The Conclusion Of Naturalistic Causes is flat out assumed before any experiments are ever done.

And even after the experiments are done and fail, the Conclusion is still forced on everyone because of Naturalistic faith.

Or you can kiss your Career goodbye!

It is fine to keep trying, but it is not fine to tell the world we are close, when we are not.

That would be a lie!

 

[Yazata]

Science provides no basis for morality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact–value_distinction

 

[billvon]

The Conclusion Of Naturalistic Causes is flat out assumed before any experiments are ever done.

Yes, it is. Occam's Razor. Same way we assume that a lightning bolt was caused by atmospheric charges and not Thor.

Your refrigerator could be operated by God, who keeps the cold air molecules in and the hot air molecules out. However, we assume that it works like every other refrigerator, because that is a reasonable assumption - and because every single time we've looked at a vapor-compression cycle refrigerator it works exactly the same way. No God involved.

Likewise, every time we have looked into biology - how our cells, organs and body systems work - we have found a science-based reason that it works. No God involved.

Likewise, every time we have looked into chemistry - how compounds form from simpler elements - we have found a science-based reason that it works. No God involved.

Every time we have looked into ANYTHING we have found a naturalistic explanation. Never, not once, have we found a process that could only be explained by supernatural means. We now know of half a dozen different ways life COULD have begun - from DNA world to lipid world to the clay adsorption hypothesis. Again, no need for anything supernatural. Which one was the actual process? We don't know. It was likely a combination of several.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Yes, it is. Occam's Razor. Same way we assume that a lightning bolt was caused by atmospheric charges and not Thor.

Your refrigerator could be operated by God, who keeps the cold air molecules in and the hot air molecules out. However, we assume that it works like every other refrigerator, because that is a reasonable assumption - and because every single time we've looked at a vapor-compression cycle refrigerator it works exactly the same way. No God involved.

Likewise, every time we have looked into biology - how our cells, organs and body systems work - we have found a science-based reason that it works. No God involved.

Likewise, every time we have looked into chemistry - how compounds form from simpler elements - we have found a science-based reason that it works. No God involved.

Every time we have looked into ANYTHING we have found a naturalistic explanation. Never, not once, have we found a process that could only be explained by supernatural means. We now know of half a dozen different ways life COULD have begun - from DNA world to lipid world to the clay adsorption hypothesis. Again, no need for anything supernatural. Which one was the actual process? We don't know. It was likely a combination of several.

I agree that...

Physical and Chemical Causes are certainly the best default position. At least, until we are trying to understand things that have Off the Scale, Specified Complexity.

That is what I do.

But we would be crazy to think that our own Intelligence cannot also act within the Physical and Chemical to bring about the existence of Specified Complexity. I know you are not crazy, so?

Someone really better tell Elon Musk that he can’t use his own Intelligence to alter Natural Causes, because Science has determined that is impossible.

Apparently Science doesn’t allow for the existence of Intelligence, I mean, I guess? What??? Really???

If a rock falls off of a cliff and I see it and catch it to prevent it from injuring Q. The injury would have been potentially caused by Natural Causation but would actually be prevented by Intelligent Causation.

We see both Natural Causation and Intelligent Causation at work in our world every moment of our lives.

The mere existence of one never excludes the existence of the other.

Both, obviously exist!

1. Natural Causations Exist. (Many Exist)
2. Intelligent Causations Exist (Many Exist)

And we see both in operation every moment of every day we are alive.

Scientists even use Intelligent Causation to try and prove that Intelligent Causation dose not exist.

Oh my Science!

(PS: My refrigerator was designed and made using Intelligent Causation). Actually both!!!

 

[(Q)]

How, when, and where did life begin?

We are not even close to knowing this Empirically.

If this is a false statement then simply prove it is false with Empirical Evidence.

Some others here are even saying we don’t know.

I am not the only one.

What you say and what others here say are two different things. While others understand that we don't know exactly how life came from non-life on Earth, we certainly aren't "not even close".

The Conclusion Of Naturalistic Causes is flat out assumed before any experiments are ever done.

And even after the experiments are done and fail, the Conclusion is still forced on everyone because of Naturalistic faith.

Or you can kiss your Career goodbye!

It is fine to keep trying, but it is not fine to tell the world we are close, when we are not.

That would be a lie!

All of that is the usual ignorant, dishonest nonsense you spew here. It seems that speaking the truth isn't something you're interested in doing, so please don't categorize yourself with others here.

 

[(Q)]

I agree that...

Physical and Chemical Causes are certainly the best default position. At least, until we are trying to understand things that have Off the Scale, Specified Complexity.

That is what I do.

But we would be crazy to think that our own Intelligence cannot also act within the Physical and Chemical to bring about the existence of Specified Complexity. I know you are not crazy, so?

Someone really better tell Elon Musk that he can’t use his own Intelligence to alter Natural Causes, because Science has determined that is impossible.

Apparently Science doesn’t allow for the existence of Intelligence, I mean, I guess? What??? Really???

If a rock falls off of a cliff and I see it and catch it to prevent it from injuring Q. The injury would have been potentially caused by Natural Causation but would actually be prevented by Intelligent Causation.

We see both Natural Causation and Intelligent Causation at work in our world every moment of our lives.

The mere existence of one never excludes the existence of the other.

Both, obviously exist!

1. Natural Causations Exist. (Many Exist)
2. Intelligent Causations Exist (Many Exist)

And we see both in operation every moment of every day we are alive.

Scientists even use Intelligent Causation to try and prove that Intelligent Causation dose not exist.

Oh my Science!

(PS: My refrigerator was designed and made using Intelligent Causation). Actually both!!!

Pretty much everything you said there is gibberish.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

What you say and what others here say are two different things. While others understand that we don't know exactly how life came from non-life on Earth, we certainly aren't "not even close".



All of that is the usual ignorant, dishonest nonsense you spew here. It seems that speaking the truth isn't something you're interested in doing, so please don't categorize yourself with others here.

Hey, at least I prevented that imaginary rock from hurting you!

I am happy about that!!!

 

[billvon]

Physical and Chemical Causes are certainly the best default position. At least, until we are trying to understand things that have Off the Scale, Specified Complexity.

Nope. Even things as complex as mammals and galaxies are readily understandable from the perspective of natural causes.

Someone really better tell Elon Musk that he can’t use his own Intelligence to alter Natural Causes, because Science has determined that is impossible.

No one is claiming it is. You have created a strawman again.

Apparently Science doesn’t allow for the existence of Intelligence, I mean, I guess? What??? Really???

Only you claim that.

If a rock falls off of a cliff and I see it and catch it to prevent it from injuring Q. The injury would have been potentially caused by Natural Causation but would actually be prevented by Intelligent Causation.

Right. The causation is still natural. Your eyes work by physical means. Your brain works through biological and chemical means. Your stopping of the rock is explainable by physical means.

Your intelligence is entirely natural, running on a "processor" that obeys physical rules like anything else.

Scientists even use Intelligent Causation to try and prove that Intelligent Causation dose not exist.

Nope. You have created a strawman.