Problems & confusion with the Multiverse

[Audie]

There it is...a typical science-illiterate “creationist” response.

If evidence are not necessary, then no models would be “science”.

The explanations of any hypothesis or existing theory could be weak or wrong, and the only ways to determine that, are with evidence.

Maths alone, don’t make the explanations of any hypothesis or any theory, “science”. The maths could be wrong, and the only way to determine if the equations are correct or incorrect, are with evidence.

A new hypothesis must succeed in the TESTING part of Scientific Method (eg evidence or experiments, and the data, are observations needed to test the hypothesis), before you know whether evidence support the hypothesis or refute the hypothesis,

Do you know what is worse than the evidence refuting a falsifiable hypothesis?

The worse thing that can happen, if there are no way to test the hypothesis, as in there are zero evidence. That would mean the concept or model is unfalsifiable, which essentially means the model is untestable.

Unfalsifiable models don’t even qualify as being a “hypothesis”.

Without evidence, any idea, concept or claim would fail the testing process of the Scientific Method, therefore it can be dismissed.

The only advice I would give you if you presented unfalsifiable and unsubstantiated model, is throw it in the trash can...or better, yet flush it down the toilet.

And do you what unfalsifiable? Anything to do with supernatural. And supernatural would include believing in magic or magical beings (eg spirits, deities, demons, fairies, etc).

Intelligent Design would be an example of unfalsifiable concept, because there are no way to test the so-called Designer.

You cannot observe or detect a Designer any more than could with the leprechaun. You cannot quantify or measure the Designer.

Sorry, Leroy, but you have just exposed how very little you understand as to what constituted as “science”.

Only a creationist would say evidence are not necessary in science.

Winner frubal with a side of truffles

 

[shunyadragon]

--
I woudl say it is the opposite

What alternative objective verifiable evidence supports any hypothesis other than abiogenesis. Please present the hypothesis and the evidence that supports it.

So far in your whole history of your posts you have expressed an intentional ignorance of science based on an ancient tribal religious agenda.

 

[leroy]

Scientifically, this is a bit of a no-brainer. Every single bit of evidence suggests that life requires certain conditions to survive, that there was no life on Earth before a specific point, and we know of no other life elsewhere.

Now, it's not against the evidence that life before that point did exist elsewhere, or even that it got to Earth from elsewhere, but the idea that it existed before the necessary elements were even present in the universe (before the first stellar nucleosynthesis) is, according to all the evidence we have about life, impossible. Therefore your 'hypothesis' 2, can be dismissed. It would rely totally on blind faith in some completely different form of life, for which we have no evidence at all, and would also, incidentally, require time to be infinite in the past direction too - something that is far from certain.

ETA: I should perhaps add, that you might posit that, if time is finite in the past, then it's still logically possible for life to have 'always existed' (there was no point in time at which it didn't exist) but that doesn't make it eternal, and also requires blind faith in a form of life for which we have zero evidence.

That is my point


The single fact that life cant be eternal, shows that life came to be at some point in the past (abiogenesis)

You don't need to test abiogebesis directly , all you have to do is show that life cant be eternal

 

[leroy]

We know of know vertebrates that have crawl on dry land until species of the lobe-finned fishes (the taxon class Sarcopterygii), eg the tiktaaliks. The earliest tetrapod amphibians evolved from one of these earlier lobe-finned fishes. This divergence of amphibians from fishes occurred sometimes during the Devonian period.

Prior to the earliest known bony fishes, marine and aquatic invertebrates animals exist as early as the Ediacaran period. Prior to the Ediacaran, the most dominant organisms for billions of years, were bacteria and archaea.

The oldest fossil evidence of life were discovered among the earliest fossilized stromatolites, in Western Australia. Some of these microfossils were as old 3.7 billion years old.

These earlier bacteria are not like those today. Today, bacteria can exist in both abiotic and biotic environments, but prior to 2.6 billion years ago, all bacteria could only lived in abiotic environments, atmosphere with no free oxygen; the air prior to the Great Oxygenated Event, were mainly carbon dioxide and methane.
My points are that bacterial fossils found among these ancient stromatolites are the oldest evidence (so far) of microorganisms, predating the oldest marine (invertebrate) animals (Ediacaran period), by 3 billion years.

Prior to the earliest bacteria, there were no evidence that life existed before them.

So that make your 2nd “alternative” hypothesis, not true, not that I would even qualify as a hypothesis, as hypothesis required more detailed explanations and at least some sorts of preliminary observations of evidence.

This:



...isn’t falsifiable, therefore it cannot even be called a hypothesis.

..

This:

Alternative hypothesis

2 Life is eternal and has always existed.

...isn’t falsifiable, therefore it cannot even be called a hypothesis.
................................

We know that we need carbon in order to have life


We know that Carbon didn't existed in the solar sistem 5B years ago

Therefore life didn't existed 5B years ago

Therefore life is not eternal

Therefore the hypothesis has been falsified..... therefore ot is falsifiable

 

[shunyadragon]

That is my point


The single fact that life cant be eternal, shows that life came to be at some point in the past (abiogenesis)

You don't need to test abiogebesis directly , all you have to do is show that life cant be eternal

Life on this planet has a documented beginning when the proper environment existed in the past. Prior to that, there was no evidence of life. The key environment came into existence somewhat prior~3,7 billion years ago after continental drift began and mid-ocean ridges from ed with the vents formed where we find the first primitive life,

 

[gnostic]

We know that we need carbon in order to have life


We know that Carbon didn't existed in the solar sistem 5B years ago

Therefore life didn't existed 5B years ago

Therefore life is not eternal

Therefore the hypothesis has been falsified..... therefore ot is falsifiable

Excuse me.

But the Earth being created and started out and being covered completely in water, the primeval ocean, eg the “deep” or the “abyss”, in Genesis 1:1-2, isn’t falsifiable. In fact, whoever Genesis got the primeval ocean from either the Egyptian Nu, or the Sumerian-Akkadian Nammu (Tiamat) and Abzû (Aspu).

At no time, was the Earth ever completely covered with water. This is a myth, as are the Genesis Flood of Genesis 7 & 8.

Then there is passage which God uttered a few words - “Let there be light”, and then light just “magically” *poof* into existence that supposed to represent “daylight” (Genesis 1:3-5) even before the Sun was created, isn’t also “falsifiable”. Light don’t simply “magically” appear because some being say a few words.

And then there is Genesis 2:7, where God “magically” created a FULLY-GROWN human male from non-living dust or soil.

I know from my studies about soil, that soil are porous substances, comprising of 45% of minerals, particularly inorganic minerals, of silicate, and less than 5% of organic matters, especially matters that come from decomposed organisms, or from waste products, like shedding of hair, fur, scales or skins, or from animal urines or feces, etc. the other 50% are the pores of soil that are either with gases or water.

But according to Genesis 2, Adam was created before there were vegetation and before there were any animals, which would mean there would be no organic matters in the soil, just minerals, water & gases. Genesis 2 clearly stated that when Adam was created (2:7), there were no vegetation...

Genesis 2

5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no vegetation of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground

Vegetation wasn’t only created after Adam’s creation, the Garden of Eden (2:8-10).

This timeline of man being created before vegetation, contradicted Genesis 1, where vegetation were created before humans.

Plus, going back to the soil, being largely made of inorganic minerals, silicates (the most basic chemical composition of silicate molecule is silicon dioxide (SiO2)), like quartz, feldspar or mica, no such minerals exist in any human cells or tissues.

You said it yourself, organisms are largely made of carbon-based molecules, and silicate are not carbon-based, and there are no single silicate in a human body. You cannot magically turn silicon into carbon.

That human being made without reproduction, fully-grown, being able to speak without learning the language (eg 2:19, Adam naming each animal), and the source materials being silicon-based soil...all that, are not falsifiable.

And lastly, if God as the Creator was the source of all things, then you should be able to observe and test God. As you cannot, then God himself “ISN’T FALSIFIABLE”.

 

[leroy]

Life on this planet has a documented beginning when the proper environment existed in the past. Prior to that, there was no evidence of life. The key environment came into existence somewhat prior~3,7 billion years ago after continental drift began and mid-ocean ridges from ed with the vents formed where we find the first primitive life,

Ok but even without that evidence, we would know that life is not past eternal agree ?

 

[leroy]

Excuse me.

But the Earth being created and started out and being covered completely in water, the primeval ocean, eg the “deep” or the “abyss”, in Genesis 1:1-2, isn’t falsifiable. In fact, whoever Genesis got the primeval ocean from either the Egyptian Nu, or the Sumerian-Akkadian Nammu (Tiamat) and Abzû (Aspu).

At no time, was the Earth ever completely covered with water. This is a myth, as are the Genesis Flood of Genesis 7 & 8.

Then there is passage which God uttered a few words - “Let there be light”, and then light just “magically” *poof* into existence that supposed to represent “daylight” (Genesis 1:3-5) even before the Sun was created, isn’t also “falsifiable”. Light don’t simply “magically” appear because some being say a few words.

And then there is Genesis 2:7, where God “magically” created a FULLY-GROWN human male from non-living dust or soil.

I know from my studies about soil, that soil are porous substances, comprising of 45% of minerals, particularly inorganic minerals, of silicate, and less than 5% of organic matters, especially matters that come from decomposed organisms, or from waste products, like shedding of hair, fur, scales or skins, or from animal urines or feces, etc. the other 50% are the pores of soil that are either with gases or water.

But according to Genesis 2, Adam was created before there were vegetation and before there were any animals, which would mean there would be no organic matters in the soil, just minerals, water & gases. Genesis 2 clearly stated that when Adam was created (2:7), there were no vegetation...



Vegetation wasn’t only created after Adam’s creation, the Garden of Eden (2:8-10).

This timeline of man being created before vegetation, contradicted Genesis 1, where vegetation were created before humans.

Plus, going back to the soil, being largely made of inorganic minerals, silicates (the most basic chemical composition of silicate molecule is silicon dioxide (SiO2)), like quartz, feldspar or mica, no such minerals exist in any human cells or tissues.

You said it yourself, organisms are largely made of carbon-based molecules, and silicate are not carbon-based, and there are no single silicate in a human body. You cannot magically turn silicon into carbon.

That human being made without reproduction, fully-grown, being able to speak without learning the language (eg 2:19, Adam naming each animal), and the source materials being silicon-based soil...all that, are not falsifiable.

And lastly, if God as the Creator was the source of all things, then you should be able to observe and test God. As you cannot, then God himself “ISN’T FALSIFIABLE”.

Wrong post, nobody is talking about the flood


I said that we can show that life is not past eternal.......so ether refute or accept this claim

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok but even without that evidence, we would know that life is not past eternal agree ?

By the evidence life on this planet is not past eternal.

At present there is not an alternate hypothesis that explains the evidence we presently have for abiogenesis as a biochemical process for the origin of life.

 

[leroy]

By the evidence life on this planet is not past eternal.

At present there is not an alternate hypothesis that explains the evidence we presently have for abiogenesis as a biochemical process for the origin of life.

Yes that is my point.

Given that life is not past eternal…………….abiogenesis necessarily had to occur at some point in the past.

Any disagreement?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes that is my point.

Given that life is not past eternal…………….abiogenesis necessarily had to occur at some point in the past.

Any disagreement?

I am not sure what the context of this involves your argument, but the occurrence of abiogenesis is not a point in time, but nonetheless once life forms became dominant along the spreading zone vents, the primitive forms of pre-life became primary food for the early live forms.

Today this complex rich mix of amino acids are consumed by the bacteria and other micro organisms among the vents, which in turn is the meals of higher life forms.

 

[leroy]

I am not sure what the context of this involves your argument, but the occurrence of abiogenesis is not a point in time, but nonetheless once life forms became dominant along the spreading zone vents, the primitive forms of pre-life became primary food for the early live forms.

Today this complex rich mix of amino acids are consumed by the bacteria and other micro organisms among the vents, which in turn is the meals of higher life forms.

My point is that we don’t *need* direct evidence for abiogenesis……………… the fact alone that life is not eternal is sufficient to show that somehow abiogenesis took place



The higher context of the conversation is that while direct evidence and testing hypothesis directly is a great thing to have, ……. It is not indispensable to establish that a hypothesis is true. ………….. if you show that all the alternative hypothesis are wrong, then the remaining hypothesis has to be true.

 

[ratiocinator]

The higher context of the conversation is that while direct evidence and testing hypothesis directly is a great thing to have, ……. It is not indispensable to establish that a hypothesis is true. …………..

Except, of course, that the reasons we know that life can't be past eternal is because of direct evidence for a time at which the necessary ingredients didn't exist. Not to mention the evidence that life requires certain ingredients.

 

[shunyadragon]

My point is that we don’t *need* direct evidence for abiogenesis……………… the fact alone that life is not eternal is sufficient to show that somehow abiogenesis took place



The higher context of the conversation is that while direct evidence and testing hypothesis directly is a great thing to have, ……. It is not indispensable to establish that a hypothesis is true. ………….. if you show that all the alternative hypothesis are wrong, then the remaining hypothesis has to be true.

No hypothesis had to be true for any reason. The hypothesis for abiogenesis if the environment and the chemical evolution of the prebiotic the environment of abiogenesis is well understood. The present focus of science is abiogenesis steps from prebiotic chemistry to the firt life forms.

 

[leroy]

Except, of course, that the reasons we know that life can't be past eternal is because of direct evidence for a time at which the necessary ingredients didn't exist. Not to mention the evidence that life requires certain ingredients.

agree, I never said, nor implied the opposite

 

[nPeace]

But nevertheless........ Again, IF the model is correct, then the predictions of said model are correct.

How circular is that.
>>It is assumed the predictions are correct, therefore the model is correct. If the model is correct...>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

[ratiocinator]

How circular is that.

Not at all. You seem to have totally misunderstood.

>>It is assumed the predictions are correct, therefore the model is correct. If the model is correct...>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You don't assume the predictions are correct at all. You test the predictions. If a prediction is true, that adds evidence for the model. If we find even one prediction is false, then that shows that there is something wrong with the model, because, if the model is true, then it follows that all its predictions will be true, so finding one that fails casts doubt on the model itself. Conversely, the more successful predictions we find, the more confidence we have in the model, and hence its other predictions. It doesn't mean you give up testing them, but some may be very difficult to test in practice.

 

[nPeace]

Not at all. You seem to have totally misunderstood.


You don't assume the predictions are correct at all. You test the predictions. If a prediction is true, that adds evidence for the model. If we find even one prediction is false, then that shows that there is something wrong with the model, because, if the model is true, then it follows that all its predictions will be true, so finding one that fails casts doubt on the model itself. Conversely, the more successful predictions we find, the more confidence we have in the model, and hence its other predictions. It doesn't mean you give up testing them, but some may be very difficult to test in practice.

Isn't it true that many predictions were false, but the model is retained, and adjustments made to fit the model?
For example... List of unsolved problems in physics - Wikipedia

 

[ratiocinator]

Isn't it true that many predictions were false, but the model is retained, and adjustments made to fit the model?
For example... List of unsolved problems in physics - Wikipedia

What model are you talking about? The first item is quantum gravity - nobody has ever claimed to have a tested model of that. The next few are well known outstanding problems where we already know there are holes in what we know. These are 'known unknowns'.

Physics isn't a model (theory), it's a whole subject area. Nobody has ever claimed it was finished.

 

[nPeace]

What model are you talking about? The first item is quantum gravity - nobody has ever claimed to have a tested model of that. The next few are well known outstanding problems where we already know there are holes in what we know. These are 'known unknowns'.

Physics isn't a model (theory), it's a whole subject area. Nobody has ever claimed it was finished.

You evidently missed the point.
It's probably my fault though. I should have picked out one or two specifics. I keep forgetting I am on RF.

• Inflation typically produces a different pattern of temperature variation in the CMB (although it can be made to predict almost any outcome). It would also generate primordial gravitational waves, which have not been found.