Science&Logic-Flawed?

[Scuba Pete]

Science doesn't claim to have the answers.

Bingo!

 

[Fade]

My evidence is the absence of evidence to the contrary. Do you have evidence that science can answer this question?

I can find no evidence that proves that a pink unicorn doesn't exist. Using your logic this means that one does? Please, try harder.

 

[Fade]

Bingo!

Come up to the front and claim your prize!

 

[Scuba Pete]

Thanks... but I already have my prize!

 

[Scuba Pete]

I can find no evidence that proves that a pink unicorn doesn't exist.

EXCELLENT! Yet another area in which Science fails miserably to prove the reality of a situation! You are on a roll, bubba!

 

[Fade]

EXCELLENT! Yet another area in which Science fails miserably to prove the reality of a situation! You are on a roll, bubba!

Er, you have evidence for the existence of a pink unicorn?

 

[michel]

Er, you have evidence for the existence of a pink unicorn?

NO NO NO I am so fed up with pink unicorns ...even I don't ever want to hear about pink unicorns again; white ones, yes - but don't you dare put me off them!:biglaugh:

 

[Ryan2065]

So, you contend that science can tell me where life came from?

Yes science can. There are numerous studies and things of that nature going on to try and answer this simple question. The difference between science answering this question and faith answering this question is that when science answers this question we will be able to make life ourselves (like spontanious generation).

Does it? How has it made my question any clearer?

We now know that the building blocks of life could have been made when the earth was young from the materials present. So I would say that we have made your question clearer.

You still haven't answered this basic question, nor have you demonstrated that science is able to do so.

Where does life come from?

You are expecting the physical to answer the spiritual and thus you will always be frustrated. Science has completely failed us in this respect.

"Life" is not a spiritual question. If you are talking about "souls" and things of that nature, things that are as provable as ghosts then yes they are spiritual. We can currently make life in labs all across america when we combine an egg and a sperm cell. Just because the question is not answered NOW does not mean it will never be answered. Many years ago people believed that lightning was from the gods, now we know it isn't. Give it time NetDoc. And before you go about saying that science cannot answer the question of "where did life come from" please do back it up with some studies or something of the sort.

I have not seen such faith in all of Israel! This is a GREAT example of blind faith. No evidence to support such a claim and yet you are "confident".

Every "phenonmen" (sp?) that was proven to be just nature at work is evidance for finding out the orgins of life.

You do me an injustice. Science can not hope to answer spiritual questions: it's out of it's realm of understanding. I am not running around, and am FAR from frustrated. Science can't answer this most basic of question, and so you cast the problem on my shoulders? Bwahahaha! Science has failed us in this. It's not the first time, and definitely won't be the last time.

Science has failed us? Please do list the times that science has failed us. If you want, I can start up a counter list of the times that religion has failed us. =) Lets see whos list is longer!

My evidence is the absence of evidence to the contrary. Do you have evidence that science can answer this question?

So you are saying that there is no evidance that science can answer the question of "where did life come from"? Yea, not like there are any fields or any studies going on in this. It is nice that you apparently know more than all the scientists currently studying the orgin of life. I am sorry, but until you give evidance to the contrary I will believe the scientsits.

I do not doubt that science exists. I do not doubt that it is useful. The faith I accused you of was your belief that science would one day answer a question it has as of yet to even shed a glimmer of hope in answering. That is the definition of BLIND FAITH. You are so guilty of it too!

Again, there are current studies that are trying to find the orgins of life. This is NOT blind faith, though it is faith.

Dear Fade,

It is indeed a STUNNING admission by harvard. And they are backing their faith in science to find the answer to the tune of $1,000,000.00/year. Now THAT is commitment!

Yes, it is. You asked for evidance that we could answer the question of where did life come from. Here it is. Now please give us evidance that shows that this question cannot be answered.

That's my entire point, bubba. Faith has the only answers to that question. It is indeed a spiritual question and not a physical one. Science has completely failed to answer it, because it is looking for answers in all the wrong places.

Again, your evidance please?

Leaps and bounds? I think it's actually stuck in the mud.

But you can have your blind faith in it as well.

So you have actually read up on the current theories. If you have why do you believe it is stuck in the mud? Do you have any evidance for this?

EXCELLENT! Yet another area in which Science fails miserably to prove the reality of a situation! You are on a roll, bubba!

Science fails us miserably where? In proving that pink unicorns don't exist? Please explain exactly how science fails us in this respect... This would require using the scientific method and showing how any part of the scientific method would not be useful in showing pink unicorns don't exist.

Science is getting better and better every day. Just because something is not currently proven does not mean it will NEVER be proven. Please NetDoc, this logic is extremely flawed. With your logic science will never make any new discoveries because they are not currently proven and it will never disprove something ever again.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Ryan,

you have posted much and have YET to give one iota of evidence about WHERE life came from. It is also a travesty that science can't do something as SIMPLE as prove that there are no pink unicorns.

So here we have it: two facts in THIS THREAD ALONE that science can't even begin to prove or disprove. Even Harvard admits that they don't know the origin of life and are willing to put big bucks where their faith is.

So, do I disbelieve science? By no means. I just realize that it has LIMITS. You can't use the physical to explain the spiritual and vice versa. Why, that's like using a hammer as a scrwedriver. It's simply not designed for it.

 

[Pah]

Ryan,

you have posted much and have YET to give one iota of evidence about WHERE life came from. It is also a travesty that science can't do something as SIMPLE as prove that there are no pink unicorns.

So here we have it: two facts in THIS THREAD ALONE that science can't even begin to prove or disprove. Even Harvard admits that they don't know the origin of life and are willing to put big bucks where their faith is.

So, do I disbelieve science? By no means. I just realize that it has LIMITS. You can't use the physical to explain the spiritual and vice versa. Why, that's like using a hammer as a scrwedriver. It's simply not designed for it.

The evidence for abiogenisis is evolution. It is up to you to show that the extrapolation from evolution to the biological begining can not be made.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ryan, you have posted much and have YET to give one iota of evidence about WHERE life came from. ...

It is also a travesty that science can't do something as SIMPLE as prove that there are no pink unicorns.

You can't use the physical to explain the spiritual and vice versa.

WHERE [sic!] life came from is a physical, not spiritual question. The inability to know the answer is a function of lack of evidence, and is no more a "travesty" than is our inability to know what Mark Twain had for breakfast on his 7th birthday.

The inability to "prove that there are no pink unicorns" is neither a physical nor a spiritual issue but, rather, a logical characteristic of all universal negatives.

The spiritual cannot cannot be used to explain the physical because it can not be shown to exist, much less to be capable of proving anything whatsoever.

The only travesty in all this is your disingenuous arguments.

 

[Ryan2065]

you have posted much and have YET to give one iota of evidence about WHERE life came from. It is also a travesty that science can't do something as SIMPLE as prove that there are no pink unicorns.

To say that this is a simple question to prove wrong shows your ignorance. To prove something false (ie completely false) one must prove that there are no pink unicorns anywhere in the entire world. This includes proving that they don't migrate (cause if they do it is 10 times as hard) and then start a scan of every sqaure inch in the entire globe. Every square inch must be studied because if there is a hole big enough for 1 unicorn to pass through then there is still doubt. But according to you its quite easy... guess a world wide study of every inch of the globe to prove soemthing is fasle is easy in your book.

So here we have it: two facts in THIS THREAD ALONE that science can't even begin to prove or disprove. Even Harvard admits that they don't know the origin of life and are willing to put big bucks where their faith is.

Someone better tell them Harvard people that they cant even BEGIN, well according to you. It would sure save them alot of money.

So, do I disbelieve science? By no means. I just realize that it has LIMITS. You can't use the physical to explain the spiritual and vice versa. Why, that's like using a hammer as a scrwedriver. It's simply not designed for it.

You misunderstand science. Science does not prove anything to a 100% certanity except the past. We don't know that gravity is just some huge buddah looking guy holding us all down in place on earth, and we don't know that tomorrow this buddah guy might let go and we would all float up into space. We know with a reasonable certanity that this will not happen.

The trick is being reasonable in your assumptions =) Is it reasonable to assume that science can find an orgin to life? Yes. Will it ever be 100% certain? No, because no one was there. But I believe science can find a way to spontaniously generate life in a lab based on what the world was like when it was young. And using logic one could conclude that is where life came from.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The evidence for abiogenisis is evolution.

Hmnnnnnn, far as I can see abiogenesis was produced to 'splain away an athiestic view of evolution. It has no empirical evidence and is a mere deduction of what science can't seem to 'splain.

 

[Scuba Pete]

WHERE [sic!] life came from is a physical, not spiritual question.

You have EVIDENCE for this? Or just more baseless conjecture on your part? Please feel free to call me disengenous ALL you want. The fact is: Science can not prove nor disprove furry pink unicorns. IT HAS FAILED MISERABLY, just as your specious arguments have failed.

But please... show us the origin of life, the origin of thought the origin of the Big Bang, the origin of the origin.

 

[Scuba Pete]

To say that this is a simple question to prove wrong shows your ignorance.

Then please, show us the origin of life and/or the existence/non-existence of pink furry unicorns. If I am ignorant of how you may prove it wrong, I eagerly await your explanation.

 

[Ryan2065]

You have EVIDENCE for this? Or just more baseless conjecture on your part? Please feel free to call me disengenous ALL you want. The fact is: Science can not prove nor disprove furry pink unicorns. IT HAS FAILED MISERABLY, just as your specious arguments have failed.

But please... show us the origin of life, the origin of thought the origin of the Big Bang, the origin of the origin.

So please prove to us that your faith is the one true one. Oh wait, you can't. To say that science can NEVER ever explain any of these things is simply false. You know for a fact that science in the future won't be able to solve these?

Again, I ask for evidance of your claim. I have seen no evidance that supports your claim that science can never explain the orgin of life. If you have some, please share.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

[/color] Hmnnnnnn, far as I can see abiogenesis was produced to 'splain away an athiestic view of evolution.

Bush-league error: abiogenesis proposes life arising from nonliving matter. It has nothing to do with evolution.

[/color] It has no empirical evidence and is a mere deduction ...

Nonsense. It is a case of Inference to Best Explanation (IBE), not "mere deduction", and clearly lends itself to scientific investigation. See, for example, Talk Origins.

 

[Ryan2065]

Then please, show us the origin of life and/or the existence/non-existence of pink furry unicorns. If I am ignorant of how you may prove it wrong, I eagerly await your explanation

Again, I gave a way to prove that pink furry unicorns do not exist at the time you run your tests in my last post. You kind of misquoted me. And again, you are showing your ignorance. To prove anything wrong in every situation is a very hard task to do, usually its considered impossible.

Come on NetDoc, you keep saying that life is a spiritual thing and that it is impossible for scientists to find the orgins of life. Are you just making this stuff up or do you have actual evidance for this?

 

[Pah]

[/color] Hmnnnnnn, far as I can see abiogenesis was produced to 'splain away an athiestic view of evolution. It has no empirical evidence and is a mere deduction of what science can't seem to 'splain.

Nah - it's a scientific hypothesis - a natural extension of evolution. Has nothing to do with theology. And the empirical evidence is building - you should ask Painted Wolf about that.

Abiogenesis also has the benefit of no counter scientific proposal which you would have to have to say the extrapolation of evolution is wrong.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Gee Deut... it's amazing that you accuse ME of that when it was Pah that introduced that concept.

As for deduction vs inference, it's a fine line and one that I don't draw very well. Either way, there is NO EVIDENCE to support abiogenesis: it's mere conjecture at this point.

Ryan, bubby, that's the whole stinking point. It is IMPOSSIBLE for science to prove or disprove fuzzy pink unicorms. That's how it fails. When it comes to spiritual beliefs and evidences it comes up as completely inadequate to handle them.

Atheists and agnostics erroneously say "There is no evidence" when in reality they are surrounded by it and just can't see it. It's not my fault that they are blind to it, but they are.