ID in public schools

[Orogeny]

What they don’t tell you is that you’ll never see any new evidence that challenges Darwinism, because it got caught in the Knowledge Filter, and in accordance with Standard Darwinian Procedure, was thrown away, mythified, or suppressed before it could pollute our gullible little minds with common sense.

Well, baseless accusations of fraud against every single scientist aside, since you obviously have access to this censored material, start posting it here. I’ll personally take your substantiated evidence and bring it to an athiestic evolutionist site and begin the reformation.

Peace

Tim

 

[wildleafblower]

It occurred to me that some individuals may wish to misinterpret the document in my message 278. Let it be known that Pope Benedict XVI desires scientists to also recognize the importance of man’s social life within communities (Social Doctrine of the Church).

As a human being made in the image of God (Tritarian love) I try my best, though sometimes forget to remember what Pope John Paul II said, “Truth, Justice, Love, and Freedom are the pillars of Peace.” Oftentimes recalling what he said when I meet a stranger(s) for a brief moment in time, spark up a conversation, let’s say at the grocery store or while running around town, not knowing too much about the person such as where that unique individual, an adult or youth, may come from or is going but recognizing the encounter as a peaceful, memorable event with its elements of kindness, honesty, and heartfelt expressions exchanged in conversation. There lingers the mystery of me with the other as I walk away . . . a twinkle in me eye and a grin.

 

[anthony022071]

Yep. It’s a basic limitation on the methodology in science.

That’s not even the issue. Science itself is not limited to methodology,no more than human reason is limited to the methods of modern logic. There is also a metaphysical underpinning,speculation,interpretation of the evidence,and development of theories.

It’s true. Show me a test science can do to analyze the supernatural.

First show me where I claimed there could even be such a test.

Nope. Hypotheses (speculation) have to be testable. Interpretation requires data on physical entities. And theories are tested ideas with evidence to show they are true.

Evidently,scientists are not abiding by those supposed rules.
If they were,then abiogenesis should have been abandoned by now.

You’re right. The reason that people of all beliefs or none at all can do science is that it does not interact with the supernatural.

Whenever science interacts with life forms,it interacts with the supernatural,because life is not intrinsic to the natural.

Pythagoras, yes, by our standards. His weird fear of irrational numbers prevented him from making further progress, and his attempt to hide them was most unjustified, for example.

It’s a good thing that he made no progress into irrational theories,like chaos theorists do.

Copernicus didn’t include God in any of his work.

I didn’t say he did. I said that belief in a Creator need not get in the way of scientistsmethod.

It was entirely naturalistic.

It was natural science with a metaphysical foundation – the Platonic belief that the natural world is rationally structured,is imbued with rationality,and so can be profitably studied and understood by science. Now if there is rationality in Nature,it could only come from a rational mind.

Likewise with Galileo. Kepler was impaired by his religious ideas, but did eventually get the right answer.

None of that in Newton’s theory of gravity or laws of motion. There was some in his alchemy, but he was unsuccessful there, too.

Copernicus,Kepler,Galileo,and Newton were all Platonists.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Yep. It’s a basic limitation on the methodology in science.

That’s not even the issue. Science itself is not limited to methodology,

It surely is. The method is self-limiting.

no more than human reason is limited to the methods of modern logic.

Human reason is not limited to scientific thinking. And that’s not bad.

There is also a metaphysical underpinning,speculation,interpretation of the evidence,and development of theories.

Scientific method. The underpinning is the assumption that the physical universe is knowable and predicable. So far, so good.

Barbarian suggests:
It’s true. Show me a test science can do to analyze the supernatural.

First show me where I claimed there could even be such a test.

That’s what science does in the physical universe. It’s all it can do. What do you want it to do to support your faith?

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Hypotheses (speculation) have to be testable. Interpretation requires data on physical entities. And theories are tested ideas with evidence to show they are true.

Evidently,scientists are not abiding by those supposed rules.

Cold fusion comes to mind. Scientists are not perfect beings. They mess up from time to time.

If they were,then abiogenesis should have been abandoned by now.

So far, the evidence has indictated that is how life began. If science could venture into the supernatural, we could use Genesis, which confirms the same thing.

Barbarian observes:
You’re right. The reason that people of all beliefs or none at all can do science is that it does not interact with the supernatural.

Whenever science interacts with life forms,it interacts with the supernatural,because life is not intrinsic to the natural.

Problem is, lack of evidence, or even scriptural support for your assertion.

Barbarian observes:
Pythagoras, yes, by our standards. His weird fear of irrational numbers prevented him from making further progress, and his attempt to hide them was most unjustified, for example.

It’s a good thing that he made no progress into irrational theories,like chaos theorists do.

Um, in mathematics, “irrational” means “cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers.” And, BTW, chaotic systems can now analyzed and understood, albeit not quite the way Poincare envisioned.
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-8424%2819911215%2988%3A24%3C11129%3APCFIDD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

The problems associated with the onset of turbulence in laminar flow system are numerous and the use of Fiegenbaum’s discoveries has made the analysis easier.

Barbarian observes:
Copernicus didn’t include God in any of his work.

I didn’t say he did. I said that belief in a Creator need not get in the way of scientistsmethod.

That’s true, now. So what’s the problem for you?

Barbarian observes:
It was entirely naturalistic.

It was natural science with a metaphysical foundation – the Platonic belief that the natural world is rationally structured,is imbued with rationality,and so can be profitably studied and understood by science.

Uniformitarianism of the gaps. Interesting. But of course, none of that was actually in his work.

Now if there is rationality in Nature,it could only come from a rational mind.

A philosophical assumption, but not science.

Barbarian observes:
Likewise with Galileo. Kepler was impaired by his religious ideas, but did eventually get the right answer.

None of that in Newton’s theory of gravity or laws of motion. There was some in his alchemy, but he was unsuccessful there, too.

Copernicus,Kepler,Galileo,and Newton were all Platonists.

Interesting story about that. Kepler was indeed a strict Platonist when he started his investigations. He had this complicated hypothesis about the orbits of the planets, based on the Platonic solids. Later, he continued to hold Platonic ideas, such as the planets being perfect, and rational, and therefore having orbits in perfect circles. He later berates himself for this blunder, which greatly delayed his discovery of Kepler’s laws:

**He had an ardent mystical neoplatonic faith. He wanted to work with the best observational data available because he felt that even the most elegant, mathematically-harmonious theories must match reality. Kepler was motivated by his faith in God to try to discover God’s plan in the universe—to read the mind of God.'' Kepler shared the Greek view that mathematics was the language of God. He knew that all previous models were inaccurate, so he believed that other scientists had not yet read the mind of God.’’

Since an infinite number of models are possible (see Plato’s Instrumentalism above), he had to choose one as a starting point. Although he was hired by Tycho to work on Tycho’s geocentric model, Kepler did not believe in either Tycho’s model or Ptolemy’s model (he thought Ptolemy’s model was mathematically ugly). His neoplatonic faith led him to choose Copernicus’ heliocentric model over his employer’s model

Kepler tried to refine Copernicus’ model. After years of failure, he was finally convinced with great reluctance of an revolutionary idea: God uses a different mathematical shape than the circle. This idea went against the 2,000 year-old Pythagorean paradigm of the perfect shape being a circle! Kepler had a hard time convincing himself that planet orbits are not circles and his contemporaries, including the great scientist Galileo, disagreed with Kepler’s conclusion. He discovered that planetary orbits are ellipses with the Sun at one focus. This is now known as Kepler’s 1st law.**

 

[anthony022071]

It surely is. The method is self-limiting.

No method is self-limiting. People are self-limiting. And scientists don’t limit themselves to methods. If they did,there would be no theories,only testing.

That’s what science does in the physical universe. It’s all it can do. What do you want it to do to support your faith?

Why do you make unfounded assumptions?

So far, the evidence has indictated that is how life began.

There’s no evidence whatever for abiogenesis,just speculation.

If science could venture into the supernatural, we could use Genesis, which confirms the same thing.

No,really – Genesis doesn’t confirm the same thing.

Problem is, lack of evidence, or even scriptural support for your assertion.

The evidence is in the fact that not all of Nature is alive,and that which is alive inclines toward death.

Genesis 6,3: Then the LORD said: “My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years.”

Psalm 104,29-30: When you hide your face, they are lost. When you take away their breath, they perish and return to the dust from which they came.

When you send forth your breath, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth.

Wisdom 1,7: For the spirit of the LORD fills the world, is all-embracing, and knows what man says.

John 6,63:
It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail;

1 Corinthians 6,19:
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?

 

[reggieM]

Well, the Darwinists like to say “That article is 20 years old, and we have newer, better evidence now.”

What they don’t tell you is that you’ll never see any new evidence that challenges Darwinism, because it got caught in the Knowledge Filter, and in accordance with Standard Darwinian Procedure, was thrown away, mythified, or suppressed before it could pollute our gullible little minds with common sense.

Here’s an interesting one …

“Cladists” all believe in Darwin and an evolutionary tree, but concurring that the tree can never be mapped, they organize clades as if a historical evolutionary tree did not exist.

The paleontologist and cladist Henry Gee, a student of Cohn Patterson, one of England’s great Darwinian iconoclasts (who constantly questioned the scientific claims of Darwinism), has explained this new taxonomy as a necessary response to the insurmountable problem of Deep Time—that the distant past cannot be recounted. He wants to keep tree-of-life studies empirical, not wishful or speculative. “Once we realize that Deep Time can never support narratives of evolution, we are forced to accept that virtually everything we thought we knew about evolution is wrong,” he writes. And that includes the very attempt to build a tree.

On a more modest scale, cladistics is a way to estimate the “relative degrees of cousinhood” of organisms. Because such comparisons are empirical, not speculative, “cladisrics is the best philosophy for the scientific understanding of the history of life as we unearth it from Deep Time.” He thinks of it as more than a technique, but less than a science; it is a way of seeing the “products of evolution as they are, not how we would like them to be.”

Understandably, some have watched the cladistic revolution and the new genome frontier with interest and frequently amusement. First, the tree of life argues for absolute continuity, but its followers have gone over to cladistics, which seems to be saying that continuity, or ancestry, is no longer in the realm of science. Thus, continuity looks philosophical, not empirical. Second, the molecular work in a cladistic context seems to point to the existence of genetic types—shades of the “kinds” spoken of in Genesis. Suddenly, in the space age, the old-fashioned systems of Linnaeus and Cuvier, with their divine underpinnings and all, are beginning to look pretty good.

… By Design, Larry Witham

 

[reggieM]

Some open-minded scientists here, I see … I will bet that most of them are “Catholic” also. St. Peter himself was martyred in Rome. His successor is following closely in those footsteps, preaching a message of truth that many do not want to hear.

latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pope16jan16,1,6142305.story?coll=la-headlines-world

Veteran Vatican-watchers said they’d never seen anything quite like it. Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday abruptly called off plans to speak at Rome’s prestigious La Sapienza university, after students and professors rallied to proclaim him pontiff non grata.

More than 60 professors signed a letter to the public school’s rector saying the pope’s appearance, which had been scheduled for the opening of the academic year Thursday, was an affront to people of science and to the “secular” nature of the institution.

Students staged a sit-in Tuesday, waving banners with angry slogans (“Knowledge needs neither fathers nor priests”) and launching what they dubbed “anti-cleric week.”

“This pope unfortunately is not particularly friendly to science,” physics professor Andrea Frova, one of the La Sapienza academics who signed the petition, said in an interview.

But there’s a happier follow up also …

Students Flock to Pope’s Wednesday Audience After Speech Cancelled over Protests

lifesite.net/ldn/2008/jan/08011602.html

ROME, January 16, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - It was announced yesterday that a scheduled visit by Pope Benedict to La Sapienza University had been cancelled due to the rowdy protests of a contingent of students who argued that the Pontiff was “anti-science.” Previously the students had announced their intention to disrupt the Pope’s scheduled speech by blasting rock music over loudspeakers.

The Vatican cancelled the Pope’s visit to the university, which was started by a pope in 1303, following a break-in and sit-in by 50 students in the university rector’s office. Vatican spokesmen said it was “considered opportune to postpone the event,” which had been planned “by invitation of the major rector.”

Students of La Sapienza opposed to the protests, however, responded by flocking to Benedict’s Wednesday general audience at Paul VI Hall on January 16 as a show of solidarity to the Pontiff. They displayed banners that read “If Benedict doesn’t come to La Sapienza, La Sapienza goes to Benedict,” and “Students with the Pope.”

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, on why the Pope is right about science:
It surely is. The method is self-limiting.

No method is self-limiting.

Horsefeathers. You’re just trying to argue by assertion.

People are self-limiting. And scientists don’t limit themselves to methods.

When they do science, they do. The methodology is quite clear; everyone uses it in science. No one adds magic or religion to it.

Barbarian on the limits of science:
That’s what science does in the physical universe. It’s all it can do. What do you want it to do to support your faith?

Why do you make unfounded assumptions?

I can only infer from what you write.

Barbarian on abiogenesis:
So far, the evidence has indictated that is how life began.

There’s no evidence whatever for abiogenesis,

Someone’s taken advantage of your trust in them. In fact, we now know that amino acids and even peptides form abiotically. And since ribozymes have been discovered, we know that nucleic acids could form abiotically.

Still a long way to go, but the evidence all points one way.

Barbarian observes:
If science could venture into the supernatural, we could use Genesis, which confirms the same thing.

No,really – Genesis doesn’t confirm the same thing.

It certainly does. God says that the Earth brought forth living things.

Barbarian observes:
Problem is, lack of evidence, or even scriptural support for your assertion.

The evidence is in the fact that not all of Nature is alive

Not all of it is orange, either.

and that which is alive inclines toward death.

And that which is orange inclines toward brown. Do you have a point here, somewhere?

 

[wildleafblower]

[mgs. 283]
[snip]
Barbarian observes:
Likewise with Galileo. Kepler was impaired by his religious ideas, but did eventually get the right answer.

None of that in Newton’s theory of gravity or laws of motion. There was some in his alchemy, but he was unsuccessful there, too.

Interesting story about that. Kepler was indeed a strict Platonist when he started his investigations. He had this complicated hypothesis about the orbits of the planets, based on the Platonic solids. Later, he continued to hold Platonic ideas, such as the planets being perfect, and rational, and therefore having orbits in perfect circles. He later berates himself for this blunder, which greatly delayed his discovery of Kepler’s laws:

**He had an ardent mystical neoplatonic faith. He wanted to work with the best observational data available because he felt that even the most elegant, mathematically-harmonious theories must match reality. Kepler was motivated by his faith in God to try to discover God’s plan in the universe—to read the mind of God.'' Kepler shared the Greek view that mathematics was the language of God. He knew that all previous models were inaccurate, so he believed that other scientists had not yet read the mind of God.’’

Since an infinite number of models are possible (see Plato’s Instrumentalism above), he had to choose one as a starting point. Although he was hired by Tycho to work on Tycho’s geocentric model, Kepler did not believe in either Tycho’s model or Ptolemy’s model (he thought Ptolemy’s model was mathematically ugly). His neoplatonic faith led him to choose Copernicus’ heliocentric model over his employer’s model

Kepler tried to refine Copernicus’ model. After years of failure, he was finally convinced with great reluctance of an revolutionary idea: God uses a different mathematical shape than the circle. This idea went against the 2,000 year-old Pythagorean paradigm of the perfect shape being a circle! Kepler had a hard time convincing himself that planet orbits are not circles and his contemporaries, including the great scientist Galileo, disagreed with Kepler’s conclusion. He discovered that planetary orbits are ellipses with the Sun at one focus. This is now known as Kepler’s 1st law.**

It’s obvious Barbarian that you didn’t observe Nick Strobel’s copyright notice when you copy and pasted from his website that which you have presented in bold text in your message 283. :tsktsk: Here is the url:
astronomynotes.com/history/s7.htm
http://www.astronomynotes.com/history/s7.htm

 

[The_Barbarian]

Oops sorry. Didn’t post the link. If you notice, I intentionally bold quoted material from elsewhere. And fair use allows a portion of a work to be quoted in a review, or cited.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian on science’s inability to evaluate the supernatural:
It surely is. The method is self-limiting.

No method is self-limiting.

All methods devised by humans are self-limiting. Science, because it depends on evidence of the senses, cannot evaluate anything other than the physical universe.

People are self-limiting.

Less so than methods.

And scientists don’t limit themselves to methods.

Of course not. Many are theists, and pray, for example.

If they did,there would be no theories,only testing.

That’s wrong. Theories in the scientific sense, can only be originated by the scientific method.

Barbarian observes:
That’s what science does in the physical universe. It’s all it can do. What do you want it to do to support your faith?

Why do you make unfounded assumptions?

I can only infer from your behavior.

Barbarian on the idea that the Earth brought forth life:
So far, the evidence has indictated that is how life began.

There’s no evidence whatever for abiogenesis,just speculation.

You’ve been badly misled on that. All the available evidence points to abiogenesis.

Barbarian observes:
If science could venture into the supernatural, we could use Genesis, which confirms the same thing.

No,really – Genesis doesn’t confirm the same thing.

Certainly does. It says the earth brought forth living things.

Barbarian suggests:
Problem is, lack of evidence, or even scriptural support for your assertion.

The evidence is in the fact that not all of Nature is alive,and that which is alive inclines toward death.

Not all of nature is on top of mountains, and that which is on top of mountains inclines to move down the mountains. Is there a point here?

 

[wildleafblower]

Oops sorry. Didn’t post the link. If you notice, I intentionally bold quoted material from elsewhere. And fair use allows a portion of a work to be quoted in a review, or cited.
wildleafblower;3267201:

[ref. msg. 228]

Not true Barbarian, you must give the author’s name. And no one has permission to use what I submit to any website without my written permission. Everything that I write is automatically copyrighted by law even though I don’t have a website. The reason for this is to avoid Identity Theft. I have oodles of friends that work in law enforcement. Hi guys

 

[The_Barbarian]

US Copyright act of 1976 says:

**107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.**
copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

BTW, I have been annoyed once to find one of my photographs (clearly copyrighted) appended for “fair use”; that’s the way it goes. From a website, a link is appropriate and legal.

And no one has permission to use what I submit to any website without my written permission.

See above. I discovered it’s not quite that airtight. BTW, did you know some translations of the Bible are copyrighted? That seems wrong. The Author has granted me the right to freely copy and distribute any part of it, so long as I give Him credit.

I doubt if your average LEO has much knowledge of, or intrerest in copyright law. But scholars do. Or should.

 

[wildleafblower]

US Copyright act of 1976 says:

The copyright laws have changed since 1976 due to Identity Theft on the Internet.

Catholic.com does have rules about quoting from a website if I recall correctly. I do think you are supposed to use a link. You may wish to double-check it.

 

[wildleafblower]

Anyway, Barbarian, I’m sorry to learn that someone took your picture! I had a very serious problem with ID. Cost me tons of money and a lawyer to clear it up. It happened over the Internet. Infact it was my attorney that told me that everything I write on the Interent is automatically copyrighted. Let’s not make a big to do over this but move on. Although, I am glad we touched based on this issue for the sake of kids and adults. I even had a girl mimic me to the point that it could appear to be she was I when that wasn’t the case. Youth and Adults are especially guarded by the Law while on the Internet these days.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Anyway, Barbarian, I’m sorry to learn that someone took your picture!

I am a photographer. I occasionally sell images. The law allows “fair use” of them in certain ways that don’t involve commerce.

The copyright laws have changed since 1976 due to Identity Theft on the Internet.

The one I cited still stands. No change.

Youth and Adults are especially guarded by the Law while on the Internet these days.

But if you’re not one of those, you’re on your own?

 

[anthony022071]

All methods devised by humans are self-limiting.

A method doesn’t have a self,so it could hardly be self-limiting. Methods change throughout history,according to the kinds of questions that scientists are asking and the kind of answers they want,and the prevailing philosophy,and improvements in technology.

Science, because it depends on evidence of the senses, cannot evaluate anything other than the physical universe.

The quantum physicists ought to take that into consideration.

Of course not. Many are theists, and pray, for example.

That’s wrong. Theories in the scientific sense, can only be originated by the scientific method.

When I said that they aren’t limited to methods,I meant that in their scientific field they are not limited to methods. They go beyond what can be observed and speculate about things that haven’t been observed,like quarks,subatomic strings,abiogenesis,

So far, the evidence has indictated that is how life began.

You’ve been badly misled on that. All the available evidence points to abiogenesis.

Things are either alive or not alive.
Either it can be shown to happen or biologists have nothing to base the theory on and are propagating a myth.

Certainly does. It says the earth brought forth living things.

It says that God said “Let the earth bring forth living creatures”…,and it goes on to say that God made them. No-one needs science to confirm that the earth brings forth living creatures. That’s like saying a woman brings forth a child. What else is new?

Not all of nature is on top of mountains, and that which is on top of mountains inclines to move down the mountains.

That’s a silly analogy. Whatever is on top of mountains is a physical object which can be seen. Life is not a physical object and is not seen.

Is there a point here?

The point was that it is obvious that life is extrinsic to the natural world.

 

[anthony022071]

The Barbarian;3269505:

All methods devised by humans are self-limiting.

A method doesn’t have a self,so it could hardly be self-limiting. Methods change throughout history,according to the kinds of questions that scientists are asking and the kind of answers they want,and the prevailing philosophy,and improvements in technology.

Science, because it depends on evidence of the senses, cannot evaluate anything other than the physical universe.

The quantum physicists ought to take that into consideration.

Of course not. Many are theists, and pray, for example.

That’s wrong. Theories in the scientific sense, can only be originated by the scientific method.

When I said that they aren’t limited to methods,I meant that in their scientific field they are not limited to methods. They go beyond what can be observed and speculate about things that haven’t been observed,like quarks,subatomic strings,abiogenesis,

So far, the evidence has indictated that is how life began.

You’ve been badly misled on that. All the available evidence points to abiogenesis.

Things are either alive or not alive.
Either it can be shown to happen or biologists have nothing to base the theory on and are propagating a myth.

Certainly does. It says the earth brought forth living things.

It says that God said “Let the earth bring forth living creatures”…,and it goes on to say that God made them. No-one needs science to confirm that the earth brings forth living creatures. That’s like saying a woman brings forth a child. What else is new?

Not all of nature is on top of mountains, and that which is on top of mountains inclines to move down the mountains.

That’s a silly analogy. Whatever is on top of mountains is a physical object which can be seen. Life is not a physical object and is not seen.

Is there a point here?

The point was that it is obvious that life is extrinsic to the natural world.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
All methods devised by humans are self-limiting.

A method doesn’t have a self,so it could hardly be self-limiting.

Hmmm… so self-closing doors and self-sealing fuel tanks are not possible? How so?

Methods change throughout history,according to the kinds of questions that scientists are asking and the kind of answers they want,and the prevailing philosophy,and improvements in technology.

The one we use, is unable to evaluate anything but the physical universe. Sorry about that.

The quantum physicists ought to take that into consideration.

So far, they have.

And scientists don’t limit themselves to methods.

Of course not. Many are theists, and pray, for example.

If they did,there would be no theories,only testing.

That’s wrong. Theories in the scientific sense, can only be originated by the scientific method.

When I said that they aren’t limited to methods,I meant that in their scientific field they are not limited to methods.

No, that’s wrong.

They go beyond what can be observed and speculate about things that haven’t been observed,like quarks,subatomic strings,abiogenesis,

Ah, hypotheses. But those are testable. Nothing magical or supernatural about them. Hypotheses are part of science, but they have to be testable by some conceivable method.

Barbarian observes:
So far, the evidence has indictated that is how life began.

There’s no evidence whatever for abiogenesis,just speculation.

You’ve been badly misled on that. All the available evidence points to abiogenesis.

Things are either alive or not alive.

Are viruses alive? How about viruses with a few metabolic properties? Define chemically the boundary between life and non-life.

Either it can be shown to happen or biologists have nothing to base the theory on and are propagating a myth.

If you thought about it for a moment, you’d realize how foolish that is. It is certainly possible for a valid hypothesis to have some evidence to support it, and even to qualify as a theory, but still need further evidence to consider it settled.

Barbarian observes:
If science could venture into the supernatural, we could use Genesis, which confirms the same thing. It says the earth brought forth living things.

It says that God said “Let the earth bring forth living creatures”…,and it goes on to say that God made them.

Let’s take a look. It says:
24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Just what I told you. God says that the earth brought forth living things. God made them; the difference between you and me, is that you don’t approve of the way He did it.

The evidence is in the fact that not all of Nature is alive,and that which is alive inclines toward death.

Barbarian chuckles:
Not all of nature is on top of mountains, and that which is on top of mountains inclines to move down the mountains.

That’s a silly analogy. Whatever is on top of mountains is a physical object which can be seen.

A natural phenomenon.

Life is not a physical object and is not seen.

Also a natural phenomenon. Is there a point here?

The point was that it is obvious that life is extrinsic to the natural world.

Not according to God.

 

[anthony022071]

Um, in mathematics, “irrational” means “cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers.”

That’s also where the common definition of irrationality came from. [ratio: reckoning,calculation,reason]

Scientists who believe in chaos theories of origin deal in variables beyond reckoning,calculation,and reason.

Barbarian observes:
It was entirely naturalistic.

Not the metaphysical foundation.

Uniformitarianism of the gaps. Interesting. But of course, none of that was actually in his work.

His work was based on that Platonic foundation.

A philosophical assumption, but not science.

Rationality,by definition,must be a product of a rational mind. And Nature,which doesn’t think,doesn’t have the ability to reckon,calculate,and reason itself into order.