quote:"The [Ekpyrotic] scenario is that our current universe is [a] four-dimensional membrane embedded in a five-dimensional 'bulk' space, something like a sheet of paper in ordinary three-dimensional space," Turok told SPACE.com. "The idea then is that another membrane collided with ours, releasing energy and heat and leading to the expansion of our universe."
quote:April 25, 2002 - How did the universe begin, and how will it end? Among cosmologists, the mainstream belief is that the universe began with a bang billions of years ago, and will fizzle out billions of years from now. But two theorists have just fired their latest volley at that belief, saying there could be a timeless cycle of expansion and contraction. It’s an idea as old as Hinduism, updated for the 21st century.
In other words, the Big Bang theory could be wrong, but the universe would still exist, our solar system would still be formed from the debris of stellar death (novas), and the rest of the questions would be totally unaffected.
How we think of the origin of the solar system, and then of life on this particular planet, is independent and unaffected by the validity of how we think the origin of the universe occurred.
I find it amusing that evolutionists insist that abiogenesis be taught right alongside evolution as "fact" in the schools. The two go together and always have.
But anytime abiogenesis comes up in an argument against evolution, it's "See how ignorant and uneducated you are! You don't even know that evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different theories!"
What is taught in high school is Biology - Life Sciences (plural). This includes the science of abiogenesis and the science of evolution. Not just different theories, but different sciences under the "Life Sciences" umbrella.
{abe}
Life only comes from life. That's a law of science. That's a well-established fact. Anyone disputing it has quite a large burden of proof (if you want to actually be scientific about it).
Well, of course -- that is what evolution says through the theory of common descent. This is the essence of the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.
In fact the transmission of life from one generation to the next always involves the transmission of life, whether asexual division of living cells by duplication and division, or by sexual species through similar production of gametes that then combine in a zygote (which then proceeds to grow through cell division).
In no case is life created or developed in the process. In essence every single organism on Earth is the product of cell division from some original population of organisms.
This is what evolution teaches, albeit with some additional caveats:
that the transmission is imperfect due to replication errors and other mutations, and
that those that are expressed in the phenotype of the individual organisms are subject to selection for the prevailing ecology and the opportunities presented by other ecologies, and the opportunities provided by existing variation of phenotypes within the populations.
Thus life only comes from life, but it is also continually changing and testing itself. {/abe}
The rest of your post is mostly the argument from incredulity, which only betrays a general ignorance rather than any problems for reality and the rational study thereof.
...and we all know the reason why.
No we don't: why don't you educate us further on your grasp of reality?
I just love that phrase "argument from incredulity". What does it mean? Well, I've given it some thought, and ...
... and unfortunately for (1) you went off on a completely wrong tangent and (b) it has a specific meaning in logic: it means that your argument is only composed of your incredulity and has no substantiation in fact or logical structure.
I'd have to take this as an indicator of success.
No, that would be the argument from ignorance.
How exactly would an argument from incredulity go? "I don't believe it and neither should you." Not very convincing ...
Exactly, that would be why you shouldn't use it eh? What you need to do is present evidence that supports your position, substantiate your claims.
That's what the science of biology teaches. That's what evolutionism has been forced to concede, and it's been an uphill battle. If you didn't know that you might want to study a little history & shut up about my ignorance.
And that is what evolution -- as part of biology -- teaches, whether you deny the fact or not is irrelevant. Rather than being forced to concede the point, it is part of Darwin's original theory of common descent.
The way to get people to "shut up" about your ignorance is to display knowledge and facts, substantiate your arguments, and make logical conclusions based on reality rather than denial of evidence.
Unfortunately, b follows a and 2 follows 1. I guess you need some rest, eh?
Now notice how irrelevant it (intentionally) is. The points are still valid.
I always include reasons to justify incredulity.
Having a reason is not the same as substantiation with evidence. You can have a reason to get up in the morning, but that doesn't make your argument any stronger.
I don't recall the term being applied correctly even once, if you want the truth.
That wouldn't be your argument from incredulity again would it?
Here is the text of the Origin of Species. It is the work of seconds to search through it for all uses of the word "transitional". Please let us know if you find anything to validate your claim.
The BBC link I had to a fully searchable text has been changed, but all works can be found here
quote:The majority is online here for the first time such as the 1st editions of Voyage of the Beagle, Descent of Man, Zoology of the Beagle, all editions of Origin of species (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th), complete autobiography, Journal, Beagle diary, field notebooks, and theoretical notebooks.
quote:Quote mining is the practice of compiling quotes from large volumes of literature or spoken word.[1] The term is used pejoratively to accuse the "quote miner" of contextomy and misquotation, where favorable positions are amplified or falsely suggested, and unfavorable positions in the same text are excluded or otherwise obscured.
quote:An example of creationist quote mining [3] is taken from The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin in which he considers the evolution of the eye: ... This quote is clearly taken out of context because Darwin continues: ... Darwin goes on to devote three further pages to this subject.[4] Answers in Genesis, have acknowledged the lack of context of the quote and urged others not to use the quote without quoting the context.[5]
Quoting (we don't need a new word for it) is where you find quotes that represent what the author\article meant and that support your position.
There are many examples of quote-mining in creationist literature, one of the (many) reasons it is so unreliable (at best).
Or maybe there was never any difference at all? Maybe there's never been any legitimacy to the searches for 'missing links' because no links were ever missing, right?
Curious that you ignored the rest of the explanation for the "links" between form one and ten.
I don't see how. There is no Theory of Macroevolution so anyone who claims that there is would be wrong. Macroevolution is an observation not a theory.
There are certainly many stories put forth as macroevolutionary theories. None may be officially entitled 'theory of macroevolution', but the term is still perfectly valid per established English usage. One could quibble over capitalization, as this would imply that it's a proper title. (And one could go beyond quibbling over if it be valid to call such things 'theories'.)
You mean instances where the theory of evolution is used to explain how the observations of macroevolution occurred? Explanations that only use the theory of evolution - that changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation is sufficient to explain all the diversity of life we know on earth and in the fossil record?
The ones that don't invoke sudden major changes unexplained by genetics and heredity?
The ones where there is no difference to explanations that show microevolutionary trends in populations?
That qualifies as a new theory to be called "The Theory of Macroevolution" when it applies to all the microevolutionary steps involved in the process?
I am excited because you're aware that a hypothesis is a hypothesis.
You're aware that the RNA world is one of several hypothesis in the field of abiogenesis and is not separate from it?
Are you excited because science is tentative and not afraid to say "I don't know" in situations like the field of abiogenesis where there is so little evidence in our current understanding of how things came to be? That in some way this may invalidate what we do know?
Or are you excited about the possibility of learning more?
Or are you excited because you find that scientists are aware that a hypothesis is a hypothesis, and that a scientific theory is a scientific theory? Are you excited by a mundane well known (to scientists) truth?
Cool. The proper form is ps\pps\ppps\etc it's an abbreviation for "postscript"1. A message appended at the end of a letter after the writer's signature. 2. Additional information appended to the manuscript, as of a book or article. [Origin: 1515-25; < L postscrptum, neut. ptp. of postscrbere to write after]The next addition would also be post (as in posterior) to the previous, hence pps.
Message 181 The problem is that in Science there is no FACT. Everything in Science is theory. Nothing in Science is absolute. Even if we were 99.9999999999999999/100 sure that Abiogenesis occured we would still not have fact.
You seem very sure this is a fact.
What we are looking for is the reality of "life, universe and everything" (to use DNAdams phrase), and improving our understanding of it.
That reality is a fact, but our understanding of it may be imperfect. The example of the earth being flat, round, and oblate spheroid are examples of coming closer to the reality of what the earth's shape actually is.
In each case the validity of the representation can be gaged by independent observers applying the knowledge and the model of reality that applies and see how well it represents reality accordingly.
It is a fact that the earth has a surface that we stand on.
When we test the idea of the surface being flat versus the being a sphere by sailing around it, it is not the earth that changes, but our understanding of it.
It is a fact that the sphere is a better representation of reality than a flat plane.
When we test the idea of the earth being an oblate spheroid by gps measurements and observations from space, it is not the earth that changes, but our understanding of it.
It is a fact that the oblate spheroid is a better representation of reality than a sphere.
These facts are not going to change, the reality is not going to change, each change in our understanding comes closer to reality, becomes more factual.
However, every time we use a map we acknowledge that the surface of the earth can be represented by a flat plane with a very high degree of reliability. The fact of the sphere being a better representation does not diminish the factual representation of the surface by the map.
Likewise when we plot our position on a globe as we travel around the earth we acknowledge that the shape of the earth can be represented by a sphere with a high degree of reliability. The fact of the oblate spheroid being a better representation does not diminish the factual representation of the shape by a globe.
We can also do this with the age of the earth, and find that our understanding of it has improved tremendously by the application of science. We now know that it is a fact that the earth is at least 4.55 billion years old. This will not change to a younger date, but it may change to an older date. Why? because we have as evidence - facts - bits of the earth (and moon) that are 4.55 billion years old.
Likewise life: we know it is a fact that life has existed on earth for at least 3.5 billion years. This will not change to a younger date, but it may change to an older date. Why? because we have evidence - facts - fossils of life in sedimentary rock that is 3.5 billion years old. We know life already existed then, but we have not found any sedimentary rock older than 3.5 billion years that has not been metamorphosed (subject to heat and pressure, and destroying any fossils in the process).
The facts - evidence - that the earth and life have the age that they do will not change if we discover new evidence for older dates, but they will be superseded by new facts that show a closer understanding of reality. The 4.55 billion year old rock will still exist as fact and the 3.5 billion year old fossils of life will still exist as fact.
However, what if Scientist discovered that life has always existed,...
That would refine our knowledge of abiogenesis. This in essence would mean that panspermia was true, which then just moves the question on to where that life came from. Does abiogenesis then occur in space?
It could be very difficult to show "always" rather than in time before earth, as this would mean getting information from the depths of space and back in time.
There begins to be a problem -- if the big bang is true -- where you run out of the elements to form life as we know it because the elements haven't been created by stellar fusion at some point in the past. This might need a new definition of life. Or it may need a different physics theory (maybe with 'branes') that allows for a universe that has always existed as well.
... or that life was actually created by God spontaneously?
This may be extremely difficult to show in terms of specific life appearing on this earth suddenly ... could have been panspermia (see above) or special creation. It would likely require proof of a miracle, and event that can not be reconciled with what we know of the universe.
Neither would necessarily require the big bang or evolution to change.
What about the Steady State theory? The Steady State theory was a Scientific fact at one point. It's my understanding that in Steady State theory there was never a begining, but however this understanding has changed. In my opinion the Big Bang theory undermines the steady state theory.
And there are still some proponents I believe. One of the problems with the steady state theory is the expansion of the universe, unless
we allow for spontaneous (quantum singularities?) creation of matter\energy in the depths of space (continual minor bangs), and that supplies the same density of space we see as would occur from the big bang after only 13.7 billion years, or
it can be shown that this expansion does not occur (and this means some theory that can explain all the same measurements and observations that expansion explains). It was the backwards extrapolation of the expansion of space that lead to the big bang theory.
There are problems with both of these, that I'm sure our resident physicists would be happy to explain.
My point should be obvious, the idea of a Scientific fact is really just a high level of confidence not an actual Fact. It maybe a Scientific fact that the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and TOE occured however it is not a FACT.
(I think you mean evolution not the theory of evolution).
There is no special category for scientific facts that differs from other facts. Facts are what we know with a high level of confidence.
The evidence science regards as fact are just as factual as the map and the globe in representing the earth. Increased knowledge may improve our ability to model the reality, but it cannot change reality.
That the earth exists is a fact that applies equally to science as general ignorance of reality.
Ok. So, Scientific facts can be modified due to new understandings and the new understandings do not undermine the old understandings.
They are not modified so much as superseded by greater accuracy in understanding reality that involves new facts. The map and the globe are still factual representations of the earth. Newton's law of gravity is still perfectly adequate to get us into space and travel to the nearby planets.
quote:Generally, a fact is something that is the case, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.[1][2] There is a range of other uses, depending on the context. People are interested in facts because of their relation to truth.
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[19]
quote:In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.
I don't see anything there about calling a theory a fact.
You need to quote the entire context of my above paragraph. I was saying that atheists believe in Science and nothing else. ... ... but because of their reputation they are facts in the eyes of an atheist/scientist. I know you are going to comment on my usage of "atheist/scientist" so I will add that im describing an atheist scientist above, not any other form/belief of scientists.
You are still making a false dichotomy that science is different for non-believers. You also accuse them of something you cannot know.
... Abiogeneis,BB,TOE, are all theories ...
And you haven't shown anyone saying otherwise. Especially "TOE" that stands for "Theory of Evolution" -- I think you are trying to tell yourself something that is not true.
Lots of potentially heavy stuff ... and it would be heavy if it was real
You'll note that we already had a term for spontaneous generation ... You may be wondering why anyone would bother redefining a term to include something it formerly excluded.
And you don't have a clue why anyone would want a different term to include something that was not included under the previous term? You're objecting to them NOT redefining the original term? So that they could then keep the original term to mean what it had before?
So this is one of your examples of a term where the definition changed?
ROFLOL.
Naturally they've redefined 'life' at least a couple of times along the way to make it look like they're succeeding.
Would you like to give us your definition of "life" that can be used? We actually looked at this problem on the Definition of Life and perhaps you would like to contribute to that thread.
Would you like to demonstrate those several changes in definition? Or just make an assertion without supporting it?
What I will readily toss aside is a flawed conclusion, scientific or otherwise.
Like spontaneous generation? Or like early definitions of life?
Overall your position seems pretty insubstantial to me.
™ Version 4.2