trossthree
I thank you for your post, it verified something that I was wondering deeply inside my mind. What exactly is your understanding of Abiogenesis and the word FACT? My understanding of Abiogenesis is that it simply means life created/developed from non life. To be honest, I don't believe GOD is a Biological being. So with my belief on GOD, there is no way to understand it via Science.
Abiogenesis is a story invented to circumvent the Law of Biogenesis and keep the concept of spontaneous generation alive.
The construction of the word is consistent with your understanding, but it has simply never been used to describe the historic creation events.
You'll note that we already had a term for spontaneous generation also, but it had been demonstrated to be a false concept, so a name change was implemented to make it appear more 'scientific'. How impressive!
As spontaneous generation failed time after time, the scales were reduced. Maggots were eliminated, then bacteria, all the way down to practically nothing. They got down to some extremely basic molecules before they had any success "creating life" in labs. Now they're trying to work up to a cell.
Naturally they've redefined 'life' at least a couple of times along the way to make it look like they're succeeding. They hit some barriers working with DNA, so a lot of focus shifted to RNA when they figured out it might be easier.
You may be wondering why anyone would bother redefining a term to include something it formerly excluded. In this case it's simply juvenile: they want to misportray any creationist who rejects the fowl, unscientific concept as ignorant and irrational. If you care, you can find just such an attempt earlier in this very thread.
It also gives them an out anytime the subject comes up for discussion. They just refuse to discuss actual abiogenesis and argue there definition 'til the cows come home. Never struck me as an intellectually profitable way to spend time.
I'd like to point out that most definitions aren't learned from dictionaries. As children we learn new words at a mind-boggling pace, and with a very high degree of accuracy. Use the force, tross (trust your instinct). We don't do our best learning by reading dictionaries. They are valuable tools, but our brains are better.
You speak English. You know what a fact is. Philosophers have tried to improve/confuse our understanding of reality for centuries. There is a reality, and we learn about it through our senses as well as by communicating.
Science enters the picture, and here comes the confusion. I could link you to posts proclaiming science as the ultimate form of knowledge, and I'm confident you've noticed the hype yourself. Science is simple. Small children practice it all the time, and even animals are guilty. Science is one of several methods of learning, and over time it has been formalized. This is good. Any analysis of learning that helps us understand the process is good. It also allows for consistency and helps us spot errors.
But the hype is unwarranted. History is at least the equal of science when it comes to providing information. One cannot even learn science without employing history. You can't very well repeat an experiment if you don't know it happened, can you? Even if it happened last week, it's part of the past, part of history. But there is no simple formula one can apply to evaluate history.
We also "know" people and animals. It's easy to dismiss the hype on science if one asks "Would I rather know my parents or know everything about botany?"
I've been accused of devaluing science because I don't worship it. I do value all forms of knowledge fairly highly, but I won't overestimate any class just because others want me to. It is a sin to reject truth, so how could I toss aside any valid scientific fact?
What I will readily toss aside is a flawed conclusion, scientific or otherwise.
As for God, I see no reason to restrict Him regarding biology. If He chooses to be biological or otherwise I see nothing to prevent Him.
In many ways, God is beyond scientific investigation. In the Bible, we're told to "prove all things" and "taste and see that the Lord is good." And there are some obvious lines of investigation. Fulfilled prophecies are a good starting point. They allow us to rule out all the other pretenders.
I can't distinguish if you're still referring to a God-based 'abiogenesis' here. I'll just mention that the greater bulk of even fairly recent history cannot be investigated with science alone. Science can at best only supplement other methods when investigating history - it can't replace them.
Science is only the study of nature or things that can be physically/biologically understood. So, really, Science has a possible GAP in understanding truth. If Science is the only reality to Scientists, rather people who don't believe in GOD, or even the possibility of GOD, then there is some unrational behavior on their part. Thus is why I believe in Theistic Evolution. My mind is open to all possible truths. I think the most rational behavior is to keep an open mind in all topics.
Science has gaps when it comes to understanding many things. Use the right tool for the right job, and you'll get the best results.
I don't think they'd all admit it, but atheists all use the same toolset as everyone else for establishing truth. They have no choice in many circumstances. But when they do have even an illusory choice they tend to discount other tools in favor of 'science'. I've noticed a trend among them to really resent history.
It is good to keep an open mind, and it's always good to search out the truth. A person who can put aside their own wishes and accept unwelcome facts is open-minded, IMO.
So, I started to wonder if there is a possibility with the same or similiar issue and vision.
I wouldn't recommend any experiments until you're really sure you know what your doing. Vision is a precious gift.
You might want to look into optics a bit. I'm pretty sure the way the cones operate would not allow them to see extra frequencies.
Vision and hearing aren't analogous because the receptors in the eye don't vibrate. I really can't help you much with this.
My point is that if there is things human beings can't hear or see(not biological such as radio frequencies) simply because they are undetectable to our senses then that is within in reason/rational thinking that they do exist.
This is a most important thing to keep in mind. Just because something isn't observed does not mean it does not exist. But there's a flip side: when something isn't observed, and you know very well that it should be observable; the tentative conclusion must be that it does not exist. I'm sure you can think of your own examples for both sides of this coin.
Last but not least my perception on what a "FACT" is, is still that FACTS can't change, but now I understand what typically a Scientist would percieve a Fact to be. I mean why call it a FACT if it is a theory? A theory can have a high level of confidence so why call a good theory a FACT? Anyways. Peace.
You've got a good grip on the term 'fact'. Don't let go of it just to suit someone else or to deceive yourself about reality. You only harm yourself, and you really don't need friends who would teach you such habits.
I bid you peace, and a fruitful search.
™ Version 4.2