No it isn't, it would be faith based only if the finding was declared positive proof of in which there could be any possible otherwise account of thus is nonfalsifiable therefore would not be science and therefore faith based.
I'm not trying to be mean, but I cannot make any sense of this sentence. Could you restate it while being grammatically correct.
-AlphaOmegakid- I am a child of the creator of the beginning and the end
quote:How old is the earth (roughly)? And how old is the universe? How much have you yourself read or studied the Theory of Evolution?
from the bibles point of view the earth and universe can be of any age. The bible itself does not give a limitation. I have no problem with science and it's dating. ( except that when their readings maybe effected, by other influences, like radiation , darkness, underwater, of pressure.) Other wise they maybe OK. Enough to know my way around. But I do use my own meanings, for words. When I say evolution I mean the start of a single cell to what we see today. Abiogenesis is the start to life including spontaneous life, because at one point non life has to come to life,. Which to the laws of nature are impossible. The bible uses the word kinds , of life. we are not told in the bible exactly how far kinds goes. Science uses the words species, but science does not agree exactly where the lines of species are. I have heard that science does not prove anything. Which makes it impotent. True science and the bible get along just fine.
No it isn't.It would be faith based only if the finding was declared positive proof of, in which there could be no possible otherwise account of, thus nonfalsifiable. Therefore it would not be science and would be faith based. That is why science relies on theories not proof.
I still am having difficulty understanding what you are saying. your statement...
It would be faith based only if the finding was declared positive proof of
This part is obviously false if it is the basis of your argument. Faith based things are never proven. Faith is a belief in something that is unseen or unproven.
Faith based concepts can be falsifiable, so I don't know what you mean by this either. If I hypothesize a young earth based on the Bible, that is faith based. It is also falsifiable. It is falsifiable because there is an observable earth, and there are scientific methods of measuring its age.
God-caused-things are unfalsifiable by definition. A belief in God is not the only faith based thing.
I would argue that all of the current hypotheses within abiogenesis are unfalsifiable. The hypotheses are not founded on phenomena, they are founded on philosophy. There is no observable repeatable phenomenon to work with to produce a falsification. You can't falsify a rationalization based on a philosophical approach. How can I falsify the self organization of a protocell or a population of evolving protocells when such phenomena don't exist, and and never have been observed?? Even the environment that would make these protocells possible is not known. This is why this stuff should not be taught.
Faith is a belief in something that is unseen or unproven.
That is the point if one states that a scientific theory is proven, then it is on faith since all theories are falsifiable
I would argue that all of the current hypotheses within abiogenesis are unfalsifiable.
Why? If would be falsifiable if one could find evidence that under no conditions of the possibilities of a primal atmosphere which the substances such as purines, pyrimidines, amino acids, pentose sugars, etc could be be formed.
Edited by bluescat48, : wrong quote
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969