Science is suppossed to be about positive evidence for things, but evos turn that upside down with comments such as:
That is what we have been screaming at you. Where the evidence that life cannot gradually arise from non-living material?
You hear this is as well in the no mechanism preventing something argument. In reality, one can argue there is no mechanism preventing anything, that there is no evidence anything cannot happen, because just because it has not happened and there appears to be strong evidence something cannot happen (such as life being produced from non-life) there is always a chance that anything can happen.
Anything can be thus justified and argued from the evo stance here, but that doesn't make it science. If evos cannot provide examples of something happening, or mechanisms for it to happen, claiming something happened with the argument that there is no evidence it could not occur (which isn't even true) is deeply fallacious, deceptive and non-scientific.
It's in fact an absurd argument and logic, but quite common among evos. The reality is all life forms we know of today stem from other life forms without exception. There are no deviations that we know of, period. If that is not "evidence", then evidence as a principle doesn't exist.
Abiogenesis is extremely speculative and without substantive evidence. It is accepted mainly due to evos subjective desires and prejudices based on non-theistic evo models.
The Law of biogenesis is not a law born out of theoretical predictions as well as observations; it is supported only by observations of the modern world, and as such, can only be called a theory. So, don't try and base your arguments off of the premise that what you are arguing is law. What you are saying is a simple matter of confounded logic, as many on this thread have pointed out.
Are you serious? The specious logic or illogic in this is astounding.
it is supported only by observations of the modern world,
Uh, wrong, but if you are saying that it's only supported by observations of men of science and therefore "the modern world", then I'd have to point the same is true of every single scientific "law" and theory that exists. The speciousness of your argument is thus astounding.
as such, can only be called a theory.
The same is true then for any scientific "law."
How can you say that 3.8 billion years ago, the first life didn't evolve from nonliving materials? You can't.
How can you say what you are experiencing right now isn't a dream?
You can't. If you are going by absolute proof, then you can't say anything for sure, unless you are doing so as a matter of faith.
The law of biogenesis is based on the prediction that all life stems from other life, and it is borne out by observation. Not saying it cannot be wrong, but saying there is no predictive aspect to it seems silly to me. It is a theoritical prediction in itself.
create theories based on those pieces of evidence as to what is most likely happening and will happen, and in so happening will affect some changes in the world.
Ok, so let's test abiogenesis. It's someting "most likely happening"?, or "will happen" and "in so happeniong will affect some changes in the world"?
I don't see it doing any of those things. In fact, it doesn't seem rational at all. If abioogenesis occurs, why would it occur only once?
The predictions of biogenesis are an effect of the observations, and not a cause of them.
Isn't that a good thing?
Einstein first used mathematics to predict general relativity, after which observations of gravitational lensing confirmed his ideas.
Maybe so, but this isn't physics. Are you saying without mathematical theory predicting it, that observational theories are invalid? Maybe so......let me know when you decide to denouce the theory of evolution on such grounds.
Also, seems like some IDers using math are somehow denounced as if doing so is inconsistent with evolutionary biology.
So merely presenting an unprovable theory means that theory must be accepted, eh?
Then why is the ID theory not therefore accepted by evos since the argument (I consider fallacious btw) is made by evos that it cannot be proven or disproven? For the record, I do feel ID os evidence-based but make this point for sake of argument and logic. You say it cannot be proven or disproven. So what? According to your logic, it must be accepted unless you can disprove it.
The fact of the matter, moreover, is nothing can be proved or disproved, just verified as potentially likely. There is ample evidence of life stemming from life and no examples to the contrary, none. So all of the available evidence suggests, every example we know of, that life stems from life and we have no examples of life stemming from non-life. Your argument makes a mockery of evidence-based science by insisting that non-evidence based claims are true without any evidence merely by the fact they have not been wholly disproven, and in fact since nothing can be wholly disproven, there is no valid scientific theory existing whatsoever by your logic.
Second, I did not say abiogenesis is an accepted theory.
Ok, are you saying it's not an accepted theory, or not a theory at all or what?
In fact, I didn't make any statement of value on abiogenesis at all, did I?
You didn't? This is what you stated:
You cannot say biogenesis as proposed by AOkid is proven until you disprove the alternative, which is abiogenesis. So, until abiogenesis is falsified, biogenesis is still unproven.
Clearly, you have made a statement of value here on abiogenesis. I am not putting words into your mouth. Your argument is that the alternative theory of abiogenesis must be falsified or biogenesis "is still unproven", right?
If that's incorrect, are you then saying that even non-theories with no evidence must be falsified first before something else is true? OK, let's say aliens created life and guided and influenced evolution. Now, clearly you cannot say Darwinism is true because, after all, you have not eliminated the alien hypothesis.
Also, why are you once again presenting the "proven" language since nothing is ever "proved" in science? Do you just mean verified as likely, but use the layman's word, "proven"?