Turtles all the way down?nothing more than an assumption on your part.
Must have been kind of difficult for it during the big bang.
Turtles all the way down?nothing more than an assumption on your part.
links to sources please.***pinches himself to make sure he's really here***
are you sure about that Leo or are you just fucking with me?
So science really doesn't know.
All these elements work together. RNA and DNA carry on character traits , but when it is the first one, in the first cell it has nothing to pass on. It must have to evolve it some how.
links to sources please.
I find that Science uses a method to accept some hypothesis; this method is shown to be not always correct.
That is:
They accept the 'simplest' explanation....
In other words I believe anything that is part of a theory due to the above method is untrustworthy- that includes a lot of things now...
Peace be unto you
Then perhaps the fist replicating life form was just a replicating molecule! Molecules can replicate themselves, especially in the presence of a catalyst. Eventually, the molecule not only replicated itself, it also produced other useful molecules, in other words, there was the evolution of specialized function.
sorry, your links do not prove life came from non life.
Then perhaps the fist replicating life form was just a replicating molecule! Molecules can replicate themselves, especially in the presence of a catalyst. Eventually, the molecule not only replicated itself, it also produced other useful molecules, in other words, there was the evolution of specialized function.
this isnt strictly correct.
Point 1.
Goddidit is the simplest answer of all time - and yet answers nothing.
Point 2.
sometimes the simplest, most economical explanation is mindbendingly complex and takes years of study to grasp.
Point 3.
The fundamental principles that explain how evolution took place are so simple a child can understand them - but how many religious fanatics do you know that dont know the first thing about evolution? (try "all of them" if you're stuck for an answer)
No answers - or thread relevance - therein. Pass.786 said:I was hoping that you answer the questions (at least the last two)- by explaining what a node was and what it represented
You have not.786 said:I have just brought up a point irrespective of my religious convictions.
You err in the ascription.786 said:I find that Science uses a method to accept some hypothesis;
That's irrelevant. Nothing is provable - in the modern sense - by the scientific method.786 said:I find the idea of accepting the simplest explanation to be not provable by the scientific method
I question that. Over the years I have seen so many intelligent and educated people have so much trouble with them I have come to view them as actually difficult, counter-intuitive, and easily confused or mistaken by most people.patel said:The fundamental principles that explain how evolution took place are so simple a child can understand them -
No answers - or thread relevance - therein. Pass.
You have not.
You err in the ascription.
That's irrelevant. Nothing is provable - in the modern sense - by the scientific method.
It doesn't.786 said:Science takes the most simple explanation- on what basis?
It doesn't.
There is nothing "simple" about quantum electrodynamics, for example.
Neither. You insist on asking questions based on mistaken assumptions and wrongheaded approaches, and then refuse to accept the answers, is all.786 said:No reason talking to you then because you either clearly lack knowledge of what I'm talking about or you are purposefully dodging the question
Neither. You insist on asking questions based on mistaken assumptions and wrongheaded approaches, and then refuse to accept the answers, is all.
Am I supposed to agree with you that a phrase like "the idea of accepting the simplest explanation {is} not provable by the scientific method" somehow makes sense, or applies to anything any actual scientist does or argues or believes?
Maybe, but in this world it doesn't.786 said:It would make sense if you knew that scientist take 'the simplest explanation'.
Because they don't. They don't, say, accept deity interventions, miracles, wildly improbable coincidences, violations of the 2nd Law or other basic laws, and so forth - no matter how simple such explanations would be.
Or perhaps it would be better if you realised the truth.It would make sense if you knew that scientist take 'the simplest explanation'. Perhaps you should read Occam's Razor- as an example