(February 20, 2016 at 12:24 am)AAA Wrote:(February 20, 2016 at 12:13 am)Jello Wrote: Sure, we can't observe the exact point in time that life came into existence.
That doesn't mean that the science behind the theories can't be proven however. (Amino acid "building blocks of life" kinda stuff, y'know, basic science for 11 year olds?)
Yeah, but according to stimbo it isn't science unless you can do it in a lab. Also if you made a protein in a lab, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't necessarily provide evidence that it did. Similarly if I constructed a protein intentionally, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't provide evidence that intelligent design is true does it? So empirical science cannot be applied to historical events. However, keep in mind that I am not the one limiting science to empiricism, that would be stimbo. I think that they are both scientific hypothesis.
No, don't fucking strawman me. It's not because you assert it cannot be tested in a lab that makes it not scientific; it's that it is carefully crafted to be untestable altogether. Unfalsifiable = unscientific. Why is that so hard?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
