Abiogenesis is impossible

[Esquilax]

I am talking science.
Science is knowledge.
I already proved that the no God assumption is false.
That is now knowledge.
It is unscientific to use the No God assumption in the age question.

If you can't show it, you don't know it. You haven't shown that there is a god.

Why not take me on in a debate format and prove it there? Are you scared you'll lose? I would be, if I were you.

[Chas]

Then you also aren't talking science at all. You're talking baseless bullshit.

I am talking science.
Science is knowledge.
I already proved that the no God assumption is false.
That is now knowledge.
It is unscientific to use the No God assumption in the age question.

And I've already shown that science does not make either a god assumption or a no god assumption.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

I am talking science.
Science is knowledge.
I already proved that the no God assumption is false.
That is now knowledge.
It is unscientific to use the No God assumption in the age question.

And I've already shown that science does not make either a god assumption or a no god assumption.

Well then surely "science" has arrived to the conclusion that God cerated all things.

[Chas]

And I've already shown that science does not make either a god assumption or a no god assumption.

Well then surely "science" has arrived to the conclusion that God cerated all things.

No, because no evidence of any gods has been found.

[Doubting Thomas]

Jesus fucking christ, it's like trying to talk to a 3-year-old. The only thing left for SBG is the endless repetition of "Why?"

[downbeatplumb]

Jesus fucking christ, it's like trying to talk to a 3-year-old. The only thing left for SBG is the endless repetition of "Why?"

No, it is the endless repetition of "you only think that because you assume no god"

I do assume that there isn't a god in the same way i assume there isn't a troll under the bridge down the road. If I went there and a troll jumped out I'd say "fuck me I was wrong" because I would have evidence for the troll. So far god has not jumped me.

Not sure I'd recognise a god jump anyway. (If Summer was here she'd say something about Thor at this point)

What is god?

[What_the?!]

Hi all, new guy here. I posted an intro thread in the relevant sub forum so I won't clutter this one up :-)

Grace - you say you understand and love science, so you should have no difficulty answering the following two questions:-

1) what is a null hypothesis
2) what is the null hypothesis in relation to the ORIGIN (not the diversity) of life?

Obviously, this is very simple for someone as well versed in the scientific method as yourself, so please humour a new guy by answering........

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Hi all, new guy here. I posted an intro thread in the relevant sub forum so I won't clutter this one up :-)

Grace - you say you understand and love science, so you should have no difficulty answering the following two questions:-

1) what is a null hypothesis
2) what is the null hypothesis in relation to the ORIGIN (not the diversity) of life?

Obviously, this is very simple for someone as well versed in the scientific method as yourself, so please humour a new guy by answering........

The null hypothesis is the default position.
That means there is no established relationship between 2 things.

So the null hypothesis in origins is that God cerated everything.

[Bad Writer]

Simple logic.

Assume god.
That leads to contradictions in determining where everything came from.
Therefore, no god is.

And believe me, I can find more contradictions in print than you can imagine with your misunderstanding of basic science.

I understand science very well.

Your posts tell a different story.

[What_the?!]

....and your answer to my question has destroyed your position.

Indeed a null hypothesis is the default position (kind of...). In this case though, the default position is 'we don't know'.

The scientific method then requires that we propose and test possible H1 hypotheses, to see if there is any evidence to support them. If there is no evidence, we return to the H0 null hypothesis until such time as a better supported H1 hypothesis comes along.

Now, if you'd said that God is a H1 hypothesis supported by tons of evidence, then I'd disagree with you but your position wouldn't be anything like as weak as you've just made it for yourself. But the fact that you claim that god is the null hypothesis shows either a complete disregard for the scientific method, or a complete absence of understanding of it.

Any god hypothesis has to be a H1 hypothesis, and cannot be null, because it seeks to offer a positive explanation for origins, and a null hypothesis - by definition - cannot do that.

You, sir/madam, have either no understanding of the scientific method, or are choosing to completely disregard it. You really need to get to understand this before posting a again, because at the moment your posts are an amusing car crash but little else.