Replies

So much spew. So driven. No one is reading all that, you know. The silly dumb-dumb dance goes on.

Your premise is not the law of gravity. It contains no useful approximation of anything observable. It's about something that supposedly never ever happens, even over untestable amounts of parallel recombination on the early Earth. You want to claim proof of something you aren't even thinking of testing but you also don't want to admit that. You are STILL pretending not to see. This is the creationist dummy dance, the endless brazen pretense that the obvious is not.

You have been saying my statement is logically flawed rather than lacking in supporting evidence, so your comparison does not identify why the law of gravity meets your requirement, but mine does not.

More dishonesty. Your premise is not an attempt at reasoning at all and cannot be evaluated as sound versus unsound. It can only be evaluated as practically testable.

Every law of physics is potentially limited in scope and may fail someday. It has already happened to most of Newton's Laws. The Law of Gravity is getting a hard look after some disturbing cosmological data emerged a few years back.

But Newton's LOG, like his first three laws, will always be useful over a huge scope, just as it has been from the first. Your law of formations of life has a tiny domain just now. All the life we know of now traces to a single origin and we don't know for sure what that was. You have basically formulated your law to argue that that very data point was a "Goddidit" miracle, i.e, to beg the question.

You have openly hoped that science will create life in a lab, thus providing a second data point. You will then extrapolate back to the first point and yell, "Intelligent Design!"

What's funny about this is I can post two rows of skulls which appear for all the world to morph from chimpanzee to man and one creationist after another will attack me for interpolating evolution between the data points. Creationist make a science of refusing to infer. No interpolation allowed. No extrapolation allowed. Not, that is, until they need it to yell, "Goddidit!"

Newton, working on his LOG, was uniting Galileo and Kepler's laws, which separately were based on lots of observations. He basically knew the behavior was there and reliable, it just needed a more comprehensive and basic explanation than had been separately provided by the earlier laws. When he described the underlying lawfulness, that was an increase in human understanding.

Your law is an attempt to say, "Forget understanding this. God did it." That is not an increase in human understanding as most people see science.

You dug yourself a very deep hole. I think at this point you are probably too embarrassed to admit your argument is flawed even if you can see it plainly.

Look up the logical fallacy of tu quoque sometime. You made your premise that life never forms in an unguided fashion from nonlife. You will never test it. You know you won't. You don't have the integrity to say you won't. I'm confident that the lurkers are not idiots.

"Your premise... about something that supposedly never ever happens"

Untrue. I assume life has arisen by some mechanism. I think the mechanism is intelligence. It is impossible to verify or falsify a historical event via experimentation. My hypothetical statement is only useful if such an event can happen.

"It contains no useful approximation of anything observable. "

Isn't that the point? If life originating had been observed, it would either support my contention or prove me wrong.

"It can only be evaluated as practically testable."

And in post 2774 you say it is not testable but is falsifiable. Is it testable or not? I don't understand your point here. Are you admitting it may be testable and falsifiable but just not useful? Be more clear.

"Newton, working on his LOG, was uniting Galileo and Kepler's laws, which separately were based on lots of observations... Your law is an attempt...."

The law of gravity has been substantiated. I do not claim my hypothetical statement represents a law or even a theory. If numerous attempts to discover abiogenesis experimentally result in failure and no progress, AND multiple instances of assembling life in a lab occur, then my statement could possibly form the basis of a theory, particularly if the mechanisms used in laboratory experiments could be modeled in some fashion.

"Look up the logical fallacy of tu quoque sometime."

My accusation is easily substantiated. It is you who are like the proverbial frying pan calling the kettle black. You accusations are meritless. I have identified specifically how I have admitted significant error in the past. You fail to do so when it is laid out plainly. I pointed out your error about hypotheses always being assumed. You did not admit your error. I have demonstrated the precise application of the standards of verification and falsification to my statement. You failed to admit the error. It is you who have repeatedly made invalid arguments which, as I said above, are easily documented.

So far you have presented little substance by way of scientific argument but many weak arguments including argument from emotion, religion / morality, tautologies, and mere name calling (words are yours unless in parentheses):

2183 stupid , game, fool only the people dumb enough to prefer superstition
2238 dumb wrong thing, faking it, grow up
2564 Your hypothesis sucks, stop spewing and pretending, Why can't a creationist have the minimal integrity, shucking and jiving and spewing and running and hiding, doesn't mean doodle,
2721 disingenuous performance, You do not have the integrity. You intend to assume your thesis, not test it. (I proved that a thesis is always assumed but you never admitted your error.)
2740 ridiculous, empty blather, abnormal psychology you guys exhibit, Very few of you can admit an error above the typo level in argument with the Heathen Foe.
2746 dance along double-talking, said something stupid. That makes you stupid and transparently dishonest.
2748 you are only spewing words to obfuscate, silly, strawman (I was only defending my own position, so how this is a strawman fails me - just another popular pseudo argument around here that means nothing), I don't believe you don't see it.
2752 Your performance would be disgusting if it weren't for the Lord or whatever. Grow up. endless silly dance (I only accept one silly dance argument per thread, sorry.), Are you too dumb to understand that as well? How dishonest are you willing to be? How dumb do you want to play? Where is the bottom? How low will you go? Is the Lord commanding this?
2753 Are you capable of recognizing this? are you capable of admitting it? bludgeoning with your ignorance, are you smart enough to guess, Let's do an integrity test. You mix real dishonesty with real pig-ignorance. Nothing is as challenging and difficult ... unless it's getting an honest admission of same out of you.
2773 spew, silly dumb-dumb dance (third times the charm for this one I guess), don't want to admit, pretending not to see, dummy dance (fourth dancing analogy), the endless brazen pretense, obvious, More dishonesty, cannot be evaluated, funny, Goddidit (you accuse of straw man. I never said human assembly of life proves anything about God), Forget understanding this (another straw man, since I am advocating understanding the process by experimentation and exploration), You know, You don't have the integrity
2774 bad place to play dumb, If you are that pig-ignorant, I think you are a holy warrior liar for the Lord and are not telling the truth

Continuing from your post in 2774:

"You do not intend to test it other than to periodically yell that it has not been falsified."

Your mind reading trick must make you the life of the party. But I doubt you can divine my intentions as you claim, and they are irrelevant as to whether my statement is scientific. The issue is whether it is testable, not what my motives are.

"you have no business announcing that it will be falsified by some non-test of your devising"

How many times do I have to repeat that abiogenesis is NOT FALSIFIABLE? You keep claiming I am trying to falsify it. Not only is that a straw man argument (which you apparently love to both make accusations of as well as practice yourself), but it is a bad one. IF ABIOGENESIS IS FALSIFIABLE then my statement loses value. If you believe abiogenesis is the best explanation of the origin of life, you should be trying to make a falsifiable assertion based on it.

And another thing. I am not trying to "prove" my statement. Tests will, hopefully, support my statement. Otherwise, they will disprove it.

"You're going to do an experiment to try to form a certain organic from inorganics in the lab."

If you have a point, it would be better to spit it out instead of (as you have accused me four times) dancing around the issue. So abiogenesis has some problems? Of course it does. Not just experimentally. Logically. Scientifically.

I am not opposed to attempting to understand and verify a means by which abiogenesis might have occurred. That's because I recognize supportable ideas are useful even if they are not falsifiable. You just can't call them theories or laws.