That's a misrepresentation of my position. I have absolutely no nothing against true science and do accept evidence.
Your use of the word "true" science helps support my case. Radrook, I respect many of your opinions, but evolution is, indeed, science. It generates testable hypotheses and has resulted in multiple instances of validation. I once asked you for an alternative hypothesis to evolution which would explain 17 seperate observations. It is true that exact mechanisms by which certain aspects occur has not been worked out. It is also true that we may come across a part of life that does not fit evolutionary theory. If that occurs, than evolution will be disproven and a new theory will replace it. however, due to the success of evolution to explain so much of the observed data, it is unlikely that the new theory wouldn't have some sort of evolutionary component to it. Consider it a Newtonian/quantum mechanical split.
However, what I look at with suspicion is misinterpretation of evidence to fit preconceptions. Also the inconsistent application of criteria which indicates bias and dishonesty and total disregard for the very principles that science supposedly considers sacrosanct. When so-called scientists behave that way-then they are begging to be suspected of foul play.
I agree. That is why I have no respect for ID. it isn't science. It isn't even in the running as a comptetitor theory.
I don't believe in a story that requires millions of happy accidents to be true. In fact, when I come across that type of tall tale in writing or in film, I immediately reject it as an insult to adult intelligence. In fact, even young children will protest if stories contain to many happy-go-lucky accidents.
that's an odd statement. The collision of two chemical species is a random chance, and indeed can be considered a happy accident. But such an analogy is meaningless as we know it occurs.
Also, the chance of me existing is a "happy accident" There are ~300,000 oocytes per woman.
So there is a 1 in 300,000 chance that the right (Joobz egg to have been there)
There are about 10-100million sperm prodcued per day) So, assuming there are a good 50 years of sperm producing life in an average person, that results in about 0.2-2 trillion sperm. Which means that there was at best (not factoring in success of fertilization, success of development...) a 1 in 60,000 trillion chance that I would be here. But here I am. Do you doubt that I'm here, since I'm merely a happy accidenct?
You are arguing from incredulity, which only works if we have never observed the steps which would have led to the conditions we see. We know that these events are random and imporbable, but we know they occur. As such, incredulity doesn't work.
BTW
There is no repeatable testable evidence in relation to abiogenesis.
We know that abiogenesis had to occur. The question is how. Creationist claim it is god that did it (poofed life into existence). Since there is no proof of ANYTHING EVER having poofed into existence, I am led to believe that this explanation is wrong.
Science merely assumes that there is a natural mechanistic explanation. You are completely right to say that science has no real proof yet on what those mechanisms would be.
What you have is a simple chemical reaction which is interpreted within the abiogenesis preconception as being proof of that preconception. Coming around full circle in the process. Now that's what I teach all my students.
No one ever said that it was proof of natural abiogenesis. I certainly do not claim proof. But it is a testable hypothesis. Which makes it a scientific claim. Untested, yes. Unscientific, no.
)
