The Limits of Science

[jinx]

It is already happening if you ask me. Theories like the theory of Threads will soon make the current atomic "planetary model" theory more than obsolete. And when that happens, we will question our selves how could our ancestors think of these ridiculous theories as correct. But that's the way it goes. Science progresses and theories change CONTINUOUSLY! This is the only Law of Science...

What is the theory of threads?

Well, chance and a few billion years of chemistry

and more about what is observable and repeatable.

Abiogenesis is an untestable conjecture/hypothesis, not science.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Science is a great tool. But can science ("exact science" to be exact) investigate everything? Can it investigate things which cannot be replicated in a laboratory? Can it investigate things which cannot be measured? Can it investigate things which happen only once? What do you think are limits of Science?

The only limitation, as to science eventually understanding everything, is time.

[tillingborn]

Abiogenesis is an untestable conjecture/hypothesis, not science.

Well I know that as long ago as 1953 amino acids were created under conditions that were intended to mimic the conditions on Earth several billion years ago. There was something recently about bits of bacteria DNA being strung together and creating a viable bacterium; I think the DNA was placed in an 'empty' bacterium. While it may be true that scientists have not yet created 'life' from scratch and perhaps never will, the fact that they can even attempt it is enough for it to be a testable conjecture/hypothesis.

[jinx]

The only limitation, as to science eventually understanding everything, is time.

Things in the past are lost forever to observational science. Man can 'infer' things in the past based on a priori axioms but regarding the origin of life and the universe- no astronomers were present for the origin of the universe and no chemists/biologists for the origin of life- no one was there, God of Genesis was and recorded it in Genesis 1:1-31 for mankind to know. Athiests reject God witness testimony for the origin of mankind and so are left with silly myths (Charles's).

Well I know that as long ago as 1953 amino acids were created under conditions that were intended to mimic the conditions on Earth several billion years ago.

Lol chemists get racemic (50:50 mixture of levorotatory and dextrorotatory (left/right)) amino acids/sugars (there is a 5 carbon sugar in DNA/RNA) when making them up, all amino acids in us are in the L configuration (left handed, when you buy an amino acid at the local store note the 'L' designation before the name) and sugars are R. Life does not do racemic.

There was something recently about bits of bacteria DNA being strung together and creating a viable bacterium; I think the DNA was placed in an 'empty' bacterium.

If i could suggest something to an atheist it would be stop listening to the media (or just stop believing it). Its not just a random sequence of monomers (single units, amino acids for proteins, nucleotides for DNA/RNA) needed its the sequence that dictates function ie the letters on this page if just a random crap shoot of 26 possibilities would yield no/close to no information, its the sequence (that had to come from a conscious source) that gave them there 'information' content.

While it may be true that scientists have not yet created 'life' from scratch and perhaps never will, the fact that they can even attempt it is enough for it to be a testable conjecture/hypothesis.

Lol i can 'attempt' to fly to the moon, science=observable phenomena (look in any dictionary take not of words like observable, testable, repeatable, experimental etc etc) abiogenesis (debunked over 200 years ago (spontaneous generation) and renamed) is religion not science. You have been brainwashed.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The only limitation, as to science eventually understanding everything, is time.

Things in the past are lost forever to observational science. Man can 'infer' things in the past based on a priori axioms but regarding the origin of life and the universe- no astronomers were present for the origin of the universe and no chemists/biologists for the origin of life- no one was there, God of Genesis was and recorded it in Genesis 1:1-31 for mankind to know. Athiests reject God witness testimony for the origin of mankind and so are left with silly myths (Charles's).

Spoken like a true man of the day! But only time will tell, my friend!

[tillingborn]

Hello jinx
Has it not occurred to you that the argument you use to refute science is based on the science you wish to refute? None of what you say is in the bible.
I presume you are talking about Pasteur debunking abiogenesis. What he did, as science has since discovered, was to demonstrate that if complex living organisms, bacteria, are eradicated from an environment, they don't spontaneously reappear. The modern interpretation of abiogenesis is, as I understand it, based on Darwinian evolution; the idea being that there are some chemical reactions that are self replicating. Of those reactions, the ones that include mechanisms that make replication more efficient, or that safeguard their energy from predatory molecules, will eventually evolve into living organisms. This is a testable hypothesis,which I believe is being tested and has not yet been debunked.
Your analogy of the alphabet doesn't hold water; while it is true that if you mix an enormous pot of alphabetti spaghetti for billions of years you will occasionally string letters together that make words, perhaps even sentences, there are no forces that cause spontaneous stirring, as is the case with chemical elements.

[Ginkgo]

Things in the past are lost forever to observational science. Man can 'infer' things in the past based on a priori axioms but regarding the origin of life and the universe- no astronomers were present for the origin of the universe and no chemists/biologists for the origin of life- no one was there, God of Genesis was and recorded it in Genesis 1:1-31 for mankind to know. Athiests reject God witness testimony for the origin of mankind and so are left with silly myths (Charles's).

The above is not really accurate.

Firstly. The origins of the universe and the origins of life are different disciplines within science. To treat them as dealing with the same subject matters is to conflate and confuse.

Secondly. So called, "things" in the past are not lost forever as far as astronomy is concerned. For example, the cosmic microwave background radiation was a relic from the Big Bang and continues to exist today.


Thirdly. As far as your claim that astronomy uses apriori axioms. Can you provide evidence of there being non-experiential sources for this justification when it comes to the apriori-ness of astronomy?

[jinx]

Has it not occurred to you that the argument you use to refute science is based on the science you wish to refute?

Science (chemistry, physics, genetics) works. 'Evolution' is NOT science. It is mixed in with science but it is not science.

I presume you are talking about Pasteur debunking abiogenesis.

Look in any dictionary under abiogenesis. Take note of spontaneous generation. They are the same thing just renamed because the evo myth needs a creation myth. Yet another way evolutionary dogma hurts science.

This is a testable hypothesis,which I believe is being tested and has not yet been debunked.

The origin of life on earth is forever in the past and can never be observed. It is not a matter of observational science.

.

For example, the cosmic microwave background radiation

Scientific fact: there is a CMB.

was a relic from the Big Bang and continues to exist today.

Belief system attached to original scientific fact.

There is YEC physicists who predict the CMB in their model. Any model would have to predict it- it is here in the present. Attaching the big bang and the big bang only as the cause of the CMB is a logical fallacy and a common one in propaganda (the media). Take note of the fact ( ie there is a CMB) and the interpretation of the fact ( it came from the big bang). Propaganda is aimed at getting people to swallow only ONE interpretation to every fact (big bang/'evolution').

Thirdly. As far as your claim that astronomy uses apriori axioms. Can you provide evidence of there being non-experiential sources for this justification when it comes to the apriori-ness of astronomy?

Everyone on earth has a priori axioms that they bring to a set of data. No one was around for the origin of the universe (in the case of physics/astronomy). Depending on ones a priori axioms depends how one interprets evidence in the present about events that may/may not have happened in the past. Your particular a priori axiom (as evidenced by the CMB/big bang comment) is 'The big bang happened'. Mine is not. Mine is Genesis 1:1 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. The atheists is (usually by blind faith) Darwin 1:1 'In the beginning hydrogen'. Science and natural law come down strongly in support for the fact of creation (Dr Duane Gish quote).

[Ginkgo]

I get the feeling that you are trying trying to tell us that the CMB is a recent phenomenon? In other words, CMB has been around for about 4000 years or so.

[Ginkgo]

Everyone on earth has a priori axioms that they bring to a set of data. No one was around for the origin of the universe (in the case of physics/astronomy). Depending on ones a priori axioms depends how one interprets evidence in the present about events that may/may not have happened in the past. Your particular a priori axiom (as evidenced by the CMB/big bang comment) is 'The big bang happened'. Mine is not. Mine is Genesis 1:1 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. The atheists is (usually by blind faith) Darwin 1:1 'In the beginning hydrogen'. Science and natural law come down strongly in support for the fact of creation (Dr Duane Gish quote).

You don't actually bring apriori postulates to the data unless you are doing metaphysical ontology. As far as CMBR is concerned is it not a product of mind dependent relationships. If it isn't mind dependent then in terms of science it is aposteriori. In other words, we first need to establish CMBR as an empirical fact. I think we have done this. Only after having done this we can then use various types of axioms to do theoretical physics.

It might be true that everyone has apriori axioms, I don't know. Nevertheless, even if true, their only importance exists in how they are used. You seem to be suggesting that modern science is based on some type of Aristotelian ontology?

[jinx]

Yes the CMB exists. But attaching one cause and one cause only to it is a logical fallacy ie.

1) If i eat a pizza i will be full.

2) I am full.

3) Therefore i just ate a pizza.

Well there could be any number of reasons i am full not just eating a pizza (i drank lots of water, ate a chicken etc etc)

1) If there was a big bang there would be a CMB

2) There is a CMB

3) Therefore there was a big bang.

Well there could be any number of reasons why there is a CMB not jut the big bang ( it could be because Genesis 1:1-31 took place ~6,000 years ago in 6 plain days). The big bang was only thought up last 100 years or so obviously the CMB existed before then so it is an after the fact prediction. Thats how all of big bang/'evolution' works. -Observe ANYTHING in the present, incorporate it into the model, present it as a prediction-observation-prediction confirmed model.

You seem to be suggesting that modern science is based on some type of Aristotelian ontology?

'Modern science' is done by man. Man is flawed. Man has a priori postulates they bring to data (everyone on earth).

[skakos]

It is already happening if you ask me. Theories like the theory of Threads will soon make the current atomic "planetary model" theory more than obsolete. And when that happens, we will question our selves how could our ancestors think of these ridiculous theories as correct. But that's the way it goes. Science progresses and theories change CONTINUOUSLY! This is the only Law of Science...

What is the theory of threads?

Sorry, my bad.
I was referring to String Theory. My mind played tricks to me while I was thinking in Greek and wrote in English... Hehehe.

[skakos]

Science is a great tool. But can science ("exact science" to be exact) investigate everything? Can it investigate things which cannot be replicated in a laboratory? Can it investigate things which cannot be measured? Can it investigate things which happen only once? What do you think are limits of Science?

The only limitation, as to science eventually understanding everything, is time.

Have you not heard of Gödel who proved that science cannot prove everything?

[skakos]

Abiogenesis is an untestable conjecture/hypothesis, not science.

Well I know that as long ago as 1953 amino acids were created under conditions that were intended to mimic the conditions on Earth several billion years ago. There was something recently about bits of bacteria DNA being strung together and creating a viable bacterium; I think the DNA was placed in an 'empty' bacterium. While it may be true that scientists have not yet created 'life' from scratch and perhaps never will, the fact that they can even attempt it is enough for it to be a testable conjecture/hypothesis.

Scientists have not created life. Not "have not created life from scratch".
And the main thing is that we do not even know what life IS...

[skakos]

Everyone on earth has a priori axioms that they bring to a set of data. No one was around for the origin of the universe (in the case of physics/astronomy). Depending on ones a priori axioms depends how one interprets evidence in the present about events that may/may not have happened in the past. Your particular a priori axiom (as evidenced by the CMB/big bang comment) is 'The big bang happened'. Mine is not. Mine is Genesis 1:1 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'. The atheists is (usually by blind faith) Darwin 1:1 'In the beginning hydrogen'. Science and natural law come down strongly in support for the fact of creation (Dr Duane Gish quote).

You don't actually bring apriori postulates to the data unless you are doing metaphysical ontology. As far as CMBR is concerned is it not a product of mind dependent relationships. If it isn't mind dependent then in terms of science it is aposteriori. In other words, we first need to establish CMBR as an empirical fact. I think we have done this. Only after having done this we can then use various types of axioms to do theoretical physics.

It might be true that everyone has apriori axioms, I don't know. Nevertheless, even if true, their only importance exists in how they are used. You seem to be suggesting that modern science is based on some type of Aristotelian ontology?

Science is based on a NUMBER OF AXIOMS.

And when we forget that we use them, that is when they turn into DOGMAS...

For example science is based on the axiom that everything is measurable. That everything can be replicatied in an experiment. Even the osmic microwave background radiation is based on many axioms/ definitions.

Would you say that "radiation" exists?

Do you see "radiation" as something like Plato's Ideas? Existing "somewhere out there"? Or is it just a notion we have CREATED so as to help us understand the world?