![flat earth firmament flat earth firmament](https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-interpretation/files/landing_flatearththeory.png)
You’re just blind to the fact that you’re stance on this issue is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. You HAVE a philosophy, and you are NOT blind to it. I did NOT say you were philosophically blind. You: “You’re saying I’m philosophically blind because I don’t consider untestable hypothesis.”
![flat earth firmament flat earth firmament](https://dasg7xwmldix6.cloudfront.net/episodes/681203_YcqGBIin.jpg)
Me: “You are blind to the fact that considering ONLY materialistic/testable/“scientific” hypotheses (and truths?) is a PHILOSOPHICAL position, not a scientific or scientifically-justified position.” Maybe you can help me with what would be inconsistent with it. It predicts that the process of life formation is characterized more by suddenness than by gradualism.
![flat earth firmament flat earth firmament](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c0/17/8c/c0178cb0b8d2f29b58c941dbc85ecec6.jpg)
It predicts that all the various kinds of organisms will share certain types of matter. It predicts that an organism comes only from other organisms of its kind. On the flip side, it predicts that inorganic chemicals and chemical processes alone will not “create” life. Confirmed/observed throughout human history!) It predicts that life comes only from other life. It’s a, to be kind, “philosophical” position.Īs to my hypothesis (in your words, ‘an omnipotent God who miracle-poofed animals into existence’) and “what it predicts, what data might be inconsistent with it, and how we’d go about testing whether its right or not”, You’d have to be blind not to see that his is not a scientific position.
#FLAT EARTH FIRMAMENT DRIVER#
It’s like Mikey’s flat-bed trailer driver (the trailer pulling the merry-go-round away) saying the only reality is what he sees from his flat-bed trailer. You are blind to the fact that considering ONLY materialistic/testable/“scientific” hypotheses (and truths?) is a PHILOSOPHICAL position, not a scientific or scientifically-justified position. My calling you a “blind man” was not an insult but a statement of fact. “Hey, its up to you whether to insult me or explain to me your hypothesis, what it predicts, what data might be inconsistent with it, and how we’d go about testing whether its right or not.” The second hypothesis is still entirely materialistic, and simply pushes back the chemical origins of life to some non-terrestrial environment. The most parsimonious hypothesis is that known chemical processes on Earth occurred locally, forming the necessary organic compounds through known pathways.Ī less parsimonious, but still reasonable, hypothesis is that known chemical processes occurred elsewhere in space (other planets, comets, whatever), and the resulting organic compounds were "delivered" to Earth via meteorites. We don't know yet know how life originated on Earth. It also does the wonderful job of advancing your Master's program of deception. Yes, that would sound more mysterious, and really very eighteenth century, but less accurate. #1: "What a science-y statement: “Life takes hold.” You could have at least tried to sound more mysterious, and *historical*: ‘On one of them, 4+ billion years ago, *Spontaneous Generation* occurred.’"