nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 47:
Line 47: + + +
→Rebuttals of problems: Wrong answer, gravity still not like abiogenesis, denying gravity.
::No, my answers are to the effect that these particular examples are not considered ''problems'' by biologists at all, they're simply unresolved issues with a number of competing plausible theories that continue to be tested. As for the gravity example, well, we know that gravity exists because we observe its effects, and we know that life originated (and the rough timescale) through observation of its effects, mainly fossils and living creatures. The precise method by which the origin of terrestrial occured is scientifically better understood than the precise method by which gravity occurs. And yes, there are people who [http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/gravity.html deny the existence of gravity]. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 16:53, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::No, my answers are to the effect that these particular examples are not considered ''problems'' by biologists at all, they're simply unresolved issues with a number of competing plausible theories that continue to be tested. As for the gravity example, well, we know that gravity exists because we observe its effects, and we know that life originated (and the rough timescale) through observation of its effects, mainly fossils and living creatures. The precise method by which the origin of terrestrial occured is scientifically better understood than the precise method by which gravity occurs. And yes, there are people who [http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/gravity.html deny the existence of gravity]. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 16:53, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Then your answers were ''wrong'', because there ''are'' biologists who consider these to be problems. In any case, "unresolved issues with a number of competing plausible theories" is a euphemism for "unresolved ''problem''".
::: Yes, we know gravity exists because we observe its effects, and we know life originated because it exists and could not always have existed, but we ''don't'' know that it originated naturalistically, because that was not observed nor is that logically deducible, unless you first start with the ''assumption'' of naturalism. Neither is even the rough timescale (the one you are referring to) known, for the same reason. No, the precise method by which terrestrial life occurred is ''not'' scientifically better understood, because scientists have nothing but explanations that don't fit what we do know. If you want to get pedantic about people claiming that gravity doesn't exist, then no, you have not shown that, because ''one person'' (singular) is not ''people'' (plural). If you don't want to be pedantic, then I'm not talking about the odd crackpot that rejects abiogenesis, but millions of people and thousands or tens of thousands of scientists.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 8 June 2008 (EDT)