Evolution: is it necessary to know how life ultimately began in order to study and debate the evidence that evolution has since occurred? [Spirituality & Religion]

@Bushranger [quote]It's not necessary to know how life began[/quote]

It sure is necessary. That's what makes good and true science.

@Bushranger Goddidit.

@GodSpeed63

[quote]It sure is necessary[/quote]

You need to explain why it is necessary to know how life began in order to study how it has evolved.
If you can't then your claim must necessarily be rejected for the unsubstantiated assertion that it currently is.

I know you want to ignore this, i know you're about to not answer this question.
Just stop. Take a breath.
Explain your reasoning.

Why do you need to know how a thing began in order to study how it behaves?

@GodSpeed63 "...good and true" Science.
Previous to the adjectives, you would better learn what Science is.

@GodSpeed63 In all our interactions, you have continued to be a science denier.

@Bushranger [quote]In all our interactions, you have continued to be a science denier.[/quote]

Only pseudo science which is evolution.

@CharlieZ [quote]you would better learn what Science is.[/quote]

I know what true science is, I'm wondering if you do.

@GodSpeed63 Science Philosophy, that is the meta science related to Science practice and it´s History have clearly defined what pseudo science is.
ID accomplish all the criteria to be a good example of what scientists call pseudo science, but philosophers who don´t, call Science.

@CharlieZ [quote]Science Philosophy, that is the meta science related to Science practice and it´s History have clearly defined what pseudo science is.
ID accomplish all the criteria to be a good example of what scientists call pseudo science, but philosophers who don´t, call Science.[/quote]

On whose authority are you basing all this on?

@GodSpeed63 So, the scientific community who DO Science do not know and YOU do?

It do not sounds well, but ok.
You have a golden opportunity to go beyond words here.

As previously asked to you and hippy.

[b]Show now.
Where are published, complete and autonomous.
The theories formulated under scientific criteria an no other.
And the systematic collected data related to each one.

Perhaps, also.
ONE single example (ONE!).
Of ONE contribution to Science of the importance of Relativity or DNA research (amongst hundreds).
Given by.
The brand of First Philosophy that you call Science.

If what you may bring (I doubt you will do, but perhaps...) do not meet scientific criteria as scientific theories do.
And only philosophic "rationallity", which is as irrelevant to Science as "common sense".

In that case, don´t bother to try.
Just say, honestly for once.
That you can´t

[/b]

@GodSpeed63 Do you need names of philosophers of Science who are or were ALSO scientists?
The list is too long, but you already know who they are.

Of course, they do philosophy about science from within science.
The times when Science (when young) was a servant of First Philosophy are long over.
If Science had not emancipated itself of that obscurantist load, all the results that Science had given would never been developed.
And a clue to that is that First Philosophies NEVER gave a Scientific result by it´s own in millenia.

@GodSpeed63 "On whose authority are you basing all this on?"

Of course, any kind of authority is alien to Science.
If you need to invoke one (no matter whom) to prove something, you are stepping outside science.


But we may judge based on results, it´s fruits.

Philosophers of Science that do their work about the kind of Science that gave us scientific results for 400 years, deserve (not authority, but) some credit.

The ones, philosophers, that keep anchored to First Philosophies, do it about something that never gave us scientific results for millenia.

@CharlieZ [quote]Of course, any kind of authority is alien to Science.[/quote]

You're an intelligent man, you know as well as I do that science has laws and all its areas abide by those laws and the One who wrote them. Even though science itself does not recognize authority, it still has laws that it abides by.

@GodSpeed63 Of course it have "laws".
But confusing them as being as image of "legal" laws is not necessary.
Cognitive laws and commandments goes from thoughs and words to facts.
Physical laws go from thing on itselves to be, or not, later known as scientific laws.

When the newborn Science (about 400 years ago) emancipated from First Philosophy, become Science.
And, since then, not before, and because it did so, it gave fruits.
Contrarily, First Philosophy (not denying other merits) had no results at all in describing the world in scientific terms.
That is, Speed, an historical fact.

@GodSpeed63

[quote]It sure is necessary[/quote]

You need to explain why it is necessary to know how life began in order to study how it has evolved.
If you can't then your claim must necessarily be rejected for the unsubstantiated assertion that it currently is.

I know you want to ignore this, i know you're about to not answer this question.
Just stop. Take a breath.
Explain your reasoning.

Why do you need to know how a thing began in order to study how it behaves?

@Pikachu [quote]You need to explain why it is necessary to know how life began[/quote]

How else are we going to know about life if we don't know its Source?

@GodSpeed63

[quote]How else are we going to know about life if we don't know its Source?[/quote]

We can learn a great deal about life without knowing its source.
How it reproduces, how it sustains itself, how it changes.
Just as we can study how matter interacts without explaining how it came to be.
Knowing the source is BUT ONE element of the things we can learn about life.

So obviously it is not necessary to know how life began in order to study it.
So i as you again, why do you feel it is necessary to know how life began in order to study the evidence that since that time it has evolved?

@Pikachu [quote]We can learn a great deal about life without knowing its source.[/quote]

If you believe that, then you don't know as much about science as you claim to know.

@GodSpeed63

[quote]If you believe that, then you don't know as much about science as claim to know.[/quote]

No, no. Don't try to talk about me. Defend your claim.
EXPLAIN your claim. Can you do that?

Don't just question my understanding of science, DEMONSTRATE that it is flawed.

Do you disagree that without knowing how life began we can still observe how it reproduces itself or how it sustains itself?
Of course you don't.

So i as you again, why do you feel it is necessary to know how life began in order to study the evidence that since that time it has evolved?
Are you or are you NOT able to explain your reasoning?

@Pikachu [quote]No, no. Don't try to talk about me.[/quote]

I will talk to you about it being that you have things twisted around.

@GodSpeed63

lol ok. Talk about me.
But you must ALSO talk about the issue. You've claimed i don't understand science, that i have things twisted around.
PROVE IT.
Make your case.
Imagine you and i are on a debate stage before a crowd. You won't win the debate by telling my i have it twisted.
If you can't make your case you necessarily forfeit the debate.

You didn't address this. Please do so now.
[quote]Do you disagree that without knowing how life began we can still observe how it reproduces itself or how it sustains itself?
Of course you don't. [/quote]

So i as you again, why do you feel it is necessary to know how life began in order to study the evidence that since that time it has evolved?
Are you or are you NOT able to explain your reasoning?