3RU7AL

If you have any evidence for abiogenesis, post it.

If I look up at the moon, the stairs and the planets in the night sky is my observation objective?

Plato's Parable of the MMORPG,

Once upon a time there were a number of people who lived in complete darkness and the only thing they could see was their computer screens.

What they saw on their screens was their reality.

The only other people they knew were people in-game with magnificent costumes and weapons.

Sure they had to fumble in the darkness in order to microwave a quick meal, or find their bed when they were exhausted, but those were merely incidental inconveniences.

Only the game was real.  Only the game was shared experience.  Only in-game places and people and items were quantifiable, able to be observed and verified and shared with other players (quanta). 

Sometimes an individual would try to explain what kind of food they ate or describe their room (private/personal/unshared knowledge, gnosis) but since none of this information was directly relevant in-game and was fundamentally unverifiable, it was dismissed out-of-hand as unintelligible nonsense.  In fact, even the language they had developed had evolved exclusively for in-game interactions, so there really weren't any proper words for "food" or "room" that were not specifically in-game references, and even more than that, since there was no taste, touch, or smell in-game, there were also no words to properly describe those sensations as well.

First there was nothing, and then there was something. All this mind would have to do is become conscious.

We don't pick and choose science. Real science goes where the truth is. Believing something because you assume there is no alternative is voodoo, not science.

In 6,000 years of recorded human history, there has NEVER been a single instance of abiogenesis. Not a single one. NEVER. Every single time life has started, it has come from previous life.

This post highlights my claim.

Evolutionists soar when they speak only in generalities. Tie them down to specifics and they immediately start to doublespeak.

You went to reproductive compatibility. Of course you did. The point was that a single individual with a genetic mutation would not be able to spread that mutation throughout the gene pool if all potential mates did not have that mutation.

You dodged that point and filled your post with evo-fluff.

So you want to lay down some rules as to what we should regard as scientific evidence.

Tell me what those rules should be?

I propose that our brains contain a neuronal circuit that - when faced with alternatives - makes an estimate of

1 - benefit to self

2 - cost to self

3- benefit to others

4- costs to others.

That circuit does a 'weighted sum' of those estimates the result of which we perceive as how good (or 'moral') the alternatives are. I suggest that is all there is to 'morality'.

Yeah it would affect my decision. I would think blue would be a good bet. 

No i couldn't ... but blue would be a better guess in my opinion since it is a much more popular color. The probabilities of other colors are much more likely... green and blue... especially if the box is small. There are way more blue and green balls. Tennis balls, racket balls. Then... even in golf balls, red is not a popular color. So logic would tell me i have a good chance it's not a red ball and i'd be confident in not accepting said persons claim. 

Neither of us will accept that the ball is purple arguing instead that it is the colors we claimed. We both seem equally sure and both have equal evidence to present. We cannot both be right so whom do you believe?

How do I know you're not lying to the degree of certainty you suggest me to in said scenario?

Let's say you are right, science is subjective.

What are the consequences of that?

What does it mean for science?

We clearly have to interact with something to gain knowledge of its existence - I don't think that is being disputed.   My position is that it is not necessary for me to know that X exists for X to exist.    If I step on a landmine I may never know of its existence - but exist it did.

The universe is like an engine [your personal opinion], it's mechanical [no quantum physics?] and how it works can be understood [at least in part but perhaps not in whole], but it takes work because you have to learn it to understand it.

The functional/practical issue i can see with not holding scientific pursuits above most other subjective realms, is that to hold science as subjective overall would put it akin to what most people consider "subjective" in meaning just a matter of opinion. 

Though fundamentally it's true that "objectivity" in observations on an individual level given both the imperfections of the senses and innate biases is out of the realm possibility, a lack of differentiation would overall imho just result in a populace that overwhelmingly agrees "unicorns exist" is of equal veracity to "obiects at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force".

Hypothetical only to a human.

What I believe is that the way most people use language the truth/falseness of  'X exists' does not depend on the existence of X being verified.    In other words verification reveals but does not change the truth/falseness of 'X exists'.