If something can't be proven, why bother even thinking about it?
Science can prove that it didn't happen 2000 years ago? I'm pretty sure it can't. I agree, it's VERY unlikely and that a reasonable person has every reason not buy it, but science can't prove it. Not until we get a time machine (but that's VERY unlikely too).
I am God. By your logic that can't be proven wrong. Keep in mind that you conveniently can't test me because you shalt not test thy lord.
I'm just sick and tired of smart people believing stupid things.
Not all propositions can be proven one way or the other. In fact there must be statements that cannot be verified. Science can only apply itself in the realm of knowledge that can be verified. It is meaningless to ask science to act where no measurable answer exists.
Yes, but it is not all or nothing. One can come up with plausible hypotheses, maybe more than one being possible, and exclude others as less likely, consistent with the data. It is where there is no data at all that is available or discoverable, that science is useless. So far, science has been useless when it comes to the origins of life. Maybe someday it will be useful, but not now. I guess what I am saying, is that words like "verified" or "answers" close off a bit too much territory, where science has value. At least that is my first cut at it, until someone sets me straight.
I was making, I think, an even stronger statement. We know that both in philosophy and in mathematics that there are well-formed propositions that by their very nature
cannot be tested. Some of these propositions can even be proved to be untestable (that is unprovable either true or false). These propositions can have value as the basis for philosophical argument and mathematical theorems. However, attacking them with science will result in futility, since they are by definition untestable.
