: I addressed these obvious epistemological issues in prior posts. in this
: post I said There are very few things (any?) that can be absolutely
: proven. Therefore we have to weigh the evidence - that is what scientists
: do all the time. Science is an inductive discipline.

: But we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water and say - because we
: can't know absolutely we, therefore, know nothing. Nor should we say that
: all is opinion and all opinions are equal.

: Given that I had addressed the problems of epistemology before you brought
: them up - I had hoped that we could take them as understood and that we
: could move forward and make progress.

: I think that we can take it that you deny that the big bang happened. But I
: would like you to make your position clear.

: Do you deny that the big bang happened?

I cannot deny that the big bang happened, just as you can neither prove that it did.

: What is your model? Was there always cold matter? Always heavier elements?
: Always planets with liquid water? Is it turtles all the way down?

What does it matter what my model is? Do I have to provide an alternate simply to make my point that events in history cannot be proven valid? I think Russel Brand is facing similar criticism with his recent interview.

: That isn't necessary. And you have gravely misunderstood science if you think
: that science is: "if you weren't there then you can't know about
: it".

I cannot fathom how you believe you can know for sure (experience for yourself) that something happened in the past, let alone anyone else currently living in a time long before they existed.

: How did you form that opinion of science? From where?

Experience. And operational, observable, repeatable science. Theoretical and forensic sciences are fundamentally different.

: Did you do science at university level? I ask because you say things about it
: that I wouldn't expect anyone who has had experience of doing science
: would say.

IANAS.
Are only accredited scientists allowed to weigh in on scientific matters? Is anyone without a degree to be ignored, regardless of how right or wrong or challenging their words may be? Do you really want to go down that road?

: Trivial examples of why what you say is nonsense and does not reflect how
: science is done: we now have a measure of the mass of the Higgs boson ( ~
: 125 GeV). If what you say is true (that only people who were there can
: know something) then I suppose that nobody can use that figure unless they
: were really close to CMS when it was operating.

"nobody can use"? Where'd you pull that from?
I implore you to go back and re-read my comments from this massive undying thread.
The scientists who performed the experiments are the ones who observed (experienced) the results, to whatever degree they feel is sufficient for a conclusion. They documented it. They announced it. We receive the news, and we decide whether we believe them. The vast majority of people will of course trust them, but maybe there are in fact some scientists who are still skeptical. Because everything we hear and learn is taken on trust about the person who tells us. When more and more people have confirmed someone's results, it's much easier to trust the accuracy of the results. At some point, it's practical to move forward using the results for other experiments. This is how science works.

: And given that we can't
: directly observe the particles scattered during collisions in particle
: accelerators... I suppose that we should just abandon particle physics
: altogether. Let's burn the periodic tables and require all chemists to
: make their own from their own experiments.

Facetious.

: Do you not see how silly it is to ask, "where you there"?

It's not silly in the slightest. It's critical thinking, when applied seriously and properly.

:: How do you know there was no matter?
: It was too hot.

How do you know?

:: You are ONLY able to form
:: explanations which you feel are best supported by observations made here
:: and now, to this date. Do you deny that?
: No I don't.

: The best evidence we have suggests that it was too hot for neutral atoms to
: exist - you wont find any water soluble molecules in a plasma. And prior
: to that it was a quark soup (sounds tasty).

Sure. And round and round we go. You don't know, you've only formed an explanation of observations (as you ceded) that cannot itself be directly tested, only accepted as the best current explanation that you know of and consider plausible.

: Where we differ is that I do not despise evidence and theory.
: It is plain that you do. You really don't have much respect for such things.

False. Entirely. And demonstratably.
If continue to attack in such a manner, then we are done.

: We have made many observations of the
: microwave background. We have smashed particles together in particle
: accelerator at higher and higher energies to refine our measurements and
: theories. It lets us see and predict what would happen at high
: temperatures and pressures.

Are you implying I somehow said these are not observations? That these never happened? What forum are you even reading?!

: We look back in time to observe the early universe

No, we observe snapshots of light that exist here and now at our receptors depicting the properties of the source of said light at the moment it was set on its course.

: we can observe stellar spectra to measure their chemical compositions.

Yes. We observe the properties of photons, the spectrum of light our receptors receive in order to measure the chemical composition of the matter which ejected said waves.

: You don't have to make a universe to learn things about it.
: You can observe the one that you have
: and you can make small parts of a universe and use what you learn from
: that.

Sure.

: It is the essence of scientific endeavor.

Right. Observation, repetition, experimentation.

: What is non-biological matter? What is the difference between non-biological
: water and biological water? What is the difference between non-biological
: protons and biological protons?

I don't know. Do you?
Certainly scientists don't yet. And internet alone is awash with discussion on such a topic. Do you presume to know the truth that everyone is still looking to discover?

: We can synthesize nucleotides and amino acids by passing sparks through
: gases. It is trivial to make them. We see them in interstellar space. They
: are small, simple molecules - you don't need life to make them.

Then you've found the answer! Tell the newspapers! You can CREATE LIFE! Demonstrate the process, document it, allow other scientists to test your process and results. Then we'll see if what you imply is true - biological organisms spawning from non-biological matter with zero biological influence.

: Your point being that life can only come from life?
: Given an initial sterile universe

Your unprovable axiom.

: then it must have come from non-living antecedents.

A theory within that axiom attempting to explain the existence of biological organisms we observe today.

: We don't need to make some life to see that.

You just don't get it.

: You also have the whole infinite regress
: problem - how could life start if it can only come from existing life?

I don't know. I'm not saying to do know. I'm saying you don't know.

: This is a God of the gaps argument.

Uh, no it's not. It's simply an insufficiently explored property of life to draw any conclusion. No one has brought "God" into the discussion except you.

: We can see that fundamental biological building blocks are easy to make. We
: can even see how the two most common RNA nucleotides can be formed in
: biologically plausible conditions - they are of the correct chirality and
: are the most resistant to UV radiation and so can become concentrated in
: water exposed to UV.

I can find and pick up loads of puzzle pieces scattered around my floor. I won't know whether they form one complete puzzle until I manage to put them all together.

: I think that in time your gaps will become smaller and smaller.

I hope so, because that's what science purports to do. Explain what we don't yet know. Seek knowledge and understand of our universe as much as we are capable through observation and experimentation. The holes, which you may refer to as gaps if you wish, in our knowledge I also firmly believe and hope get smaller and smaller the more we discover about our universe.
DISCOVER. Not postulate. Theories may lead to new discoveries. That's great! More discoveries! Theories that push us forward to discovering more are great!

: Do you insist that any experiment carried out by a person constitutes
: biological input? Are you going to deny the validity of all experiments
: carried out by people? I think that you have already done this but I'd
: like to hear you confirm or deny this.

If you state that biological organisms can arise by chance entirely from non-biological matter (on the premise that it has happened before), then logically the proof would be to observe that happening. And yes, if a scientist puts all the pieces together, it proves that a scientist can 'create life'. The problem is if you rely solely on chance. You can say that, well, because the scientist found the proper context in which the event can occur, and anything is possible given enough time, then that's somehow proof. Or perhaps you can say that since the original of this scientist was ultimately "chance", then the event itself is by extension also due, ultimately, to chance. ...and yet, from our frame of reference, there has still been no demonstration of said event, purely by chance.

However, we're talking about two different things now.
1) A biological organism being formed from non-biological matter and
2) This event occurring entirely by random chance

I believe, if either of these occurs, (1) is far more likely to be observed than (2). If #1 occurs, then it has refined that mysterious distinction between life and non-life, because we've nailed it. But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. If #2 occurs, well then civilization will be in for one heck of a revolution.

: What is this difference that you talk about? Define it. What is biological
: matter? What is non-biological matter?

That is what I'm asking you, because you are stating there is no difference. I'm pointing to SCIENCE (that which you hold so dearly) to show you that there is most certainly a practical difference. So don't ask me to tell you the details of this difference - ask those who work within those fields. But you, so triumphantly, declare that there is no difference between life and non-life, because you know this. So, demonstrate this.