What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[jamesbond007]

The Philosophy of Science and Karl Popper tells us that the capacity to falsify or refute a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be contradicted by evidence is what is necessary to test its validity. With abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution, the advocates of their theories or what I call scientific atheism have left no room for this capacity as they assume there is no God, creator, or other supernatural presence involved.

I suppose this can be extended to the Big Bang Theory, as well, as I think Father Georges Lemaitre's theory had its falsifiability removed. We have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for it, but still no acceptance of God as falsification to Big Bang Theory. Furthermore, the creation scientists such as Edward Blyth have been relegated to second class status for natural selection when he came up with the hypothesis before Charles Darwin and John Gould (Darwin's finches ornithologist and bird artist). I think even Darwin read the writings of Blyth on natural selection and took his ideas of natural selection from him.

Thus, my argument is how can abiogenesis, ToE, Big Bang, and even Darwin's explanation for evolution by natural selection be falsified if the creator or God have been systematically eliminated from the beginning (since 1850s)? The creation scientist, or those who believe in God (such as Edward Blyth), have been eliminated from peer review today.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Philosophy of Science and Karl Popper tells us that the capacity to falsify or refute a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be contradicted by evidence is what is necessary to test its validity. With abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution, the advocates of their theories or what I call scientific atheism have left no room for this capacity as they assume there is no God, creator, or other supernatural presence involved.

I suppose this can be extended to the Big Bang Theory, as well, as I think Father Georges Lemaitre's theory had its falsifiability removed. We have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for it, but still no acceptance of God as falsification to Big Bang Theory. Furthermore, the creation scientists such as Edward Blyth have been relegated to second class status for natural selection when he came up with the hypothesis before Charles Darwin and John Gould (Darwin's finches ornithologist and bird artist). I think even Darwin read the writings of Blyth on natural selection and took his ideas of natural selection from him.

Thus, my argument is how can abiogenesis, ToE, Big Bang, and even Darwin's explanation for evolution by natural selection be falsified if the creator or God have been systematically eliminated from the beginning (since 1850s)? The creation scientist, or those who believe in God (such as Edward Blyth), have been eliminated from peer review today.

Gods or other supernatural causation would not be accepted in a scientific publication because science deals only with the natural. If you have a natural explanation, no one cares what your personal philosophy or religion are.

 

[Speedwell]

The Philosophy of Science and Karl Popper tells us that the capacity to falsify or refute a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be contradicted by evidence is what is necessary to test its validity. With abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution, the advocates of their theories or what I call scientific atheism have left no room for this capacity as they assume there is no God, creator, or other supernatural presence involved.

I suppose this can be extended to the Big Bang Theory, as well, as I think Father Georges Lemaitre's theory had its falsifiability removed. We have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for it, but still no acceptance of God as falsification to Big Bang Theory. Furthermore, the creation scientists such as Edward Blyth have been relegated to second class status for natural selection when he came up with the hypothesis before Charles Darwin and John Gould (Darwin's finches ornithologist and bird artist). I think even Darwin read the writings of Blyth on natural selection and took his ideas of natural selection from him.

The theory of evolution is falsifiable, but it is not falsified by the existence of God, with which it is fully compatible.

Thus, my argument is how can abiogenesis, ToE, Big Bang, and even Darwin's explanation for evolution by natural selection be falsified if the creator or God have been systematically eliminated from the beginning (since 1850s)? The creation scientist, or those who believe in God (such as Edward Blyth), have been eliminated from peer review today.

Edward Blyth has been dead for close on to 150 years--since before the process of peer review for scientific publications was developed.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The Philosophy of Science and Karl Popper tells us that the capacity to falsify or refute a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be contradicted by evidence is what is necessary to test its validity. With abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution, the advocates of their theories or what I call scientific atheism have left no room for this capacity as they assume there is no God, creator, or other supernatural presence involved.

I suppose this can be extended to the Big Bang Theory, as well, as I think Father Georges Lemaitre's theory had its falsifiability removed. We have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for it, but still no acceptance of God as falsification to Big Bang Theory. Furthermore, the creation scientists such as Edward Blyth have been relegated to second class status for natural selection when he came up with the hypothesis before Charles Darwin and John Gould (Darwin's finches ornithologist and bird artist). I think even Darwin read the writings of Blyth on natural selection and took his ideas of natural selection from him.

Thus, my argument is how can abiogenesis, ToE, Big Bang, and even Darwin's explanation for evolution by natural selection be falsified if the creator or God have been systematically eliminated from the beginning (since 1850s)? The creation scientist, or those who believe in God (such as Edward Blyth), have been eliminated from peer review today.

What a bizarre claim - the only possible evidence against a number of scientific hypothesese is a particular supernatural being, for which there is no evidence. An alternative scientific explanation would not suffice. Physical evidence that the hypothesis is incorrect would be inadequate. The existence of an alternative supernatural being would not cut it. The only possible refutation must be OP's version of God.

 

[muichimotsu]

What a bizarre claim - the only possible evidence against a number of scientific hypothesese is a particular supernatural being, for which there is no evidence. An alternative scientific explanation would not suffice. Physical evidence that the hypothesis is incorrect would be inadequate. The existence of an alternative supernatural being would not cut it. The only possible refutation must be OP's version of God.

When they frame evolution as atheistic science, that already shows a massive misunderstanding about science, which isn't making claims about the supernatural, rejecting them outright because they aren't within science's purview

 

[Aussie Pete]

The Philosophy of Science and Karl Popper tells us that the capacity to falsify or refute a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be contradicted by evidence is what is necessary to test its validity. With abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution, the advocates of their theories or what I call scientific atheism have left no room for this capacity as they assume there is no God, creator, or other supernatural presence involved.

I suppose this can be extended to the Big Bang Theory, as well, as I think Father Georges Lemaitre's theory had its falsifiability removed. We have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for it, but still no acceptance of God as falsification to Big Bang Theory. Furthermore, the creation scientists such as Edward Blyth have been relegated to second class status for natural selection when he came up with the hypothesis before Charles Darwin and John Gould (Darwin's finches ornithologist and bird artist). I think even Darwin read the writings of Blyth on natural selection and took his ideas of natural selection from him.

Thus, my argument is how can abiogenesis, ToE, Big Bang, and even Darwin's explanation for evolution by natural selection be falsified if the creator or God have been systematically eliminated from the beginning (since 1850s)? The creation scientist, or those who believe in God (such as Edward Blyth), have been eliminated from peer review today.

Yes, it's a neat bit of mental gymnastics that allows evolutionists to self delude themselves.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes, it's a neat bit of mental gymnastics that allows evolutionists to self delude themselves.

Can you falsify and/or demonstrate the position of creationism or even intelligent design in terms of scientific investigation that would show it isn't true or that it is true? Seems like the idea isn't really scientific in the first place, unlike evolution, which has a predictive model

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thus, my argument is how can abiogenesis, ToE, Big Bang, and even Darwin's explanation for evolution by natural selection be falsified if the creator or God have been systematically eliminated from the beginning (since 1850s)?

Show us the evidence for the creator then.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes, it's a neat bit of mental gymnastics that allows evolutionists to self delude themselves.

Delusion - "an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder."

Accusing others of mental illness is an unnecessary and childish irruption. If you have nothing useful or constructive to offer, offer nothing.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Delusion - "an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder."

Accusing others of mental illness is an unnecessary and childish irruption. If you have nothing useful or constructive to offer, offer nothing.

Wow. You feel threatened by a few words that are not even directed at you personally. I wonder what was violent about my statement? I remember a time when people could express an opinion. What I've said about evolutionists is extremely tame compared with what most have to say about Creationists.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Show us the evidence for the creator then.

If evidence was water, you would be drowning in it. https://crev.info/
Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The Philosophy of Science and Karl Popper tells us that the capacity to falsify or refute a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be contradicted by evidence is what is necessary to test its validity. With abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution, the advocates of their theories or what I call scientific atheism have left no room for this capacity as they assume there is no God, creator, or other supernatural presence involved.

I suppose this can be extended to the Big Bang Theory, as well, as I think Father Georges Lemaitre's theory had its falsifiability removed. We have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for it, but still no acceptance of God as falsification to Big Bang Theory. Furthermore, the creation scientists such as Edward Blyth have been relegated to second class status for natural selection when he came up with the hypothesis before Charles Darwin and John Gould (Darwin's finches ornithologist and bird artist). I think even Darwin read the writings of Blyth on natural selection and took his ideas of natural selection from him.

Thus, my argument is how can abiogenesis, ToE, Big Bang, and even Darwin's explanation for evolution by natural selection be falsified if the creator or God have been systematically eliminated from the beginning (since 1850s)? The creation scientist, or those who believe in God (such as Edward Blyth), have been eliminated from peer review today.

Despite popular belief, much of the work of science doesn't meet the falsifiability criterion. Popperian falsifiability is an ideal, an aspiration. Philosophers of science abandoned it as an absolute not long after Popper proposed it (see Lakatos, 'The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes', ch.3; Sewell, 'Popper's Falsification'; Shepanski, 'Empiricism, or: When are insensible things sensible?', and Carroll, 'Beyond Falsifiability - Normal science in a Multiverse')- it's just another tide mark in the history of the demarcation problem. Interestingly, many in the working scientific community continue to hold to it, despite the counter-examples that surround them and their work.

Having said that, the Kalam cosmological argument is neither sound nor valid; and God, being both undemonstrable and unfalsifiable itself, obviously cannot be used to falsify anything.

Many people before Blyth understood natural selection as a principle - including the ancient Greeks; but no-one until Darwin and Wallace used it in a successful theory of evolution.

Abiogenesis isn't yet a theory, it's a research programme - falsifiability isn't particularly relevant, although if one approach was shown to produce life, it might allow others to be falsified; the ToE has many falsifiable aspects; the big bang could be falsified by a better explanation.

The creator or God haven't been systematically eliminated from science, they simply have no utility; they're ill-defined, incoherent, inexplicable, have no specificity, no explanatory or predictive power, and have no relation or connection to any body of scientific knowledge.

The few 'creation science' papers that have been published have been rejected typically because they are wrong or incoherent. But plenty of scientists that believe in God have had scientific papers published and accepted.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Wow. You feel threatened by a few words that are not even directed at you personally. I wonder what was violent about my statement? I remember a time when people could express an opinion. What I've said about evolutionists is extremely tame compared with what most have to say about Creationists.

I don't feel at all threatened, nor did I indicate such feelings. I simply pointed out that your post was childish and offensive and had no real need to exist. Lashing out with ignorant nonsense is the resort of the bully, not the considered response of a person with a valid contribution to make.

 

[Brightmoon]

The falsification for evolution would be bunny fossils in the Cambrian layers . Finding bunnies or any other mammal living during the Cambrian would disrupt everything we know about evolution. That’s living during the Cambrian just finding a misplaced fossil isn’t good enough. It’s easy for a rock to fall down a cliff or hill.

you’d have to demonstrate that organic chemistry doesn’t work to falsify Abiogenesis. We do find amino acids and their precursors in space

 

[Ophiolite]

The falsification for evolution would be bunny fossils in the Cambrian layers . Finding bunnies or any other mammal living during the Cambrian would disrupt everything we know about evolution. That’s living during the Cambrian just finding a misplaced fossil isn’t good enough. It’s easy for a rock to fall down a cliff or hill.

you’d have to demonstrate that organic chemistry doesn’t work to falsify Abiogenesis. We do find amino acids and their precursors in space

We don't currently have a theory of abiogenesis. We have a number of hypotheses dealing with aspects of how abiogenesis may have proceeded. In that respect individual hypotheses could be falsified by demonstrating the required chemistry could not work as required. However, this would merely cut off one option for one phase of the abiogenesis puzzle. I suggest we cannot really talk about falsifying abiogenesis until we have advanced to the point where we have a properly formed theory for it.

Your thoughts?

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, it's a neat bit of mental gymnastics that allows evolutionists to self delude themselves.

The existence of God does not falsify the theory of evolution. I think the mental gymnastics are yours, trying to turn the creation/evolution discussion into a theism/atheism debate because you know you can not defend your interpretation of scripture.

 

[jamesbond007]

Gods or other supernatural causation would not be accepted in a scientific publication because science deals only with the natural. If you have a natural explanation, no one cares what your personal philosophy or religion are.

Where does it say that? Before the 1850s, God was accepted in Science and Nature publications such as Edward Blyth who wrote about Providence being the cause of natural selection. Notice I said the creation scientists were eliminated from peer review when they were able to participate before.

Anyway, where is the falsification?

 

[jamesbond007]

What a bizarre claim - the only possible evidence against a number of scientific hypothesese is a particular supernatural being, for which there is no evidence. An alternative scientific explanation would not suffice. Physical evidence that the hypothesis is incorrect would be inadequate. The existence of an alternative supernatural being would not cut it. The only possible refutation must be OP's version of God.

We have plenty of evidence for God the creator such as the Bible and how it backs up science. Also, we find intelligence behind the beauty and complexity of nature.

 

[Speedwell]

We have plenty of evidence for God the creator such as the Bible and how it backs up science. Also, we find intelligence behind the beauty and complexity of nature.

Good for you. Many people who accept the theory of evolution feel exactly the same way as you.

The existence of God does not falsify the theory of evolution. Nor does the theory of evolution deny His existence.

 

[jamesbond007]

Show us the evidence for the creator then.

If you want more, then we have an explanation for the time before the Big Bang when there was no time. We find that "In the beginning" spacetime started. For the universe, it was the x, y, and z-axes and the fourth dimension of time. One evidence as I said was we only have access to space. We are not fourth dimension creatures, so we do not have access to time. The Bible explains about dark energy and that God stretches out the heavens like a tent. Only God can do that. God also explains all the energy needed for the universe as he created the electromagnetic spectrum on the first day, "Let there be light."