What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Speedwell]

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.

How could Blythe be eliminated from peer review when he died before it was established?

Anyway, where is the falsification?

The existence of God does not falsify the theory of evolution.

 

[essentialsaltes]

#1 Popper is overrated.
#2 Precambrian Rabbit.

 

[jamesbond007]

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.

Most of what you claim has to do with the topic of this thread. The things you mention are not really science such as Multiverse. It follows logic as well as if we know what will falsify a statement has to exist or situation be explained before we think it is valid scientifically or empirically. For example, I had exactly three cups of coffee this morning. There is no way to validate this statement unless there was someone to witness it or there was a video recording made. I could write a statement testifying to that and have it notarized. It should stand in court, but if someone had secretly recorded a video of my drinking two cups and leaving then it would disprove it. We don't have the experimental evidence from Darwin or any others, so abiogenesis nor ToE aren't really valid science the way it is today. It should not hold up in a court of law.

 

[jamesbond007]

#1 Popper is overrated.
#2 Precambrian Rabbit.

Very nice. ToE has been destroyed. I hope it stands up in court!

 

[Tinker Grey]

Wow. Another poster who doesn't understand the implications of the question he's asking.

 

[Speedwell]

Wow. Another poster who doesn't understand the implications of the question he's asking.

Just stay out of the way of the goal posts--they're moving pretty fast.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Just stay out of the way of the goal posts--they're moving pretty fast.

I think I felt them whiz past my ear.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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

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."

So for evidence, we have two websites that propose to use science to say that evolution is wrong, while failing at that, and one attempt at using incredulity and the age old argument of "well, we don't know, so therefor - God!".

And not a single one actually gives evidence for a creator.

 

[jamesbond007]

Wow. Another poster who doesn't understand the implications of the question he's asking.

The Precambrian Rabbit argument is basically to find something out of place with ToE. There have been several objects already found to falsify evolution.

This is a 3.4 million-year-old partial fossil foot of an ape, like a gorilla, unearthed in Ethiopia. It was deemed to walk awkwardly, not exactly upright. This belonged to the same time history that Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) was found. Lucy didn't even have a foot. This appeared in Nature.

'A SET of foot bones found in Ethiopia suggests our ancestors kept climbing trees for millions of years after they came down to walk on two feet.

The research, published today in the journal Nature, adds to the complexity of our family tree and points to the existence of a new species, somewhere between primate and human, that lived about 3.4 million years ago.

Co-author Dr Bruce M. Latimer, executive director of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, said that the discovery was "quite shocking" because it did not fit the present model of human evolution.

The likely human ancestor known to scientists from that time ("Lucy") had feet much like modern humans, but the new fossil foot has an opposable big toe, like a gorilla or chimp.

"This new specimen is walking upright when on the ground, doing it in an awkward fashion, not like us, but still maintains its big toe grasping ability," Dr Latimer said.

"What we see here is two different groups and that was one of the big surprises."'

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news...a/news-story/4c1e7e0dfa74f25f5be28e76fa7c996e

 

[SelfSim]

.. It should stand in court,
..
It should not hold up in a court of law.
...
Very nice. ToE has been destroyed. I hope it stands up in court!

The legal process is not the scientific process.
The legal process is irrelevant as it is based on the existence of truth .. and science isn't.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The Precambrian Rabbit argument is basically to find something out of place with ToE. There have been several objects already found to falsify evolution.

View attachment 288410

This is a 3.4 million-year-old partial fossil foot of an ape, like a gorilla, unearthed in Ethiopia. It was deemed to walk awkwardly, not exactly upright. This belonged to the same time history that Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) was found. Lucy didn't even have a foot. This appeared in Nature.

'A SET of foot bones found in Ethiopia suggests our ancestors kept climbing trees for millions of years after they came down to walk on two feet.

The research, published today in the journal Nature, adds to the complexity of our family tree and points to the existence of a new species, somewhere between primate and human, that lived about 3.4 million years ago.

Co-author Dr Bruce M. Latimer, executive director of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, said that the discovery was "quite shocking" because it did not fit the present model of human evolution.

The likely human ancestor known to scientists from that time ("Lucy") had feet much like modern humans, but the new fossil foot has an opposable big toe, like a gorilla or chimp.

"This new specimen is walking upright when on the ground, doing it in an awkward fashion, not like us, but still maintains its big toe grasping ability," Dr Latimer said.

"What we see here is two different groups and that was one of the big surprises."'

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news...a/news-story/4c1e7e0dfa74f25f5be28e76fa7c996e

How is that a falsification of evolution? All it does is show that 8 years ago, archaeologists and paleontologists found a new species of ape that existed between basal primate and modern humanity.

And also, since this does need to be pointed out a few times, the fossil of Lucy is not the be-all and end-all of evidence of Australopithecus fossils, with more than 300 different specimens being discovered.

 

[SelfSim]

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.

You are hopelessly confused ..

We continually access our concept of time.

Please demonstrate your evidence for your assertion that 'we do not have access to time'.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

Pretty sure nowhere in their quote was the word "violent" used: seems more like you're trying to deflect and sidestep any responsibility to your claims that are only that, with no substance behind them

And creationists deserve what they are accused of, because there is pretty much nothing scientific about their "model" in the first place, especially those that invoke a God versus, say, Raelians, who at least have something we could reasonably falsify. Heck, I'd sooner believe panspermia in the broader sense than the idea that we were basically put on earth by "magic"

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

The Bible claiming God exists is not proof for God, nor is incidental postdiction of the Bible to fit current scientific findings, it's circular reasoning

And you can find beauty in the complexity of nature, that doesnt' follow to an agency, it follows to some nebulous and superfluous "God" of Spinoza or Einstein

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Most of what you claim has to do with the topic of this thread. The things you mention are not really science such as Multiverse. It follows logic as well as if we know what will falsify a statement has to exist or situation be explained before we think it is valid scientifically or empirically. For example, I had exactly three cups of coffee this morning. There is no way to validate this statement unless there was someone to witness it or there was a video recording made. I could write a statement testifying to that and have it notarized. It should stand in court, but if someone had secretly recorded a video of my drinking two cups and leaving then it would disprove it. We don't have the experimental evidence from Darwin or any others, so abiogenesis nor ToE aren't really valid science the way it is today. It should not hold up in a court of law.

OK, well - like it or not, that is simply not the way science works in practice; not everything is falsifiable, and, as the links I provided explain, it's really not possible to do, except for universal generalisations. For example, general (i.e. unbounded/constrained) predictions or assertions of the existence of something can't be falsified by failing to find that thing.

You can change your definition of valid science to exclude all unfalsifiable claims, hypotheses, predictions, theories, etc., but then your definition won't match the working definition of science ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[essentialsaltes]

This is a 3.4 million-year-old partial fossil foot of an ape, like a gorilla, unearthed in Ethiopia.

You appear to understand neither half of 'Precambrian rabbit'.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Pretty sure nowhere in their quote was the word "violent" used: seems more like you're trying to deflect and sidestep any responsibility to your claims that are only that, with no substance behind them

And creationists deserve what they are accused of, because there is pretty much nothing scientific about their "model" in the first place, especially those that invoke a God versus, say, Raelians, who at least have something we could reasonably falsify. Heck, I'd sooner believe panspermia in the broader sense than the idea that we were basically put on earth by "magic"

The fact that science rejects the word of God is hardly surprising. Science is not God and has no more authority to speak about creation than a goldfish. Evolutionists trot out the idea of falsification as if it a magic spell that makes their conclusions beyond dispute. That concept is false. I've been to the Source, God H imself

Perhaps you should consult a dictionary as I had to. Irruption: "a breaking or bursting in; a violent incursion or invasion"

 

[essentialsaltes]

The fact that science rejects the word of God is hardly surprising.

Science simply ignores religious texts. The data about the natural world are to be found out in the natural world.

Evolutionists trot out the idea of falsification as if it a magic spell that makes their conclusions beyond dispute.

No, the OP trotted the idea out as a challenge to evolution as if it were a magic spell that made his conclusions beyond dispute.

 

[jamesbond007]

How is that a falsification of evolution?

Lucy is the one that was presented.

There is disagreement that Lucy walked upright since her skeleton does not have a foot. It's only by the knee, but doubters state the knee shows she was a knuckle walker, i.e four limbs. OTOH, the gorilla foot is similar to a modern gorilla and shows the apes were still climbing trees. It falsifies the theory that apes walked upright. We see that today with modern apes. Even a bear can walk more upright that an ape.

 

[jamesbond007]

The legal process is not the scientific process.
The legal process is irrelevant as it is based on the existence of truth .. and science isn't.

If irrelevant as you state, then I agree. We should allow creation science to be taught in public schools to offer an alternative to evolution and just repeal the laws.