What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[jamesbond007]

Except that bears aren't more bipedal than apes.

More denial when faced with the truth.

Now, will you just admit apes never became bipedal?

 

[essentialsaltes]

What they gathered or what we have as evidence isn't the issue. It's atheists' presuppositions versus the creationists' presuppositions. Maybe the reality is we reach our conclusions using the same data based on our presuppositions.

People like Lyell weren't atheists. Whatever his Christian presuppositions, it didn't prevent him from evaluating the evidence of the natural world and developing the idea of uniformitarianism and 'freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses'. He looked to the evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

More denial when faced with the truth.

Now, will you just admit apes never became bipedal?

Gorillas standing on two legs.

Chimp standing and walking on two legs.

Orangutan walking on two legs.

Do you even actually try to make and attempt and learn?

And apes did become bipedal. Humans are apes.

 

[Speedwell]

People like Lyell weren't atheists. Whatever his Christian presuppositions, it didn't prevent him from evaluating the evidence of the natural world and developing the idea of uniformitarianism and 'freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses'. He looked to the evidence.

You're wasting your breath. Bond doesn't want to talk with or about Christians who don't "believe the Bible" in exactly the same way he does.

 

[Hans Blaster]

atheists' presuppositions versus the creationists' presuppositions.

These two groups are not equivalent.

Atheist are people who don't believe in a god (any of them).
Creationists are people who believe that life in its form and complexity comes from an intentional creator.

There are lots of people (and I mean LOTS) that fit into neither category. Atheism isn't a prerequisite to to science (I have a conf. call with two Christian scientists this afternoon, our god beliefs aren't relevant to our discussions, so they don't come up.)

This is equivalent to trying to parse between the assumptions of accountants and ufologists on the truth of alien visitors.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Where do you get this from?

There are various accounts, but the Wikipedia article is concise:

Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism.[36] However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[37][38][17] Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[39]

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Haha. You said it. I didn't. Why don't we just tell students that there is no evidence or scientific experiment backing up evolution and that true science happens on these forums today.

Because that would be incorrect.

Furthermore, you are wrong Dembski didn't say it.

Yep - my mistake, it was Michael Behe, the other leading 'scientist'.

The bottom line is I argue creation science and the Bible. Not ID.

The difference is?

It appears creation science has falsified ToE as it could not have happened as we find things out of place in the fossil evidence and lack of transitional ones.

Interesting that the article you quote is from a Discovery Institute publication - the very people behind the ID (creation science in disguise, for the 'Wedge' strategy).

But even (charitably) assuming that the article is correct in its claim, there are many other well-confirmed instances of ongoing advantageous human evolution, for example:

The mutation of Apolipoprotein AI, that protects agains arteriosclerosis and cardiovascular disease.

The mutation in lipoprotein receptor–related protein 5 (LRP5) that protects against osteoporosis.

The mutations that prevent altitude sickness in people living at high altitude.

The CCR5-delta32 mutation on chromosome 3 that confers immunity to HIV.

The mutation that gives many people lactose tolerance.

The mutation to red blood cells that increases resistance to malaria (not sickle-cell).

The mutations that protect against alcoholism.

The mutations that protect against dementia.

The mutation that allows consistently less than 6 hrs sleep without sleep deprivation.

The mutations that increase endurance running performance.

The mutation in the X chromosome that causes tetrachromatic vision.

 

[Shemjaza]

To me and creation scientists it is. It is something for the atheist scientists to explain, but I can see you're in denial. I mean our apes today do not walk upright. If your theory was valid, then they would. I even said bears are more bipedal.

Mostly, evolutionists do not have a rational explanation when they are faced with the evidence. They just deny it as you have. Thus, science does not back up evolution.

I'm not denying anything. Some extinct varieties of ape were more and less upright for a long time... why would this be a problem for evolution?

Species can split into changing branches and each of those branches can have different traits.

Not all apes are becoming humans... not even all hominids were becoming human. Only one branch was.

I had a specific example in modern primates of exactly the same thing, tails.

Not all "monkeys" were developing into apes and not all did.

 

[muichimotsu]

Where do you get this from?

I imagine this and other sources, with a bit of quick reading, will find sourcing that he did indeed emphasize the scientific element and any religious interpretations were after the fact by people thoroughly unqualified to make those declarations, including the Pope

Faith and the Expanding Universe of Georges Lemaître

 

[SelfSim]

Haha. You said it. I didn't. Why don't we just tell students that there is no evidence or scientific experiment backing up evolution and that true science happens on these forums today.

What teachers say to students is not some arbitrary whim they dream up .. they are accountable for how they teach ... that's why.

It appears creation science has falsified ToE as it could not have happened as we find things out of place in the fossil evidence and lack of transitional ones.

Demonstrate the objective test (and results) that so-called 'creation science' has produced, which somehow falsifies the principle of Evolution.
Your misinformation and personal misconceptions will not suffice.

I would say ToE is more like astrology based on whether one believes in it or not.

There is no need to believe any scientific theory. The consistency of test results are all that matters.

Your numerous unstated assumptions continually produce the errors you make because you then misinterpret how the documented and widely taught scientific process works, in particular, in distinguishing beliefs from objectivity.

 

[SelfSim]

What they gathered or what we have as evidence isn't the issue. It's atheists' presuppositions versus the creationists' presuppositions. Maybe the reality is we reach our conclusions using the same data based on our presuppositions.

Again .. you conflate belief-driven thinking with scientific, objective thinking.

Science requires no initial preconceived believed-in assumptions .. nada .. zilch.
This is because beliefs, (which by testable definition, are notions held to be true out of preference, that do not follow from objective tests and are not beholden to the rules of logic), are quarantined, (and thereby neutralised), at every stage of some theory's testing process (Evolution included).

Just about everyone in the scientfically thinking community has encountered their own undistinguished beliefs because these eventually become blatantly obvious and the choice/discipline of intellectual honesty calls for them to be ejected before proceeding.

 

[sjastro]

I imagine this and other sources, with a bit of quick reading, will find sourcing that he did indeed emphasize the scientific element and any religious interpretations were after the fact by people thoroughly unqualified to make those declarations, including the Pope

Faith and the Expanding Universe of Georges Lemaître

The Jesuits are considered to be the intellectual arm of the Catholic Church.
One of the smartest people I have ever encountered was a Jesuit priest/physicist who was able to convince the Vatican to convert a dilapidated medieval church in Italy into a shelter for battered women.

Lemaître was part of a long line of Jesuits who have made contributions to science.
List of Jesuit scientists

 

[sjastro]

This thread deserves an injection of humour.

 

[jamesbond007]

People like Lyell weren't atheists. Whatever his Christian presuppositions, it didn't prevent him from evaluating the evidence of the natural world and developing the idea of uniformitarianism and 'freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses'. He looked to the evidence.

He learned the science of atheism from James Hutton and together they came up with uniformitarianism to go against the church. He, in turn, influenced Charles Darwin and together they wanted to rebel against the church.

Again .. you conflate belief-driven thinking with scientific, objective thinking.

Science requires no initial preconceived believed-in assumptions .. nada .. zilch.
This is because beliefs, (which by testable definition, are notions held to be true out of preference, that do not follow from objective tests and are not beholden to the rules of logic), are quarantined, (and thereby neutralised), at every stage of some theory's testing process (Evolution included).

Just about everyone in the scientfically thinking community has encountered their own undistinguished beliefs because these eventually become blatantly obvious and the choice/discipline of intellectual honesty calls for them to be ejected before proceeding.

Then support my position to let the creation scientists back in to peer review. Before the 1850s, the greatest scientists in history were creation scientists. Natural selection was founded by Edward Blyth, and he wrote plenty about Providence in his papers. It was Darwin who took his natural selection ideas to explain his evolution by natural selection and didn't give Blyth any credit.

I doubt your scientists will do that because creation scientists will expose their ToE and abiogenesis. It really doesn't matter that ToE and abiogenesis aren't useful. It's not like engineering where people invent something and make money. Evo scientists try to get their papers published in Nature and Science to gain fame and then write a book. Darwin was very successful at that, but his theories were shown to be mostly wrong and it wasn't practical. To this day, it's just an exercise for atheists and Christians to argue about who is right. For creationists, if anything, creation science just shows how great God's mind is to the point that we still do not realize all the beauty and complexity that went into this world. We are discovering things all the time. That's not the way atheists think tho. They just think it's par for the course for nature and that this is how it works in other places, but little do they realize it doesn't. It's like Darwin was a great writer of fiction and he sold a lot of books about it because no one had ever heard of how life came to be. Does it matter that we found he was wrong about almost everything? Nah. He made his money and the atheists still worship him as the founder despite it all.

 

[jamesbond007]

Gorillas standing on two legs.

Chimp standing and walking on two legs.

Orangutan walking on two legs.

Do you even actually try to make and attempt and learn?

And apes did become bipedal. Humans are apes.

Did you? These apes still climb trees and swing through them as that is the fastest way to get around. They would not walk bipedal for long periods of time to get somewhere. Maybe they're playing and mimicking people. That is a more likely explanation. Otherwise, evolution states that they change genetically to full-time bipedal animals. Thus, you are wrong again. You are just trying to fit the evidence to your theory when it isn't true. No, humans are not apes. The are intelligent beings. You just want to believe in a fairy tale because of the atheist religion.

 

[jamesbond007]

These two groups are not equivalent.

They sure aren't. The creationists outnumber the atheists and are much more richer and more powerful. Will anyone care if an atheist dies and ends up in the Lake of Fire? I doubt it because they aren't aware of the dangers and negativity of ending up there. People are free to choose their own fate.

As for the rest, I agree. If I was a scientist, then I just don't bring up my religion and creation science. It's the one big drawback I suppose that they aren't allowed to express their real thoughts and participate in peer review. Thus, I rather be the engineer type which I am. Then it doesn't matter if I spout out my thoughts on creation science, but it usually never gets to the point. We just respect each others religion and not bring it up.

However, as a scientist it would be hard to work on something I didn't believe in except to show more evidence for a hypothesis and make a fake scientific argument for it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

They sure aren't. The creationists outnumber the atheists and are much more richer and more powerful. Will anyone care if an atheist dies and ends up in the Lake of Fire? I doubt it because they aren't aware of the dangers and negativity of ending up there. People are free to choose their own fate.

So your response pointing out that "atheist v. creationist" is a *false* dichotomy (in all things), is to make what you think is a threat of eternal torture. You seem nice. Thankfully I never acquired a paralyzing "fear of hell" and find your threat empty and meaningless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As for the rest, I agree. If I was a scientist, then I just don't bring up my religion and creation science. It's the one big drawback I suppose that they aren't allowed to express their real thoughts and participate in peer review. Thus, I rather be the engineer type which I am. Then it doesn't matter if I spout out my thoughts on creation science, but it usually never gets to the point. We just respect each others religion and not bring it up.

However, as a scientist it would be hard to work on something I didn't believe in except to show more evidence for a hypothesis and make a fake scientific argument for it.

I already knew that you had no idea how science and scientists work, there was no need to waste space posting a demonstration. (The OP was a *BIG* clue.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, humans are not apes. The are intelligent beings.

More false dichotomies!

Intelligent v. non-intelligent would be OK (it's really a continuum)
bipedal v. quadrupedal is appropriate for flightless land quadrupeds like us and other apes.

 

[muichimotsu]

The Jesuits are considered to be the intellectual arm of the Catholic Church.
One of the smartest people I have ever encountered was a Jesuit priest/physicist who was able to convince the Vatican to convert a dilapidated medieval church in Italy into a shelter for battered women.

Lemaître was part of a long line of Jesuits who have made contributions to science.
List of Jesuit scientists

Of course, I'm not opposed or not convinced that someone can be religious and also very intelligent.

I remember an anime series that brought up the miracle examiners for the Catholic Church (which I think are a real thing, even though the anime series gets into some weird Nazi conspiracies and other stuff, because, turns out, the miracles alleged are not miracles, there's seemingly 1 the series tries to suggest, which is an incident that turned the tables in the heroes' favor against the bad guys, iirc) and those characters were definitely quite intelligent, though the series also was genuine in the idea that faith is not just a static thing and there are struggles with a character in his belief and such