What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[NBB]

Sure, you can keep moving the goalposts of what it means to be "better or greater than a human" (although it helps if you properly define those goalposts first) so that you eventually end up with things that are uniquely human by definition - but you can do that for any creature; it would be a form of the "No true Scotsman fallacy" a literal reductio-ad-absurdum, and the process would demonstrate that the human exceptionalism you espouse is a uniquely human bias.

I still mean what i originally thought about that, and i'm not moving any goal posts, if you think a computer is greater than you, then a rock is better because it also doesn't get hurt as much, and a tree is better because it can live longer, or an animal is better because it has better muscles and motor skills, i mean greater as a WHOLE and you can't deny the superiority of people comparing them to this things.

 

[NBB]

Its so hard to understand the word 'greater'?

 

[pitabread]

greater as a WHOLE

But what does that actually mean?

How does one measure the greatness of a "whole"?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I still mean what i originally thought about that, and i'm not moving any goal posts, if you think a computer is greater than you, then a rock is better because it also doesn't get hurt as much, and a tree is better because it can live longer, or an animal is better because it has better muscles and motor skills, i mean greater as a WHOLE and you can't deny the superiority of people comparing them to this things.

I postulate that there is no scale to measure this "betterness". Why do you think that there is such a scale?

 

[pitabread]

Its so hard to understand the word 'greater'?

The word greater implies that you're measuring something. But you still haven't told us what you are actually measuring.

You're just speaking in vague pronouncements which suggests your position isn't particular well thought out. Perhaps you should take some time to figure out what it is you mean and try to communicate it more clearly.

 

[NBB]

You keep making empty assertions that have been refuted multiple times within the thread.

Partly this is because you cannot even be bothered to listen to what other members have been saying. Despite repeated requests you have failed to define what you mean by "better". The last few pages of "discussion" could have been avoided if you had posted something like this:

"Of course I agree that in terms of specific capabilites machines can outperform humans, but those machines were conceived, designed and built by humans. Moreover, in terms of human compassion, empathy, artisitic creativity and the like no machine can match these and that is what I mean when I say no machine is better than a human."

No they have not been refuted at all.

 

[NBB]

But what does that actually mean?

Its english language you should get it. by greater i don't mean size of course.
Basically more capable, yes i say more capable of doing things in general.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Its so hard to understand the word 'greater'?

Things have to be comparable to say one is greater than the other.

Which is greater?

Tree or purple?
Five or ship?
Pencil or cricket?
5 or 3?
Bus or whale?

 

[NBB]

Things have to be comparable to say one is greater than the other.

Which is greater?

Tree or purple?
Five or ship?
Pencil or cricket?
5 or 3?
Bus or whale?

You know what i mean, more capable in general, more smart in general, more authority, power, influence, and capacity in general do i need to explain more?

 

[driewerf]

I just discovered NBB's posts in this thread. My goodness, how many falsehoods, how much stupidity can someone post?

You know man invented a camera only 100 years ago or something like that, after thousands of years of advancement in science and study and effort etc,

Modern science emerged in the 17th century. So it's not 1000's of years. 400 years.
When were the first attempts at building a camera? No idea, but not earlier than the 19th century.

and evolution now without any science or intelligence at alll invented brains?

No evolution doesn't invent anything. Evolution is n't a thing, it's a process. It's something that happens.

Somehow through all his/her posts, NBB tries to sneak an intelligent agent in the discussion. NBB is unable to or too dishonest understand that there is no direction, no will no plan behind it, that it's a blind process.

the creation is always less than the creator i don't believe random change and death is more intelligent than ourselves. do you?

Except that there was no process. NBB can only create strawmen and knock them down. But real science? That's too much.

 

[Shemjaza]

You know what i mean, more capable in general, more smart in general, more authority, power, intelligence, do i need to explain more?

I think we are getting side tracked by creation and "greater".

Do you believe in genetics?

If so do you believe that humans can be different from each other because of their genetics?

Do you believe that differently functioning brains is one of the things that can be different about humans due to genetics?

 

[pitabread]

Its english language you should get it. by greater i don't mean size of course.
Basically more capable, yes i say more capable of doing things in general.

Capable of doing what exactly? What things are you referring to?

 

[driewerf]

Give a kid that was raised by monkeys in the jungle airplanes parts to make an airplane,

Neither can you. It takes years of education, engineering school to be capable of that. A false argument again.

lets see if he lives 10000 years what he can do alone without education...

Do you know lot's of kids that live a 1000 years? Talking about a strawman.

Now evolution doesn't have education, or intelligence or anything to be capable of making humans and evolution doesn't get parts either has to built everything blind and without anything i told, basically evolution is a lot less capable than a kid,

Again a attempt at sneakily portray evolution as an intelligent agent. And the strawman as if building an organism is like assembling the parts of it in a workshop. Organisms grow, NBB, they aren't assembled.

but you agree the human bodies is a 'marvel of engineering' like some evolutoinst say it is, so how is this?

No I don't agree.

RIDICULOUS.

It's in CAPS so it's true.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You know what i mean, more capable in general, more smart in general, more authority, power, influence, and capacity in general do i need to explain more?

No I don't and apparently no one else does either. We see no evidence of a property called "general capability" that we can measure things by.

Even between humans there is no metric for determining which is better (or greater if you like). Taller, sure. Heavier, sure. Better at chess, sure. Faster at short distances, sure. Faster at long distances, sure.

Who is the best runner in the world? You can't tell me and no one else can either because even at a fairly distinct skill like running there are those who are the fastest at short distances and those who are the fastest at long distances.

 

[NBB]

I just discovered NBB's posts in this thread. My goodness, how many falsehoods, how much stupidity can someone post?


Modern science emerged in the 17th century. So it's not 1000's of years. 400 years.
When were the first attempts at building a camera? No idea, but not earlier than the 19th century.

No evolution doesn't invent anything. Evolution is n't a thing, it's a process. It's something that happens.

Somehow through all his/her posts, NBB tries to sneak an intelligent agent in the discussion. NBB is unable to or too dishonest understand that there is no direction, no will no plan behind it, that it's a blind process.

Except that there was no process. NBB can only create strawmen and knock them down. But real science? That's too much.

Spare me your insults.
So again, you know a blind process other than evolution than in *reality* can do something as comparable of what evolutionist say evolutoin can do?
And pèople being smart can't make a process like this work in real life. There is no valid simulation here, and after knowing that God is our origin i can't deny the truth for what some evolutionist thinks.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think we are getting side tracked by creation and "greater".

There's an unfortunate reason for this: NBB's fundamental "proof" that evolution is false is that the created thing must not be greater than the creating thing.

 

[NBB]

No I don't and apparently no one else does either. We see no evidence of a property called "general capability" that we can measure things by.

Even between humans there is no metric for determining which is better (or greater if you like). Taller, sure. Heavier, sure. Better at chess, sure. Faster at short distances, sure. Faster at long distances, sure.

Who is the best runner in the world? You can't tell me and no one else can either because even at a fairly distinct skill like running there are those who are the fastest at short distances and those who are the fastest at long distances.

Use your imagination a bit you don't need numbers to say humans are more capable in general. Just look.

 

[Ophiolite]

You know what i mean, more capable in general, more smart in general, more authority, power, intelligence, do i need to explain more?

If we knew what you meant we wouldn't still be having this discussion.

Do you need to explain more? No, note more; you have to explain with clarity and without ambiguity, something you have failed to do so thus far. Earlier you said this:

Its english language you should get it.

I imagine you hoped that would read as "It's English language, you should get it."
That's three errors in one sentence. I suggest you consider that your command of the language is not as good as you think it is. Perhaps if you used one of those computer programs you denigrate it could help you avoid such simple mistakes.

However, the serious error is that you are not writing with clarity. Your emotion and frustration are outpacing your ability to deliver your message. Since that message seems important to you why not calm down and listen to what others are saying. . . . . . No, rest assured, you are not listening. That is evident in your replies.

Note: I found it interesting that the "better" features you favoured were "authority, power and intelligence", rather than the "compassion, empathy, artisitic creativity and the like" I proposed. I fear that tells me all I need to know about you.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There is no valid simulation here, and after knowing that God is our origin i can't deny the truth for what some evolutionist thinks.

So your fundamental proof is that since you already "know" the origin, then all other claims must be discarded. We can just drop all of this other nonsense about if there are other things like evolution or whether anything is greater than anything else and just go down to the bald assertion "I know God made everything" and we'll just reject as being just a claim and not a proof or evidence.

 

[NBB]

There's an unfortunate reason for this: NBB's fundamental "proof" that evolution is false is that the created thing must not be greater than the creating thing.

I will stop this argument, but this would have not taking this long if i did find the answers reasonable.