What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[VirOptimus]

The reality that God is not our origin right? it has something to do with atheism a bit.
They said that the branch of science that have more atheists are the biologists. I read that somewhere.

The ToE does not adress the existance or nonexistance of god(s) at all.

 

[Ophiolite]

The most important parts of ourselves, our intellect and consciousness and our very person couldn't have possibly evolved because its spiritual.

You have no evidence for that statement.

learn something you too

I am very ready to do so, but not on the basis of unsupported statements, such as yours.

also the bible says people know God exists, but they get 'confused' and start thinking things that are not correct

If I believed the Bible was the word of God that might carry some weight with me. I guard against errors, as far as practical, by seeking objective evidence and reasoned argument.

You know God exists in your subconscious.

Empty assertion. Also rather offensive. I haven't made silly guesses about what is in your subconscious. Please leave mine alone.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The most important parts of ourselves, our intellect and consciousness and our very person couldn't have possibly evolved because its spiritual...

Yet every recognised aspect of our intellect and consciousness, including personality, sense of identity, sense of self, morals, beliefs, etc., can be significantly changed by interventions that change brain function.

I suggest you try again.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Stop please, i don't care about evolution, its a lie that our origin is evolution.

If you don't care about evolution, not even why it's "wrong", then you're on the wrong board, mate.

 

[Strathos]

Creationist propaganda only targets evolution and rarely other scientific theories.

If they were consistent, they would say that the Theory of Gravity is the same as declaring that God doesn't exist, because He's not personally pulling down everything that falls.

 

[driewerf]

You keep coming with insults... but you are the actual ignorant of the truth

I am ignorant of the truth.
Oké, what truth am I ignorant of?

 

[Speedwell]

So if you knew God you would still say evolution is our origin?

Yes.

Either evolutoin made us, like they say it doesn't need any help its just a process that does its thing and comes with a result by its own...
Or yes God made us, i know God so i am a little biased in what to think about our creation why would i not be.

It is not an "either-or" Question. You can believe in God, or not and you can believe that evolution is a reasonable explanation for the origin of our physical bodies, or not. The two questions don't have anything to do with each other. The question of whether God exists is not even really at issue in this forum. What is really at issue--the issue that you don't seem ready to face--is your interpretation of Genesis.

 

[driewerf]

Creationist propaganda only targets evolution and rarely other scientific theories.

If they were consistent, they would say that the Theory of Gravity is the same as declaring that God doesn't exist, because He's not personally pulling down everything that falls.

I have to disagree here. They certainly target astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology.
But over the years I have read and listened to material of son and father Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, John Pendleton, Venomfang X, Conservapedia and many others. I have seen positions denying or in flagrant contradiction with

• cosmology: the age of the Universe
• cosmogeny, the origin of the universe
• the General theory of relativity, including the denial of c as a constant
• astrophysics, including the denial of star formation
• nuclear physics, including the nuclear decay rates
• nuclear physics again, including the impossibility of nuclear fusion
• climatology, including the Milankovitch cycles and the denial of multiple glaciations
• climatology again, I have seen many creationists claim the "the Flood" caused an ice Age
• climatology again, including the phenomenon of desertification
• orogeny, I have seen many creationists claim that all mountains formed during the Flood
• geology, including the bastardisation of all patterns of erosion
• thermodynamics, especially the SLoT
• classical mechanics, including the mechanism behind tides
• anthropology, with the claim that Lucy's knee cap was found miles away from the rest of the skeleton
• anthropology again, with the claim that the paluxy trails include footprints of humans and dinosaurs
• anthroplogy again, with the claim that all humans fossils don't even fill a single coffin
• paleontology, with the claim that a fossil can't be any ancestor of extant species because you can't know whether it reproduced or not
• demographics (and archaeology); the population growth after "the Flood" defies everything that all historians, archaeologists and demographers have ever written

That is the extend to which creationists need to deny the physical reality.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Creationist propaganda only targets evolution and rarely other scientific theories.

If they were consistent, they would say that the Theory of Gravity is the same as declaring that God doesn't exist, because He's not personally pulling down everything that falls.

It's that human capacity for compartmentalization to avoid cognitive dissonance - like the pro-lifers that support capital punishment...

 

[Strathos]

It's that human capacity for compartmentalization to avoid cognitive dissonance - like the pro-lifers that support capital punishment...

I don't support capital punishment, but to be fair, it's quite a distinction between killing guilty criminals and innocents.

 

[SelfSim]

It's that human capacity for compartmentalization to avoid cognitive dissonance - like the pro-lifers that support capital punishment...

I don't support capital punishment, but to be fair, it's quite a distinction between killing guilty criminals and innocents.

The alternative of locking someone up for the rest of their natural life is capital punishment, (IMO).
If I were a pro-lifer (and I'm not), I think I'd argue that point.
Would that be cognitive dissonance via compartmentalization?
.. Interesting.

 

[Shemjaza]

Its not internal feelings or convictions, you wouldn't understand, like i said if God appeared to you would you be an evolution origin believing atheist? of course not, God has made himself known to me, and this is more important for me than anything else.

I'm an atheist due to not being presented with evidence for God.

I accept evolution because I have been presented with evidence for evolution... these are separate items.

You describe having had a direct supernatural interaction with God... that's a good reason for you to believe. But, your say so is a truly terrible reason for me to accept your statements.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Its not internal feelings or convictions, you wouldn't understand, like i said if God appeared to you would you be an evolution origin believing atheist? of course not, God has made himself known to me, and this is more important for me than anything else.

Did God tell you "evolution is a lie", or is that a conclusion you have come to on your own?

 

[NBB]

Did God tell you "evolution is a lie", or is that a conclusion you have come to on your own?

God didn't tell me anything about that, but since i have experience with God and i'm pretty sure he exists, also that we have a soul, then i can conclude easily that the most important part of people couldn't have evolved because its spiritual.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

God didn't tell me anything about that, but since i have experience with God and i'm pretty sure he exists, also that we have a soul, then i can conclude easily that the most important part of people couldn't have evolved because its spiritual.

Uh huh. So you rely on your own uneducated opinion to conclude that reality is a lie.

I trust you understand why I, and so many others, find your claim to be far from convincing.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm an atheist due to not being presented with evidence for God.

I'm not an atheist .. because it ends with an '-ist' suffix.

I reject the implication that one must continuously hold some kind of fixed religious (or philosophically) based ideological stance and thence everyone must also be able to be classified by some '-ist' or '-ism' suffixed label .. All seemingly for the purpose of reinforcing that totally bizarre notion! (It also completely disregards and undermines the real point you're making in choosing to call yourself an atheist - ie: a justified absence of any evidence for some kind of implied default position that there is a God, which atheists must just be denying ).

Its a cheap (outdated) ripoff taken from the scientific classification/taxonomy and its just not reflective of the reality of how humans think.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Its a cheap (outdated) ripoff taken from the scientific classification/taxonomy and its just not reflective of the reality of how humans think.

The suffix -ist long predates any scientific usage.

 

[SelfSim]

The suffix -ist long predates any scientific usage.

Agreed. My analogy was akin to AV's fallacious 'species/kind' conflation. The meaning of 'species' post-dates the Bible, but that doesn't deter how 'kind' is frequently used by so-called 'Creation Scientists', (which is of course, yet another example of such a rip-off).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't support capital punishment, but to be fair, it's quite a distinction between killing guilty criminals and innocents.

It's the generality of the 'pro-life' claim that's the issue.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The alternative of locking someone up for the rest of their natural life is capital punishment, (IMO).

That's not the definition.