What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Speedwell]

One can only wonder why proving that something that is impossible ...is... impossible -- would even be a challenge under normal conditions.

If you prove that the theory of evolution is "impossible" all you have is a failed theory. You must also show why your theory is a satisfactory replacement for it.

I prefer the real life historic fail of Urey and Miller in their efforts to show that the impossible was "possible" for abiogenesis
Revisiting the Failed Miller-Urey Experiment? | Piltdown Superman

Have you ever read Miller and Urey's paper? They weren't trying to create life. In fact what they were trying to do is produce amino acids--which they succeeded in doing.

Currently we have a lot of scientists claiming that all life and in fact all the universe - came from nothing.

No, we don't. Science doe not make that claim.

 

[BobRyan]

If you prove that the theory of evolution is "impossible" all you have is a failed theory. You must also show why your theory is a satisfactory replacement for it.

hmmm... that is like saying "the fact that you can show that a Moose or a rock cannot make chocolate ice cream, does not mean that your argument that a Chef can do it is a satisfactory replacement for it"

How is that logical??

 

[Speedwell]

hmmm... that is like saying "the fact that you can show that a Moose or a rock cannot make chocolate ice cream, does not mean that your argument that a Chef can do it is a satisfactory replacement for it"

How is that logical??

All you have to do is show us how your chef does it. That's what the theory of evolution purports to do: explain how life developed and diversified since it began. What's your explanation? Does it account for all available scientific evidence? How?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

hmmm... that is like saying "the fact that you can show that a Moose or a rock cannot make chocolate ice cream, does not mean that your argument that a Chef can do it is a satisfactory replacement for it"

Can you demonstrate that your Chef can make chocolate icecream, or are you just asserting that he can?

 

[BobRyan]

Can you demonstrate that your Chef can make chocolate icecream, or are you just asserting that he can?

As far as I know - there is no atheist, or Christian, or agnostic the has ever proposed much less proven the idea that an all-powerful all-knowing being would most certainly not be capable of making ice cream.

 

[BobRyan]

All you have to do is show us how your chef does it.

If I claimed be a chef and I wanted to point out that my fellow chef can make the world's most perfect chocolate ice cream - I would be expected to fully explain it. That is rational.

You dont understand logic

I rest my case.

=================================

If I were a moose I would not be expected to explain how a chef made perfect chocolate ice cream, much less to make it myself.

What is not in dispute is the claim that a moose cannot make chocolate ice cream (much less a pile of rocks,gas, water and the right amount of sunlight being able to pull that off).

 

[VirOptimus]

If I claimed be a chef and I wanted to point out that my fellow chef can make the world's most perfect chocolate ice cream - I would be expected to fully explain it.

If I were a moose I would not be expected to explain how a chef made perfect chocolate ice cream.

What is not in dispute is the claim that a moose cannot make chocolate ice cream much less a pile of rocks,gas, water and the right amount of sunlight.

You dont understand logic (or how to make an argument).

Try again.

 

[Speedwell]

As far as I know - there is no atheist, or Christian, or agnostic the has ever proposed much less proven the idea that an all-powerful all-knowing being would most certainly not be capable of making ice cream.

Quite right; however, the question at hand is not whether He can make ice cream, but how He makes ice cream.

 

[BobRyan]

If I claimed be a chef and I wanted to point out that my fellow chef can make the world's most perfect chocolate ice cream - I would be expected to fully explain it. That is rational.

So then yes -- I as a fellow chef would be expected to show just how it is done.

Quite right; however, the question at hand is not whether He can make ice cream, but how He makes ice cream.

I find a certain paucity of logic in that as a response to my statement.

 

[Speedwell]

I find a certain paucity of logic in that as a response to my statement.

How so? It is the question underlying the OP and in general the question which the creation/evolution forum was created to discuss.

 

[BobRyan]

If I claimed be a chef and I wanted to point out that my fellow chef can make the world's most perfect chocolate ice cream - I would be expected to fully explain it. That is rational.

So then yes -- I as a fellow chef would be expected to show just how it is done.

Quite right; however, the question at hand is not whether He can make ice cream, but how He makes ice cream.

I find a certain paucity of logic in that as a response to my statement.

How so? It is the question underlying the OP and in general the question which the creation/evolution forum was created to discuss.

1. I don't know of any C/E forum statement saying that the purpose of the forum is to "explain infinite God".
2. The assumption that nothing an infinite God does should be beyond the capability of moose to explain -- is not in my view - logical.

But we all have free will and can differ on that.

3. It is also not logical to imagine that if the moose cannot imagine how God does something... then God most certainly could not have done it.

4. And given that the moose cannot make or explain how the chef can make the world's most perfect chocolate ice cream... still leaves chocolate ice cream "existing" and still makes it unreasonable to expect moose to do it as well, or even that moose should be able to explain it fully.

 

[Speedwell]

1. I don't know of any C/E forum statement saying that the purpose of the forum is to "explain infinite God".
2. The assumption that nothing an infinite God does should be beyond the capability of moose to explain -- is not in my view - logical.

But we all have free will and can differ on that.

3. It is also not logical to imagine that if the moose cannot imagine how God does something... then God most certainly could not have done it.

4. And given that the moose cannot make or explain the worlds most perfect chocolate ice cream... still leaves chocolate ice cream "existing" and still makes it unreasonable to expect moose to do it as well, or even that moose should be able to explain it fully.

I'm not sure where you are going with all of that, but the question I was referring to was, whether life developed and diversified after it began as described by the biological theory of evolution or not. It is possible for a theist to take either side of that issue, so the question of whether God exists doesn't really come into it.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not sure where you are going with all of that, but the question I was referring to was, whether life developed and diversified after it began as described by the biological theory of evolution or not. .

Ok I think I see the point of confusion.

The title of this thread is "What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?" -- by contrast your interest appears to be more like "assuming that we all agree that abiogenesis is not pure fiction -- did life continue to develop and diversify after abiogenesis created it from rocks/gas/water/sunlight or did it remain as a prion in search of a host amoeba?". (Which I have to say is a little bit of a gap from the subject title)..

I already pointed out that the " Falsification for Abiogenesis " was demonstrated in the Urey/Miller experiment over half a century ago.

And your prior question
" however, the question at hand is not whether He can make ice cream, but how He makes ice cream."

Given that the antecedent to the pronoun "he" is that "chef" that is far beyond the moose in the illustration.. (as already stated "all-knowing, all-powerful God") then your question becomes "how did God create life".

And in that case - my point stands

BobRyan said: ↑
If I claimed be a chef and I wanted to point out that my fellow chef can make the world's most perfect chocolate ice cream - I would be expected to fully explain it. That is rational.

So then yes -- I as a fellow chef would be expected to show just how it is done. But when did I claim to be a "fellow chef" along with the one that made life on Earth?

As for your apparent request that we all assume abiogenesis is true and then address the question of how the prions managed to claw their way up what Dawkins called "mount improbable" to turn into horses over time -- it looks a bit like a nonstarter to me.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ok I think I see the point of confusion.

The title of this thread is "What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?" -- by contrast your interest appears to be more like "assuming that we all agree that abiogenesis is not pure fiction -- did life continue to develop and diversify after abiogenesis created it from rocks/gas/water/sunlight or did it remain as a prion in search of a host amoeba?". (Which I have to say is a little bit of a gap from the subject title)..

I already pointed out that the " Falsification for Abiogenesis " was demonstrated in the Urey/Miller experiment over half a century ago.

And your prior question
" however, the question at hand is not whether He can make ice cream, but how He makes ice cream."

Given that the antecedent to the pronoun "he" is that "chef" that is far beyond the moose in the illustration.. (as already stated "all-knowing, all-powerful God") then your question becomes "how did God create life".

And in that case - my point stands



So then yes -- I as a fellow chef would be expected to show just how it is done. But when did I claim to be a "fellow chef" along with the one that made life on Earth?

As for your apparent request that we all assume abiogenesis is true and then address the question of how the prions managed to claw their way up what Dawkins called "mount improbable" to turn into horses over time -- it looks a bit like a nonstarter to me.

Abiogenesis and evolution are distinct, though related concepts: abiogenesis is a hypothesis, while evolution is a theory. Consequently they require separate and distinct criteria for falsification. You appear to be arguing as contrary to this. Are you?
Evolutionary theory works regardless of which of these scenarios accounts for the appearance of life:

• Life arises naturally in the presence of a suitable environment and the presence of appropriate chemicals.
• Life arose by a bizarre and unique combination of circumtances.
• Life was created by God.

Can you clarify your meaning here.

I already pointed out that the " Falsification for Abiogenesis " was demonstrated in the Urey/Miller experiment over half a century ago.

I do not see how that experiment falsifies abiogenesis, or how experiments of that category are capable of falsifying abiogenesis. Perhaps you will explain your thinking.

 

[BobRyan]

Abiogenesis and evolution are distinct, though related concepts: abiogenesis is a hypothesis, .

no doubt... but I am not the one that came up with this thread subject with that title.

"What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?"

 

[Bungle_Bear]

As far as I know - there is no atheist, or Christian, or agnostic the has ever proposed much less proven the idea that an all-powerful all-knowing being would most certainly not be capable of making ice cream.

You didn't answer my question. Can you demonstrate that your chef can make chocolate ice cream? Can you even demonstrate the chef's ability to whip cream, separate eggs or melt chocolate etc?

If you cannot demonstrate these basic skills, all you have is an unsupported assertion. Evolution demonstrates all necessary skills, with the final result being "chocolate ice cream".

 

[driewerf]

we are in the C-vs-E forum, I feel sorry for him given the constraints.
More flattering than I had expected. nice going.
One can only wonder why proving that something that is impossible ...is... impossible -- would even be a challenge under normal conditions.

I prefer the real life historic fail of Urey and Miller in their efforts to show that the impossible was "possible" for abiogenesis
Revisiting the Failed Miller-Urey Experiment? | Piltdown Superman


hmmm... I wonder why that is not the least bit "surprising"

first - define your use of the term "science" --
Do you mean "show me a scientist that has a video of creation"

or
"show me a scientist that can also create life from nothing"??

or "Show me a scientist that can create an amoeba from dust, rocks, water, gas and sunlight... and then admits God could probably also do it if the scientist can do it in the lab"??

Currently we have a lot of scientists claiming that all life and in fact all the universe - came from nothing.

Surely wild claims are not the same thing as "science" for the rest of us.

apparantly I need to refresh Bobryan's memory
He posted in another thread

I like that you a free to believe in Creation while attending that museum and pretty much have no restrictions. Including finding actual evidence supporting creation as science fact. Its amazing how many people there share that same POV.

(emphasize is mine)
To which I responded different times with

Now I am very curious for that evidence.
Now, before you even start to hit the keyboard: you said scientific evidence supporting creation. I am not interested interested in "why evolution can't be true". I want scientific evidence supporting creation. Did the museum really deliver in that department?

Note that in his original statement he claimed to have scientific evidence supporting creation as a science fact.

Bobryan has always dodged that challenge in the thread of the Kentucky creation museum.
So I repeated my challenge
here; The Creation Museum
here: The Creation Museum
here The Creation Museum
here The Creation Museum
here The Creation Museum
and here The Creation Museum

Now he plays dumb, suddenly demanding a definition of "science", a word he wasn't shy to use in his original statement and another classic trying to "prove" te theory of evolution fails. Which of course is a far cry of providing evidence for creation as a science fact.

I am going to repeat this, BobRyan; provide me evidence that supports creation as a science fact.
I am not interested in "why evolution can't be true".

 

[Ophiolite]

no doubt... but I am not the one that came up with this thread subject with that title.

Irrelevant. The title is ambiguous. I read it as "
What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and what is the Falsification for the Theory of Evolution?"
It is in that sense, I think, that @Speedwell made his remarks. Consequently your objections are groundless and irrelevant in that context.

You omitted to respond to my request for clarification re falsification of abiogenesis. Would you do so now please.
Edit: Forget it. I see your argument is that abiogenesis is falsified because an experiment that was never intended to produce life failed to produce life. Quel suprise! If you studied logic at college you might want to seek a refund on the course fees.

 

[Speedwell]

Ok I think I see the point of confusion.

The title of this thread is "What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?"

Just like a creationist to lump the two together. But it doesn't matter. The purpose of that particular creationists was to push the "Big Lie" of creationism: that the theory of evolution (and indeed, any scientific theory concerning origins) denies the existence of God.

by contrast your interest appears to be more like "assuming that we all agree that abiogenesis is not pure fiction -- did life continue to develop and diversify after abiogenesis created it from rocks/gas/water/sunlight or did it remain as a prion in search of a host amoeba?". (Which I have to say is a little bit of a gap from the subject title)..

Of course abiogenesis occurred. There was a time on Earth when there was no life, and a later time when there was life, so life must have begun, right? At the present time no well-established scientific theory of how it happened.

I already pointed out that the " Falsification for Abiogenesis " was demonstrated in the Urey/Miller experiment over half a century ago.

How an experiment which was not intended to produce life can falsify a theory about how life began--which does not yet exist--is beyond me.

And your prior question
" however, the question at hand is not whether He can make ice cream, but how He makes ice cream."

Given that the antecedent to the pronoun "he" is that "chef" that is far beyond the moose in the illustration.. (as already stated "all-knowing, all-powerful God") then your question becomes "how did God create life".

And maybe, if scientists in appropriate fields keep working, we will find out.

And in that case - my point stands

I have lost track of exactly what that was.

So then yes -- I as a fellow chef would be expected to show just how it is done. But when did I claim to be a "fellow chef" along with the one that made life on Earth?

As for your apparent request that we all assume abiogenesis is true and then address the question of how the prions managed to claw their way up what Dawkins called "mount improbable" to turn into horses over time -- it looks a bit like a nonstarter to me.

We all assume abiogenesis is true, as I explained. Even the Bible agrees.

 

[Strathos]

Wait, is he actually claiming that the aim of the Miller-Urey experiment was to create life from non-life? That's a hilarious misunderstanding of the facts.