What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[VirOptimus]

It's quite possible that an unspecified duration of time transpired between the creation of the universe (Genesis 1:1) and the initial formation of Earth. (Genesis 1:2).

The Hebrew verb translated “created” in Isaiah 42:5 is bara’ which has as its primary definition “bringing into existence something new, something that did not exist before.”7 The proclamation that God created (bara’) the entirety of the heavens is stated seven times in the Old Testament. (Genesis 1:1; 2:3; 2:4; Psalm 148:5; Isaiah 40:26; 42:5; 45:18).

Thats religion, not science and I couldnt care less.

 

[AV1611VET]

I started to write "The fact that you come up with an inane response ..." but estimated that "inane" was too rude, too aggressive and changed at the last moment for the slightly softer "nonsensical". So it was indeed meant as "a".

Okay ... thank you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thats religion, not science and I couldnt care less.

In spite of what your caption says, right?

 

[renniks]

Thats religion, not science and I couldnt care less.

Lol, don't you reject everything written in every other history book, also?

 

[Bradskii]

Lol, don't you reject everything written in every other history book, also?

A history book? Really?

You should check the Dewey Decimal clasification. Just because a book refers to something that happened in the past doesn't make it a history book. Otherwise the bible is also a fashion magazine, a biology reference, a science textbook, a cookbook etc etc etc.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well you've got two choices, a eternal universe or a creator.

That assumes that time is meaningful for the universe as a whole - there are physical models where time exists only within the universe. As for a 'creator', there are a number of physical models where physical processes in a larger 'metaverse' create universes.

There's no reason at all to suppose that cosmic serpents, oceans of chaos, warring demons, magical entities, paternalistic anthropomorphic deities, etc., had anything to do with it; they're clearly the products of vivid human imaginations.

As far as we know, everything has a beginning.

We don't really know that. As far as we know, our universe was once very hot and very dense. We don't know the prior history of that hot dense state. Everything we know subsequently condensed out of that hot dense stuff as it cooled; IOW, the things we know are simply different arrangements of that stuff. They only have a 'beginning' in as much as we identify certain arrangements of that stuff as particular things, and the arrangements of that stuff change over time.

But if everything has a beginning, you'd necessarily have an infinite recursion of beginnings - the universe would have a beginning, whatever it came from would have a beginning, and so-on. If you want some kind of creator to be exempt from that, it would be a special pleading fallacy. But if you insist, I will invoke Occam's razor and say that if something is exempt from having a beginning, then it should be the universe itself, which we know exists, and we can then drop all redundant creator concepts for which there is no evidence or necessity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So then, you are now arguing that nothing is a fact?

Not exactly - I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument by applying to direct observation the logic that you seem to think has validity for indirect observation.

In a more general sense, it seems reasonable to assume there are facts of the matter about states of affairs in the world (though not everyone agrees), but that we can never be absolutely certain of them in the way we can about statements in formal axiomatic systems like logic and mathematics, where truths can be proven because they are true by definition, or tautologically true.

This inherent uncertainty about facts about the world is precisely what the scientific methodology has been devised and refined to minimise.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You either have eternal matter or an eternal being, an energy source that created the matter.

Not really. If you want to argue from what we know, most energy sources are not beings, and beings are feeble sources of mainly high-entropy (useless) energy.

OTOH physics tells us that you don't need energy to create a universe, i.e. the net energy of the universe is zero - the energy and matter are exactly balanced by the distortion of spacetime they generate (gravity). This is why a metaverse can produce a potentially infinite stream of universes from microscopic quantum fluctuations with no energy cost.

 

[Bradskii]

Not really. If you want to argue from what we know, most energy sources are not beings, and beings are feeble sources of mainly high-entropy (useless) energy.

OTOH physics tells us that you don't need energy to create a universe, i.e. the net energy of the universe is zero - the energy and matter are exactly balanced by the distortion of spacetime they generate (gravity). This is why a metaverse can produce a potentially infinite stream of universes from microscopic quantum fluctuations with no energy cost.

I'm impressed. The fact that you use a couple of Feynman's quotes ensures that I am biased in that assesment.

 

[Astrid]

Not really. If you want to argue from what we know, most energy sources are not beings, and beings are feeble sources of mainly high-entropy (useless) energy.

OTOH physics tells us that you don't need energy to create a universe, i.e. the net energy of the universe is zero - the energy and matter are exactly balanced by the distortion of spacetime they generate (gravity). This is why a metaverse can produce a potentially infinite stream of universes from microscopic quantum fluctuations with no energy cost.

Maybe God is mindless to an extent that would make a virus look clever,
and physically smaller than a electron.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Maybe God is mindless to an extent that would make a virus look clever,
and physically smaller than a electron.

That would make the meaning of the word 'God' moot. Having just finished a course on Spinoza's 'Ethics' this is all too familiar... (he thought nature was God, and deterministic too).

 

[Astrid]

That would make the meaning of the word 'God' moot. Having just finished a course on Spinoza's 'Ethics' this is all too familiar... (he thought nature was God, and deterministic too).

I figure it's already moot.

 

[renniks]

But if you insist, I will invoke Occam's razor and say that if something is exempt from having a beginning, then it should be the universe itself, which we know exists, and we can then drop all redundant creator concepts for which there is no evidence or necessity.

So you are back to eternal matter. Only matter isn't eternal now, so you are supposing something outside of science.

 

[renniks]

This inherent uncertainty about facts about the world is precisely what the scientific methodology has been devised and refined to minimise.

Well it's doing a very poor job of it. Because every "fact" of science will most likely be modified or found false.
People need truth, not uncertainty.

 

[Speedwell]

So you are back to eternal matter. Only matter isn't eternal now, so you are supposing something outside of science.

Well, no. As far as we can tell from what we see in this universe, anyway, mass/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so it's a reasonable candidate for ex materia. In any case, whatever there was "before" the big bang is presently outside of science whether it's God or not.

 

[renniks]

Well, no. As far as we can tell from what we see in this universe, anyway, mass/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so it's a reasonable candidate for ex materia. In any case, whatever there was "before" the big bang is presently outside of science whether it's God or not.

Well, the Bible proposed creation from ex nihelo first.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, the Bible proposed creation from ex nihelo first.

How so? The doctrine of ex materia was popular in early Christian times and is believe by some Christians still. It was suppressed by the Fathers out of fear that it might lead to Gnostic dualism. In any case, what you think the Bible has to say on the subject has no relevance to scientific investigations into the origins of the material universe.

 

[Frank Robert]

Well it's doing a very poor job of it. Because every "fact" of science will most likely be modified or found false.
People need truth, not uncertainty.

You are again displaying your misunderstanding of science. Scientists stand on the shoulders of giants. Those that came before and those that will come after.

 

[renniks]

You are again displaying your misunderstanding of science. Scientists stand on the shoulders of giants. Those that came before and those that will come after.

Which doesn't change what I said.

 

[VirOptimus]

Which doesn't change what I said.

1. How old is the universe?

2. Do populations change over time?

3. Is man an ape?