What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

Is that why I made this thread?

The Flat Earth Bible

Yep. Your use of "challenges" is an automatic admission that you are wrong.

 

[renniks]

Okay, exactly what did he measure and how?

"The Cosmological Singularity in effect has always been directing the variations that have appeared in the genome of the biosphere, and has been directing which individuals actually mate. The term for this in Christian theology is God’s Providence. Christians can never abandon trust in God’s Providence. Physicists can never abandon trust in unitarity."

 

[renniks]

There you go using the word "accidental" again.

Try again and ask properly. Do not put claims in your question that you cannot support.

How is it not accidental if not guided by any intelligence?

 

[VirOptimus]

@AV1611VET-snip- a few hundred billion ppl who would challenge the claim that God is unknown.

A few hundred billion? Really? Please give some kind of support for this claim.

For reference, its estimated that there ever have lived 107 billion total.

 

[VirOptimus]

How is it not accidental if not guided by any intelligence?

.....

You really are in way over your head.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The Cosmological Singularity in effect has always been directing the variations that have appeared in the genome of the biosphere, and has been directing which individuals actually mate. The term for this in Christian theology is God’s Providence. Christians can never abandon trust in God’s Providence. Physicists can never abandon trust in unitarity."

So he did not measure anything.
You just showed that you claimed God does not exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is it not accidental if not guided by any intelligence?

There are all sorts of events that are not guided by intelligence and are not accidental. The laws of nature "guide" almost everything that you can observe.

I would suggest that you use a bit of logic in your arguments. Watch out for false dichotomies.

 

[renniks]

There are all sorts of events that are not guided by intelligence and are not accidental. The laws of nature "guide" almost everything that you can observe.

I would suggest that you use a bit of logic in your arguments. Watch out for false dichotomies.

Lol, laws of nature when nature itself is guided by nothing? That's logical? It's nonsense and a third grader can understand it's nonsense.

 

[Mr Laurier]

He got pretty much everything wrong even by current theories. Yet they still prop up his ideas as if they were correct.

Lol.
He pretty much nailed the basic foundations. Except Genetics, which he never figured out. His PREMISE was that a god must have created all life, or at least all animal life, in more or less its modern form. He then set out to find the evidence he needed. And instead found the exact opposite.
His ideas are weighed against the evidence. Where he was right, he was right. And where he was wrong, he was wrong.
Nobody props up any of his ideas as right, when those ideas are wrong. Instead we weigh them against the evidence. And yes, we openly accept that he got things wrong. And we have zero issue with that fact. The man lived and died in the 19th century.
He figured out sexual selection. And he was right about it.
He never figured out genetics. And he openly said so.

 

[renniks]

.....

You really are in way over your head.

Blah, blah, same old insults with no substance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, laws of nature when nature itself is guided by nothing? That's logical? It's nonsense and a third grader can understand it's nonsense.

No, only a third grader would use such poor logic. You need to show that an intelligence is needed in the first place.

 

[renniks]

Lol.
He pretty much nailed the basic foundations. Except Genetics, which he never figured out. His PREMISE was that a god must have created all life, or at least all animal life, in more or less its modern form. He then set out to find the evidence he needed. And instead found the exact opposite.
His ideas are weighed against the evidence. Where he was right, he was right. And where he was wrong, he was wrong.
Nobody props up any of his ideas as right, when those ideas are wrong. Instead we weigh them against the evidence. And yes, we openly accept that he got things wrong. And we have zero issue with that fact. The man lived and died in the 19th century.
He figured out sexual selection. And he was right about it.
He never figured out genetics. And he openly said so.

Aren't you the guy who thinks artificial selection in wheat production somehow proves macro evolution? Yeah I quit listening to you a while ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Blah, blah, same old insults with no substance.

Observation, not insult.

 

[renniks]

No, only a third grader would use such poor logic. You need to show that an intelligence is needed in the first place.

That's easy. Try constructing a computer from nothing with no tools. I'll wait.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aren't you the guy who thinks artificial selection in wheat production somehow proves macro evolution? Yeah I quit listening to you a while ago.

Perhaps you should learn what macro evolution is. It has been observed quite often.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's easy. Try constructing a computer from nothing with no tools. I'll wait.

And that is quite the non sequitur.

Your third grade logic is failing again.

 

[Speedwell]

Lol, laws of nature when nature itself is guided by nothing? That's logical? It's nonsense and a third grader can understand it's nonsense.

The laws of nature certainly exist. What is illogical is to suppose that if they exist they must have been put in place by your particular God.

 

[Frank Robert]

That's fine.

Science is good. It's gifted to us from God.

I am glad we found common ground.

 

[Mr Laurier]

How is it not accidental if not guided by any intelligence?

By being neither.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The laws of nature certainly exist. What is illogical is to suppose that if they exist they must have been put in place by your particular God.

Yes, he is constantly using a God of the Gaps Fallacy. It amounts to:

I don't understand how this works, therefore God.