What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, " you just don't understand. " That's all you know how to say. You understand nothing.

There are two choices, you either do not understand or you are lying. I feel that it is much more generous to say that you do not understand and offer to help you to understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And how would you know? Are you omniscient?

No need. Actions like this would leave massive evidence.

This is also why we know that there was no worldwide flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, that would sort of leave a mark.

LeTourneau "Mountain Mover" Scraper

 

[Astrid]

There are two choices, you either do not understand or you are lying. I feel that it is much more generous to say that you do not understand and offer to help you to understand.

He doesn't leave that many choices. It's "you don't know anything"
or " you just don't understand".

Someone trying to argue calculus when they can't be fractions
or algebra, what's left to say but versions of that the student is
grossly undereducsted?

 

[Bradskii]

I bet you can guess. Hint: It's not about Buddhism.

Hey, what happened to your explanation of the differences in gravity if it was created by God or if it's natural. You know, the dropped pencils...

 

[Subduction Zone]

LeTourneau "Mountain Mover" Scraper

Not exactly a mustard seed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I bet you can guess. Hint: It's not about Buddhism.

Well, I could tell *that*.

I wondered what *kind* of book about Christianity it was.

(Tinker Grey indicates that it is "apologetics". I think I shall pass then, I can think of nothing less interesting or compelling a subject matter than "apologetics".)

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Here. Just watch "An Atheist Reads" chapter by chapter take down of Mere Christianity.

There are some authors that this tuber shows no respect to but he honestly respects Lewis' writing. Nevertheless, one can only consider Lewis convincing if one is already a believer--like any book of apologetics.

Now I know where the cat that lives here went when he disappeared for a year.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not exactly a mustard seed.

Mustard seeds don't impress me. I've planted smaller ones (radishes, lettuce, onions) and eaten smaller ones (poppy seeds).

 

[AV1611VET]

Not exactly a mustard seed.

I believe James made it clear, when he said:

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

So if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you can, with proper work, move a mountain.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mustard seeds don't impress me. I've planted smaller ones (radishes, lettuce, onions) and eaten smaller ones (poppy seeds).

Despite what some think, the size of the mustard seed is never mentioned.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe James made it clear, when he said:

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

So if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you can, with proper work, move a mountain.

So no faith needed then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Despite what some think, the size of the mustard seed is never mentioned.

20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

Really?

Or if you prefer:

And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

 

[Mountainmike]

This thread is about falsification of scientific theories in the creation/evolution debate, not "atheism".

Quit dragging "atheists" into your argument. None of your arguments are about the existence or believe in a god, ergo, the "atheism" of some of your sparring partners is irrelevant.

And so was my reply. I answered a question, it’s what forums are for.

As for the substance of my post it is right on topic:

Forensic evidence of creation of cells by credible mainstream scientists which - if true - invalidates Darwin’s theory by the test Darwin himself set!! So if the thread is looking for falsification criteria, why not use Darwin’s? So clearly the essence of the thread.

Atheists refusing to look at that evidence is also de facto true of this thread. no doubt they will say there’s no evidence again!

 

[Mountainmike]

Not recently. You have only made claims. Your Shroud claims were refuted with sources. When it comes to your claims, not so much.

And you do not seem to understand the concept of evidence. Would you care to discuss it?

If reputable scientists don’t convince you, or hundreds of books of scientific research but you are happy to accept adhominem sceptic ranting on Wiki, just because it supports your view , there is little more to be said. Flat earthers were just the same. You still haven’t read a word of the evidence. I would know by the questions you ask.

 

[SelfSim]

Forensic evidence of creation of cells by credible mainstream scientists which - if true - invalidates Darwin’s theory by the test Darwin himself set!!

Where 'creation cells' = protocells, Darwin's theory becomes a slam-dunk!

 

[Mountainmike]

Where 'creation cells' = protocells, Darwin's theory becomes a slam-dunk!

Alas. If you read what Darwin said it was quite specific.
“If any life can be shown to have come from other than progressive small change my theory would be disproved”

So on Darwin’s criteria it doesn’t matter how many examples come from progression, a single example that doesn’t , is what Darwin says disproves him! As are ( for example) the scab & white cells of the Cochabamba statue and ( for example) the heart tissue and white cells of so called Eucharistic miracles.

On a thread about falsification, Darwin’s own test deserves airing!

Protocells are again interesting. But it is also just speculation that they lie on a path to full function cells. And that’s all I’ve said. I’m open to proof, what’s there is just speculation.

My forensic evidence trumps speculation in an evidence contest.

 

[Mountainmike]

Well, I could tell *that*.

I wondered what *kind* of book about Christianity it was.

(Tinker Grey indicates that it is "apologetics". I think I shall pass then, I can think of nothing less interesting or compelling a subject matter than "apologetics".)

So who is accusing whom of going off topic?

 

[SelfSim]

Protocells are again interesting. But it is also just speculation that they lie on a path to full function cells. And that’s all I’ve said. I’m open to proof, what’s there is just speculation.

What a 'protocell' is, is currently being defined in numerous objectively testable ways, in objectively models.

What your 'Eucharistic' cells and miracles are, is defined purely by belief/faith.

My forensic evidence trumps speculation in an evidence contest.

Ahh .. but 'forensic evidence' of what, (objectively)? .. A belief?
We already know that ...

 

[Mountainmike]

What a 'protocell' is, is currently being defined in numerous objectively testable ways, in objectively models.

What your 'Eucharistic' cells and miracles are, is defined purely by belief/faith.
Ahh .. but 'forensic evidence' of what, (objectively)? .. A belief?
We already know that ...

Forensic evidence of live cells appearing, with no evident potential for fraud.
It beats serious forensic scientists whose day job is criminology. Who say “ inexplicable”
Have you even looked at the evidence before judge it?

I Thought not.

Just once I would like to have a discussion on the science.
Not your atheist assumption about it!