What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[SelfSim]

Forensic evidence of live cells appearing, with no evident potential for fraud.

So .. there are abudant 'live cells' on this planet. So what?

It beats serious forensic scientists whose day job is criminology. Who say “ inexplicable”
Have you even looked at the evidence before judge it?

You don't seem to understand the point I just made in my last post(?)
What your evidence is for .. is evidence for your belief/faith.

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

Excuse me .. I'm going on what you just said. I personally hold no 'atheist assumptions' .. and what was just discussed, was 'the science'!

 

[Mountainmike]

So .. there are abudant 'live cells' on this planet. So what?
You don't seem to understand the point I just made in my last post(?)
What your evidence is for .. is evidence for your belief/faith.
Excuse me .. I'm going on what you just said. I personally hold no 'atheist assumptions' .. and what was just discussed, was 'the science'!

When you’ve studied the evidence I suggested , you will realise that forensic evidence Is that the inexplicable happens. That live heart , skin and other cells appear in samples other than by evolution or ( your notion of) abiogenesis.

Darwin’s falsification test was specific. These appear to meet it.

I would love it if you could suggest how they were faked ( based on a posteriori knowledge of the evidence not a priori assumption)

These are top grade pathologists. Why are you so reluctant to look? Obvious answer it offends your world view - your faith in atheism.

 

[SelfSim]

These are top grade pathologists. Why are you so reluctant to look? Obvious answer it offends your world view - your faith in atheism.

No .. I do not have faith in atheism.

 

[Mountainmike]

No .. I do not have faith in atheism.

Are you agnostic then?
Atheist “ there is no God” is a faith statement. A belief.
Why won’t you look at evidence if you have no skin in the game?

I’ve given an example ( I could have chosen many) of the quality of the pathologists / forensic scientists involved. Why no interest?

whether Darwin’s test for falsification passes or fails should matter to all on this thread. That’s what the evidence is.

 

[Bradskii]

When you’ve studied the evidence I suggested , you will realise that forensic evidence Is that the inexplicable happens. That live heart , skin and other cells appear in samples other than by evolution or ( your notion of) abiogenesis.

Wait, hang on. I might have missed this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your cells appearing is some sort of miracle that you think has been proved to happen. That is, a supernatural event. Have I got that right? And that you think that this supernatural event disproves the evolutionary process? Because Darwin said it couldn't happen in nature?

I can't possibly have that right.

Edit: Whoa, is this Cochabama? The one where the investigating scientist said anout the sample:

“I would suspect that it somehow had been meddled with,” he said. “That would be my thought, that this was a deception of some kind.”

Sorry, Mike. In the first place you have been fooled by a simple trick. And secondly, if it actually was a miracle, how on earth do you think that a natural process can be disproved by a supernatural event?

 

[Mr Laurier]

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

Ever eat coarse Dijon on a sandwich? Or as part of a salad dressing?
they are quite small

 

[Gene2memE]

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”

Did he? Citation please.

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.

A cell =/= life. A collection of cells =/= life. Random cells being discovered on things =/= life.

Biological stuff has a very specific set of conditions that need to be met before it is declared 'life'. Otherwise we'd consider things like viruses or prions to be alive.

If this is your best, you need to do much, much better.

 

[Frank Robert]

They understand it the same way anyone does. They just disagree that it can account for major changes, like one kind of animal to another kind.

Of course they disagree with it, but their disagreement is mainly due to belief in a young earth.

 

[Frank Robert]

So, you have given up claiming they aren't trying to find out whether there's intelligence behind the universe?

Who are you suggesting are looking for intelligence?

 

[Mountainmike]

Read previous posts. I’ve explained why respected pathologists whose day job is criminology Say the samples were both alive and inexplicable , I tire of endless repetition.

I don’t need to do anything.
You need to study the evidence.

Darwin’s works are no secret. Have you not read it?
Most who name him have not.
1860 edition p 189

Did he? Citation please.



A cell =/= life. A collection of cells =/= life. Random cells being discovered on things =/= life.

Biological stuff has a very specific set of conditions that need to be met before it is declared 'life'. Otherwise we'd consider things like viruses or prions to be alive.

If this is your best, you need to do much, much better.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ever eat coarse Dijon on a sandwich?

No, sir.

Or as part of a salad dressing?

No, sir.

they are quite small

Thus it doesn't take a whole lot of faith to move a mountain.

 

[Mr Laurier]

No, sir.No, sir.Thus it doesn't take a whole lot of faith to move a mountain.

Apparently it takes being a muslim, or a communist.
Muslim folklore has the god moving a mountain to accommodate Mohamed when the local pagans imprisoned him to prevent his meeting the god on a mountain.
And Mao supposedly had a half million workers with hammers and spades, clear a whole mountain in the Himalayas to build an airfield.
Both stories lack evidence, but are popular.

PS. you should find a good deli/restaurant, that makes rubens with coarse Dijon.
You will taste the difference.

 

[Gene2memE]

Read previous posts. I’ve explained why respected pathologists whose day job is criminology Say the samples were both alive and inexplicable , I tire of endless repetition.

White blood cells, tissue and scabs are not living. They are parts of living things, but in and of themselves not life, or defined as being alive.

Darwin’s works are no secret. Have you not read it?
Most who name him have not.
1860 edition p 189

The quotation isn't correct

“If any life can be shown to have come from other than progressive small change my theory would be disproved”

The quote from the 1860 second edition is:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

This sentence doesn't change in any of the six editions of On The Origin of Species. I know, I just checked. You can compare editions online.

Now, what I want to know is: are your sources lying, or are you lying? And, why tell such a stupid and easily checked lie?

And, if it was from another source, why wouldn't you check yourself?

And, if you're this bad at source criticism, what does this say about your ability to assess the reliability of Eucharist miracle claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Reputable scientists agree with me. I can provide links for my claims. I do believe that I did that for the fake shroud that you have made a false idol of. You claim that there is evidence and yet refuse to present any. That tells us that you probably do not have any.

Of course I have yet to meet a creationist that even understands the concept of evidence and the scientific method. Care to learn?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, sir.No, sir.Thus it doesn't take a whole lot of faith to move a mountain.

Now it appears that you are claiming that no one, including you, has any faith.

 

[Mountainmike]

Well, it seems you disagree with professional pathologists, far better qualified than you will ever be!

I’ll wager you have not even looked up what was said and why it was said. The tissue sections they analysed, the origin of samples, so you will never know the truth. So You are interested in contradicting not studying the evidence.

I said what they said - that white cells were proof of life, because they dissolve post mortem or in vitro. So were inexplicable in vitro.

that’s numerous pathologists in different incidents.
more than that - you will have to look up.

I tire of atheists whose faith won’t let them research before comment.
Or think they know it all. They don’t.

White blood cells, tissue and scabs are not living. They are parts of living things, but in and of themselves not life, or defined as being alive.



The quotation isn't correct

“If any life can be shown to have come from other than progressive small change my theory would be disproved”

The quote from the 1860 second edition is:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

This sentence doesn't change in any of the six editions of On The Origin of Species. I know, I just checked. You can compare editions online.

Now, what I want to know is: are your sources lying, or are you lying? And, why tell such a stupid and easily checked lie?

And, if it was from another source, why wouldn't you check yourself?

And, if you're this bad at source criticism, what does this say about your ability to assess the reliability of Eucharist miracle claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it seems you disagree with professional pathologists, far better qualified than you will ever be!

I’ll wager you have not even looked up what was said and why it was said. The tissue sections they analysed, the origin of samples, so you will never know the truth. So You are interested in contradicting not studying the evidence.

I said what they said - that white cells were proof of life, because they dissolve post mortem or in vitro. So were inexplicable in vitro.

that’s numerous pathologists in different incidents.
more than that - you will have to look up.

I tire of atheists whose faith won’t let them research before comment.
Or think they know it all. They don’t.

Hmm, still no links to the magical tissues. I wonder why

 

[Mountainmike]

Hmm, still no links to the magical tissues. I wonder why

I’ve told you where to look in the past,
Eg for Cochabamba a precis here . You could have found if you care.
The Bleeding Statue of Christ, In Couchabamba Bolivia | Reason To Believe
But you need to look at the books - videos - plenty to choose. You need to look at the evidence if you care about truth.

willesee gives a long description of the discussion in his book.

But in years you never have.

 

[Speedwell]

Hmm, still no links to the magical tissues. I wonder why

Still not sure how the appearance of these cells combined with a misquote of something Darwin said 150 years ago falsifies the theory of evolution

 

[Mountainmike]

Still not sure how the appearance of these cells combined with a misquote of something Darwin said 150 years ago falsifies the theory of evolution

Darwin postulated all life came from progressive small change. these - assuming real - didn’t. Do I have to spell it out?

I am not answering again until you give some evidence you have looked at the evidence so it can be discussed.