What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[SelfSim]

... They seem to be saying something like some statements of nature can be made but not understood within a naturalistic framework because this framework is incomplete. I'm not sure how practically or possibly this statement is since without being able to do empirical experiments on it, how could one establish it as a viable structure of knowledge. If you can do experiments on it, than it just seems like another part of the naturalistic methodology/explanation structure

The 'framework' there, (ie: of 'incompleteness'), is flawed by inconsistency and so is ultimately philosophically incompatable with the scientific method. This is a commonly held misconceived philosophy of science.

'Statements of nature' are statements for informing ourselves (collectively) of the meaning of the term: 'nature', in that sense, we are informing ourselves about our own perceptions/observations. There is no need to say 'what exists beyond' those perceptions/observations - they are our reality. This interpretation restores the consistent basis for the establishment of knowledge of what 'nature' means, in science.

The other interpretation (ie: 'incompleteness'), is an artefact of philosophically held beliefs in Realism - which should be ignorable in properly conducted science .. (and it is).

 

[Speedwell]

He lived It. And will live It.

So Jesus was just acting out the story he wrote--as kind of an afterthought. He should have hired somebody to do it for him.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Facts for atheists
1/ the sudarium of Oviedo forensic analysis shows pathology and odema , nose bleeds etc only explicable by crucifixion, including the positions of rest as it was taken down from the cross. Forensics unknown in Middle Ages so it cannot be forged.

Who are these sudarium of Oviedo people and why should we trust their analysis. I've never heard of this organization.

[Again with the "atheists" thing. Call us "shroud skeptics" or something similar if you must, but our skepticism isn't about our non-belief. The shroud could be an artifact of a crucifiction in early Roman Palestine, perhaps even of Jesus even without a god. Even your own church won't fully accept the authenticity of the Shroud.]

 

[Bradskii]

How would you designate the year sans God?

I think the AD refers to the year that someone considered to be a prophet by the three main monotheistic religions was born in the Middle East. One of the religions split into a number of denominations and the Gregorian calender was produced by the head of one of the denominations of that religion in 1582 (Pope Gregory XIII).

Hope that helps.

 

[Subduction Zone]

subduction: there is no chance you will ever read science of any description whatever is provided, if you don’t like the conclusion.

In this case the experts agree with each other. They have procedures so rugged their evidence sends people to death row.

Your approach to it all is faith not science.

You know it, so do I.
Your choice, read it and learn. Or stay as an ostrich.

How do you know that? I think that you are just projecting here because this has been your behavior. Communication is a very important part of the scientific method. If the articles that you claim exist, but cannot seem to post, existed they would have gone through peer review. You are the one that appears to be relying on faith since it is rather apparent that none of your relics are real.

By the way, the Jesus story has nothing to do with the fact that life is the product of evolution. I don't know why you keep bringing up this unsupported nonsense.

And the evidence that did refute the Shroud of Turing did go through proper publication. All that believers have in response are conspiracy theories.

 

[Speedwell]

Who are these sudarium of Oviedo people and why should we trust their analysis. I've never heard of this organization.

[Again with the "atheists" thing. Call us "shroud skeptics" or something similar if you must, but our skepticism isn't about our non-belief. The shroud could be an artifact of a crucifiction in early Roman Palestine, perhaps even of Jesus even without a god. Even your own church won't fully accept the authenticity of the Shroud.]

It's got to be atheists. These creationists don't want to talk to Christians who disagree with them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He wrote It.

No, the Gospels were written by various anonymous authors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would you designate the year sans God?

CE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How?

Tell me your version of the Flood story and I will explain how. If I remember right you believe that false evidence was planted, so perhaps not so much for your version. Of course the lack of geological evidence refutes your version. It is also refuted by biology, for example you do not have to worry about waking up in a seedy hotel bathroom filled with ice missing a kidney. If the Flood of Noah happened this could be a daily event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have a whole Book full of reasons to believe.

We are talking about valid reason since that book can be interpreted in many different ways. Your argument here is a Flat Earth argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The common theory among creationists is a post flood lake breaking through, not a flood event per say.

Nope, that would not form that. That has to be a slow erosion event. Do you want to discuss it?

That is why I like that picture so much. Flood believers cannot explain it.

 

[renniks]

One of my favorite pictures. This image alone refutes the Noah's Ark story:

The Kaibab Plateau through which the canyon is cut, is at a high elevation. Where is your water source?

 

[SelfSim]

Are you agnostic then?
Atheist “ there is no God” is a faith statement. A belief.

Beliefs come and go .. some are testable some aren't. Science grabs the useful ones whenever they appear. The questions you pose, which drive your fascination with these topics, aren't useful questions in science.

My personal quest in life, is to distinguish any and all beliefs (be they theistic, atheistic etc). I do not support indulgence in untestable beliefs and opinions ..
Now: whaddya need ta call that, again, (ie: purely for your own benefit .. because I, myself, couldn't care less what its called)?

Why won’t you look at evidence if you have no skin in the game?

No interest .. (as I've informed you before).

.. Why no interest?

So you already knew the answer to your question before you demanded my explanation?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Kaibab Plateau through which the canyon is cut, is at a high elevation. Where is your water source?

Western Colorado?

 

[dlamberth]

We have a whole Book full of reasons to believe.

We have a whole planet that tells a completely different story.

 

[Estrid]

True, though it is not that difficult to understand. The problem is that creationists do not want to understand. They are looking for excuses to believe.

Can't and won't are kind of the same thing.
In the event, I used the word "capacity" which none of our
local creationists have.
They in no way have the capacity to learn science.

Look at what happened just about the date when octopus
and squid appeared. Our creo showed an absolute incapacity
to learn that his memory from ten yrs ago was wrong.

And he is far from the worst.

 

[Job 33:6]

Western Colorado?

That does appear to be where the Colorado river, which flows through and erodes the canyon, comes from.

Nobody really knows where this question might be going haha.

Or perhaps we do know where this conversation is headed because we've heard it a million times before. But we remain optimistic that perhaps one day it will end with a brighter outcome beyond denial.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hope that helps.

Given that you said this:

I asked if there was any practical difference to us if everything was natural or designed by God.

I would submit the calendar as a noticeable difference.

 

[Estrid]

Huh? What are you taking notes from kent hovind? The river never needed to flow uphill but rather the whole meaning of uplift is that land rises up from beneath it. That's why the grand canyon is observed toward the rocky mountains as opposed to Louisiana lowlands and swamps.

I like how you're telling a geologist what geologists do or do not agree on.

Generally speaking, geologists have reached a consensus that the canyon formed due to uplift during the laramide orogeny. The only geologists I've ever heard of (I've never met any of the many I've worked with) that don't agree with this, are the few of the creation institute as far as I'm aware.

If water took the " easiest " route there be no meanders.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, the Gospels were written by various anonymous authors.

It's interesting that using large fonts is considered yelling on an Internet forum.

In the Bible, we see the authors yelling their names quite loudly.

MATTHEW
MARK
LUKE
JOHN

And for all that, academia considers them anonymous.

Sounds par.