• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Antarctica didn't exist prior to the Flood.

The entire Earth was one tropical paradise.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
So the Flood was over half a million years ago?

You are being inconsistent again.
 
Upvote 0

Ponderous Curmudgeon

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,477
944
66
Newfield
✟38,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
When there are competing hypothesis the ones with the best evidence and or predictions are the ones that win out. I know one of the complaints of creationists are that they are not given a chance and in some situations that may be true. The situations that I am aware all have to do with intelligent design which so far hasn't been able to present a testable hypothesis. I have not observed any scientific hypotheses on the major creationists organizations: AIG, ICR and DI only things I've is seen from them are criticisms of scientists and science research.
I would consider Michael Behe to be the exception, he has stated testable hypotheses about the inability of evolutionary mechanisms to produce several known situations. That said, to my knowledge, all of them have been followed up by research to elucidate viable potential pathways. That said, he deserves credit for trying.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Not true. There have been creation scientists who have come up with hypothesis' for the Grand canyon formation, for example
I love it! The post ends on "for example" and then crickets.

Tell us, what reasonable test based upon the hypothesis could refute the work of these so called "creation scientists".

By the way, since they skip one very important part of the scientific method it is hard to call them "scientists".
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I would consider Michael Behe to be the exception, he has stated testable hypotheses about the inability of evolutionary mechanisms to produce several known situations. That said, to my knowledge, all of them have been followed up by research to elucidate viable potential pathways. That said, he deserves credit for trying.
That is true. Unfortunately for him his hypotheses failed. When he would not admit that is when he lost credibility as a scientist. One can be wrong when one is a scientist, but one cannot be dishonest or ignore when his hypotheses fail.
 
Upvote 0

Mr Laurier

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2021
1,141
366
59
Georgian Bay/Bruce Peninsula
✟46,584.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I believe it appeared when God broke Pangaea up into five separate continents.

When Europe was pulled apart from America, it appeared as "collateral damage."
that was some 55 million years ago. Nobody had created God yet.
The Grand Canyon is not a rift valley. It is an river eroded canyon. Formed by erosion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

Ponderous Curmudgeon

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,477
944
66
Newfield
✟38,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
That is true. Unfortunately for him his hypotheses failed. When he would not admit that is when he lost credibility as a scientist. One can be wrong when one is a scientist, but one cannot be dishonest or ignore when his hypotheses fail.
I don't think you can actually call it a complete failure, but there is also no positive evidence. He might yet come up with something that is actually irreducibly complex. He is entitled so long as he continues to propose testable hypotheses. One could argue that plate tectonics was also a faith position for quite a while. :)
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I don't think you can actually call it a complete failure, but there is also no positive evidence. He might yet come up with something that is actually irreducibly complex. He is entitled so long as he continues to propose testable hypotheses. One could argue that plate tectonics was also a faith position for quite a while. :)
That is true, he could find an example. I should have been clearer since all of the examples that he cited were refuted. An example could be found that is irreducibly complex. But until an example is found it merely a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence. In the sciences hypotheses are not accepted until there is strong evidence for them.

As to plate tectonics there was evidence that caused supported it. I am not sure that if there was a testable hypothesis for it when Wegener first proposed it. He based it on more than just continental shapes. He was also able to match rock strata and fossils across the continents.

4.1 Alfred Wegener and the Theory of Plate Tectonics – Introduction to Oceanography

Of course it was testable once magnetic surveys of the seafloor were taken and the evidence was such a slam dunk that even creationists have had to accept it and try to make ridiculous ad hoc explanation for it.
 
Upvote 0

Ponderous Curmudgeon

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,477
944
66
Newfield
✟38,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
That is true, he could find an example. I should have been clearer since all of the examples that he cited were refuted. An example could be found that is irreducibly complex. But until an example is found it merely a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence. In the sciences hypotheses are not accepted until there is strong evidence for them.

As to plate tectonics there was evidence that caused supported it. I am not sure that if there was a testable hypothesis for it when Wegener first proposed it. He based it on more than just continental shapes. He was also able to match rock strata and fossils across the continents.

4.1 Alfred Wegener and the Theory of Plate Tectonics – Introduction to Oceanography

Of course it was testable once magnetic surveys of the seafloor were taken and the evidence was such a slam dunk that even creationists have had to accept it and try to make ridiculous ad hoc explanation for it.
I was teasing. :(
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I don't think you can actually call it a complete failure, but there is also no positive evidence. He might yet come up with something that is actually irreducibly complex. He is entitled so long as he continues to propose testable hypotheses. One could argue that plate tectonics was also a faith position for quite a while. :)

Sort of. That continents matched across the
Atlantic was long evident, but no mechanism
was demonstrable.
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
That is true, he could find an example. I should have been clearer since all of the examples that he cited were refuted. An example could be found that is irreducibly complex. But until an example is found it merely a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence. In the sciences hypotheses are not accepted until there is strong evidence for them.

As to plate tectonics there was evidence that caused supported it. I am not sure that if there was a testable hypothesis for it when Wegener first proposed it. He based it on more than just continental shapes. He was also able to match rock strata and fossils across the continents.

4.1 Alfred Wegener and the Theory of Plate Tectonics – Introduction to Oceanography

Of course it was testable once magnetic surveys of the seafloor were taken and the evidence was such a slam dunk that even creationists have had to accept it and try to make ridiculous ad hoc explanation for it.
Ye hydroplate theory
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
that was some 55 million years ago. Nobody had created God yet.
The Grand Canyon is not a rift valley. It is an river eroded canyon. Formed by erosion.

Incised meanders are typical, nay, proof positive
of rift valley. I heard about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Ye hydroplate theory
Love it. Imagine the Fountains of the Great Deep erupting with such force as to blow chunks of the Earth into space to form the Asteroid Belt. No fantasy is too preposterous if it saves a literal reading of Genesis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

Ponderous Curmudgeon

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,477
944
66
Newfield
✟38,862.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Love it. Imagine the Fountains of the Great Deep erupting with such force as to blow chunks of the Earth into space to form the Asteroid Belt. No fantasy is too preposterous if it saves a literal reading of Genesis.
Which brought up an image from a long time ago of blowing chunks.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Speedwell
Upvote 0

Bertrand Russell White

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2021
424
78
62
Brockville
✟29,280.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
I would consider Michael Behe to be the exception, he has stated testable hypotheses about the inability of evolutionary mechanisms to produce several known situations. That said, to my knowledge, all of them have been followed up by research to elucidate viable potential pathways. That said, he deserves credit for trying.

True. Behe has tried to show that testable hypotheses are possible and follow Dembski's explanatory filter:

upload_2021-4-16_17-21-48.png


The problem is that there seems to be no generally accepted view on what a small probability is or whether a given process is such a small probability (or just an apparent small probability, where natural processes could account for these processes when viewed in steps or using processes that are unknown currently). Specified complexity also seems to be problematic, at least within the scientific community. This attempt to give structure for design (or intelligence) is laudable. Nothing comparable to this has been offered by the YEC community (at least to my knowledge). As I've said elsewhere, the explanatory filter need not imply a God or gods - It could refer to very powerful intelligent beings that are still finite (and still within some definition of nature such as a multi-verse or something beyond the present generally defined universe) or something else.

This filter is applicable to emergent things such as the President's on Mount Rushmore. Specified complexity and small probabilities are involved in it - neither being by natural law and/or chance alone.- (except indirectly as the result of laws and chance come originally from nature to produce intelligent beings). The question is whether things originally come from an intelligent agent(s) in the first place or there really is any evidence for this in biological systems. Most scientists would say no.

It is unfortunate that Dembski (and others) did not pursue his original work in small probabilities to develop it into a more precise science (no program within ID or non-ID mathematicians, to my knowledge, is doing this in on-going manner). People recognize that the Presidents' faces on Rushmore are designed immediately, but a precise mathematical structure does not establish this rigorously (at least to my knowledge). To my knowledge, forensics is less precise to what I'm suggesting here. I know it is based on probability, and to a similar filtering structure as Dembski's.

I see little evidence that ID has anything to add regarding an alternative for modern evolutionary theory. There are a number of non-creationist evolutionary scientists who seem fundamentally dissatisfied with the current new synthesis - such as the sufficiency of random mutations - see evolutionists like James Shapiro. They don't deny that evolution arises from natural processes but like scientists after Darwin, realized there was a whole lot more to the story than his theory. I personally would like to see a more nuanced theory of evolution based on more of a mathematical model to demonstrate probability of events. There is still far too much hand waving about how natural selection, chance, change and mutations work together to produce evolution.
 
Upvote 0