What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Many Christians agree and actually encourage scientists to deride fundamentalist type of thinking because their beliefs are so bad "in the face of obvious scientific evidence."

These so-called "Christians," would they say they were redeemed by a mutant copy-error?

It is embarrassing when your cousin is the equivalent of an "intellectually social drunk".

But our other cousins: monkeys, lemurs, and apes don't embarrass you?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not in jail.

I beg to differ - Check your mind!

Interesting remark.

Of his eleven brothers, which one did Joseph put behind bars, and what does his name mean?

Extra credit: What is that a picture of?

 

[AV1611VET]

This particular type of Christian thinking of the many flavors is crazier than most.

Either that, or it's basic doctrine with us.

Although it arose in a very emotional time in Christian history so I guess it should be expected.

It applies to us too. We're in the same dispensation (Grace or Church Age) as Paul was, when he wrote it.

You need an omnipotent and omniscient being to keep something in check ...

What do you think the Holy Spirit is?

(why not just send it to spiritual jail,

You mean like here ...

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

... where God put the leaders that married our women and basically destroyed the earth?

... better still destroy it ...

Only to have who take their place? It could be that angels are still falling today.

... or best of all never allowed for its existence in the first place!

I'm sure God had His reasons for creating Lucifer and the third of the angels that would initially rebel. Who am I to suggest He should have done otherwise?

Not much of a powerful god!!!

Your lack of understanding is noted.

Jesus also clearly stated his imminent return.

And how did He put it? did He say, "Hang on, I'll be right back"? or did He say He would return at the end of this dispensation, when the "times of the Gentiles be fulfilled"?

You do know that the "times of the Gentiles" started in AD 70, and will end at Armageddon, don't you?

When it didn't happen, what did Christians do,

They did nothing. They realized God works on a timetable.

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW Irregardless isn't a word. Regardless is the word

Thanks for the correction. I knew it was one or the other, but didn't know which.

 

[renniks]

There is also no reason that machines can't created themselves in the future.

After being created by humans that were created by God to create. So, no, they don't actually create themselves.

 

[renniks]

I beg to differ - Check your mind!

Check your own mind.

 

[renniks]

Popular spokesperson who tries hard to popularize where we came from for ordinary people. People are naturally curious and people like Dawkins, Brian Greene and others do society a very great service to bring complex and sometimes arcane science to everyone. Nothing complex about understanding this unless you are - closed minded, ignorant, living with a medieval and pre-modern theology and don't take the responsibility to "... in understanding be men" at their own good book says.

He's just another bigoted athiest. Yawn.

 

[Ophiolite]

He's just another bigoted athiest. Yawn.

The important features to keep in mind about bigoted atheists and bigoted Christians is that they are bigots. I sense you view the atheism and the Christianity as the important features of their character.

 

[Frank Robert]

These so-called "Christians," would they say they were redeemed by a mutant copy-error?But our other cousins: monkeys, lemurs, and apes don't embarrass you?

I don't know of any logical reason of why such cousins would embarrass anyone. On the other hand there a more than a few humans who elicit embarrassment.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know of any logical reason of why such cousins would embarrass anyone.

I like the joke that says:

You might be an evolutionist, if you plan your family reunions at the local zoo.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I like the joke that says:

You might be an evolutionist, if you plan your family reunions at the local zoo.

Is that from Kent Hovid's "book of humor"? It really sounds like the sort of bad jokes he would tell.

 

[Frank Robert]

I like the joke that says:

You might be an evolutionist, if you plan your family reunions at the local zoo.

Sounds like a fun time.

 

[Frank Robert]

He's just another bigoted athiest. Yawn.

Not that I agree with you that they are bigots, but being a bigot or an atheist does not preclude making major contributions and being of service to humanity that they have provided.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that from Kent Hovid's "book of humor"? It really sounds like the sort of bad jokes he would tell.

Now, now. Not even a chuckle?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds like a fun time.

I always liked the arachnid section, followed by the big cats.

 

[Frank Robert]

I always liked the arachnid section, followed by the big cats.

I would have enjoyed this birthday party.
Koko the Gorilla Adopts Kittens for Her 44th Birthday

 

[SelfSim]

Actually not quite. For example, it must assume a form of naturalistic uniformitarianism - processes and laws tend to remain constant over time.

No scientific method I'm aware of starts out with: 'Step #1: assume a form of naturalistic uniformitarianism. If you think it does, please cite the reference for that. (I would say that is just a belief you (and many others) hold there).

There's no pre-conditions needed prior to doing science. In fact the one you claim there, makes zero impact on the outcomes of properly conducted objective testing, anyway.
If you think it does; can you give an example of where you think it does?

- processes and laws tend to remain constant over time.

So too, does the type of mind which perceives those processes and laws. How do you discount that demonstrably evident fact, (along with any of its influences), in forming the conclusions on the constancy of 'processes and laws' there?
Science's 'laws and processes' were evidently distinguished for the purposes of being useful for us. They make sense to a human mind. There is zip objective evidence that they would make sense to non-human minds elsewhere in the universe. (In fact the latter mentioned type of mind there, still takes a human mind to imagine it as existing, anyway ..)

This is a reasonable and pragmatic assumption but it is an assumption - and may break down over long time frames and distance. There are others. Scientists assume these things (assuming they are aware of philosophy which some don't seem to be) but they rarely think about them closely because their models don't come up against them.

No .. they don't think about them because they are completely irrelevant to the science they're doing. They are therefore not part of doing science.
Your assumption there is nothing more than yet another untestable belief, which is neutralised and bypassed in the drive to perform science's objective testing.

Its also noted that you almost demonstrated why those assumptions have nothing to do with science there .. (which was my point). You however, backed away from forming the logical conclusion there for some reason though ..(?)
Why do you think 'their models don't come up against them'?

When QM and GRT were developed, people had to go deeply into the nature of assumptions, and understanding of what nature was like. We may have to do this in the future for such things and there is no real way to know.

I agree that science (in particular, QM) returns knowledge which forces philosophical rethinking about 'what nature is like'. That rethinking however, stands quite independently from doing science. This is the main point I'm making here. Philosophy is not science. Science starts out with no pre-assumptions about the nature of reality. Such pre-assumptions are philosophical notions, as they invariably assume untestable 'truths' (aka: beliefs).

 

[SelfSim]

He's just another bigoted athiest. Yawn.

I think Dawkins has struggled to free himself from the religious Anglican (C of E) indoctrination he suffered during his youth(?) In contemplating the complexity of life in his early teen years, he saw a different way of looking at biological complexity through a naturalistic viewpoint.

My personal view is that because he continues to have to struggle in order to maintain clarity on this viewpoint, we see this aspect more when he grapples with folk who actually embrace religious indoctrination. (Ie: we instinctively see 'the struggle' perhaps more than we listen for the objective evidence he brings to the table).

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

These so-called "Christians," would they say they were redeemed by a mutant copy-error?But our other cousins: monkeys, lemurs, and apes don't embarrass you?

No. They are at an appropriate level of functioning for their evolution. This is not of course the case for some of their cousins (fundamentalists). Their cousins know better, at least in theory.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Now, now. Not even a chuckle?

It's the kind of "joke" that gets used not for humor, but as an insult disguised as humor.