What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Not really. Many Christians and non-Christians agree with me on this. Their is overwhelming evidence of this. But you seem to be a person who redefines evidence whenever it suits you. Why is that? Why do people like you do this?

Why do people like you refuse to believe in an event occurring that would leave no evidence?

 

[Ophiolite]

Any atheists here want to agree with this statement?

Certainly. From a pantheistic viewpoint it is practically obligatory. (An pantheist is, from the viewpoint of Christian theology, an atheist.)

Any atheists here want to challenge this guy's beliefs with your scientific method?

As far as I can determine his beliefs as far as they relate to science are consistent with science, so there is no need to investigate them. His spiritual beliefs fall outside the purview of scientific investigation, in the context of this thread.

I didn't think so.

Application of the scientific method supports the observation that, quite often, you don't think.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why do people like you refuse to believe in an event occurring that would leave no evidence?

Because we are not insane. If an event leaves no evidence then it has had zero impact upon its environment which means it cannot actually be an event.
(There is plenty of evidence for Narnia and yet that does not exist, yet you would have us delude ourselves by believing in something for which their is zero evidence. On your bike.)

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Demonstrate your claimed dependency, in a core field of science like Physics, (seeing as your claim is a generalised one, covering all of science) .. As opposed to just waxing lyrical(ly) about it then.

There are no presumptions implying the existence of some truth, in the well published and widely taught scientific method. You have been caught out by that simple fact.

Interpretative frameworks are not science .. Interpretations are based on Philosophically posited (untestable) truths and there are various interpretative frameworks known, none of which ultimately impact any of science's results.

I'll give an example; all of science is based on operational definitions which are objectively testable. There are no exceptions to this. Show me the objective test which unequivocally leads to the conclusion that some 'independent reality' exists 'out there' (independently from our minds) .. and then I might pay your claim about science relying on say, Philosophical Realism some attention .. Good luck with doing that!

You seem very touchy about these subjects. Do you treat science the same way some fundamentalists tread their religion? I hope not. It has to be in this very strict way and "don't bother me with the details with how it might be changing and evolving itself" type of mindset? This my friend would be more like some form of scientism which has more in common with inflexible ideas like you find in fundamentalist religion than science.

I notice you don't seem to discuss mathematics in your polemics. Do you believe mathematics is also not part of science as well? (Mathematics is its own subject like Science but still like science sits upon pillars of logic and is dependent on logic which is part of philosophy)? What about logic (in say developing hypothesis, testing methodologies, statistical testing methods etc. within the scientific method structure)? The Scientific Method is predicated on logic (part of philosophy) and assumes it.

BTW - There is no one scientific method (as you seem to assume), Scientific American did a very good article on this several years ago. If I had the edition, I would send you the link so you could learn something, if you are up to learning. People who become Scientists learn their craft by being part of a community with certain standards, and ideas on how to conduct science. People are brought into this brotherhood/sisterhood by learning a certain corpus of knowledge to a certain standard, how to effectively operationalize this knowledge to generate new knowledge using their science's particular version of the scientific method, writing papers to a certain standard in a certain way and generally satisfying a group of experts that they have met certain standards of best practice in the particular field - very much like Priest had to do in the past. Not surprising because this whole process evolved in universities originally dominated by religion and Priests. When we are young and naïve, we learn simple idealized forms of what is called the scientific method in elementary and secondary school. However, when we get older we learn that this is an idealization of something more complex as SciAm pointed out in their excellent article. There is of-course many similarities to what we originally learned, but things become more sophisticated and developed to meet the needs of the particular area of study. This should not be surprising.

I seriously recommend you find the article in SciAm and other such articles in publications and learn more about these things. They are quite fascinating. Science is not some unchanging thing like a set of unchangeable religious standards or statements - this is why it works so well. It also evolves and changes like life itself to meet the needs of community it serves.

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't think so.

Certainly. From a pantheistic viewpoint it is practically obligatory. (An pantheist is, from the viewpoint of Christian theology, an atheist.)
As far as I can determine his beliefs as far as they relate to science are consistent with science, so there is no need to investigate them. His spiritual beliefs fall outside the purview of scientific investigation, in the context of this thread.
Application of the scientific method supports the observation that, quite often, you don't think.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because we are not insane.

Then you must have a college education?

 

[Ophiolite]

Then you must have a college education?

You will need to produce meta-analyses that indicate a strong correlation between education level and sanity/insanity. "The Bible Says So" won't work in this context.

 

[AV1611VET]

You will need to produce meta-analyses that indicate a strong correlation between education level and sanity/insanity.

Awww ... you mean I gotta do all that, just so I can prevent you guys from refusing to believe in an event occurring that would leave no evidence?

No, thanks.

If you're going to try that hard to be uncooperative, then so be it.

I expect it.

 

[Ophiolite]

Awww ... you mean I gotta do all that, just so I can prevent you guys from refusing to believe in an event occurring that would leave no evidence?

It is difficult to hold an intelligent conversation with you if you make posts lacking intelligence. Providing support for your implication would merely justify your suggestion that sanity and education are linked. It would have no relationship to belief or non-belief in events lacking evidence. This is typical of the non-sequiturs you so often introduce, seemingly when you realise your arguments lack substance.

If you're going to try that hard to be uncooperative, then so be it.

Consider your mantra: The Bible Says It, That Settles It. That is as uncooperative as it gets, so get off your high and hypocritical horse with that sort of mud slinging.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Why do people like you refuse to believe in an event occurring that would leave no evidence?

Do you mean god? Yes, the hiddenness of god is a problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, the hiddenness of god is a problem.

For who? people educated in the ways of Egypt?* I should agree.

Do you think this word was put in there flippantly?

1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

* In Bible types, Egypt is a type of the world.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Because we are not insane. If an event leaves no evidence then it has had zero impact upon its environment which means it cannot actually be an event.
(There is plenty of evidence for Narnia and yet that does not exist, yet you would have us delude ourselves by believing in something for which their is zero evidence. On your bike.)

I absolutely agree. If no evidence is left then it could be your god, my god, fairies, finite but very powerful ETs, and all other manner of things. The current understanding of human origins is far far from perfect in having all the puzzle pieces but there is a very workable framework across many different parts of science that are independent and support the current biological consensus. This is a long way and much better than postulating hidden entities that can leave no trace. This type of thing could be used to explain anything by an infinite number of different gods (in different people's imagination), where would that get us? Nowhere, no matter how much we dress it up with fancy sounding jargon and logical arguments (based on very suspect assumptions). Actually, I'm wrong - wars, inquisitions, genocides, mass killings within the same religion, all manner of abuses (including sexual abuse by religious leaders). But by the warped theologies this is for the greater good somehow???

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

You will need to produce meta-analyses that indicate a strong correlation between education level and sanity/insanity. "The Bible Says So" won't work in this context.

He actually has a point.

The problem is confounded because people with religious higher education do show very strong signs of indoctrination - which has been meta-analyzed. In extended arguments though, once they've exhausted their appeals to what sounds like good critical thinking, they revert back to "yes but .... The Bible Says So".

Sorry, from thinking about what I just said, I will retract what I said at the beginning, he still doesn't have a point!!!

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, from thinking about what I just said, I will retract what I said at the beginning, he still doesn't have a point!!!

The points are written on the wall, but you have to have a light bulb on to see them.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

For who? people educated in the ways of Egypt?* I should agree.

Do you think this word was put in there flippantly?

1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

* In Bible types, Egypt is a type of the world.

Quoting scripture gets you nowhere. Modern Christian scholarship to its credit doesn't even consider 1 and 2 Timothy's as one of Paul's original letters (even if a minority of scholars have tried to say it was dictated to a scribe). Keep up to date man, so much of your thinking is so just 19th century.

Even if Paul wrote this, he wouldn't have the qualifications to be an authority on the subject by today's standards. Hence, it would be irrelevant anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

Quoting scripture gets you nowhere. Modern Christian scholarship to its credit doesn't even consider 1 and 2 Timothy's as one of Paul's original letters (even if a minority of scholars have tried to say it was dictated to a scribe). Keep up to date man, so much of your thinking is so just 19th century.

Even if Paul wrote this, he wouldn't have the qualifications to be an authority on the subject by today's standards. Hence, it would be irrelevant anyway.

You're a credit to your education.

I've been saying for years here that one of academia's jobs is to reduce the Bible to a book of lies, myths, fairy tales, anything but what It is; and if academia has to do it one word at a time (Arab phoning "miracles" to "magic"), or handwaiving whole books (1 and 2 Timothy), they'll do it.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

The points are written on the wall, but you have to have a light bulb on to see them.

Sorry, I think god hid it from me. He must have turned out the light bulb and left no trace.

 

[dlamberth]

Into what?

Well, for a Christian mystics as an example, they might put themselves by way of Love into the Heart of Christ and see what they see there from the perspective of Jesus.

 

[renniks]

Not really. Many Christians and non-Christians agree with me on this. Their is overwhelming evidence of this. But you seem to be a person who redefines evidence whenever it suits you. Why is that? Why do people like you do this?

Again all you are Doing is stating your opinion of me. Irrelevant.

 

[renniks]

However, we can conceive in these terms today. Holding on to very primitive explanations and ideas is like getting caught in some evolutionary cul de

Evolution as an explanation for life is so short-sighted and backwards thinking. We, intelligent beings could possibly create AI's that create. What does that tell you? That we also had an intelligent Creator.