What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Wait, is he actually claiming that the aim of the Miller-Urey experiment was to create life from non-life? That's a hilarious misunderstanding of the facts.

That would be you "quoting you" to then claim your own statement is hilarious.

Am I supposed to object??
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Of course abiogenesis occurred. There was a time on Earth when there was no life, and a later time when there was life, .

That is not the definition of abiogenesis.

It is like saying "there was a time when there was no rabbit in my driveway and then there was a time when there was a rabbit in my driveway -- so then of course abiogenesis occurred" ... that is not what abiogenesis is.

Notice that even in the wild fictions they come up with about whole genomes and in fact entire eukaryotes arriving on earth from some place else - they don't call that "abiogenesis" either even in their wildest fictions.

Maybe there is even less to this abiogenesis argument than I had at first realized.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Abiogenesis and evolution are distinct, though related concepts: abiogenesis is a hypothesis, .

no doubt... but I am not the one that came up with this thread subject with that title.

"What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?"


Irrelevant. The title is ambiguous.

Well no matter your preference - the title remains as it is when it comes to "Abiogenesis and the theory of evolution" getting falsified or not.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
That would be you "quoting you" to then claim your own statement is hilarious.

Am I supposed to object??
You would be better off just reading Miller and Urey's own paper, A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions to find out what they actually intended the experiment to demonstrate.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You would be better off just reading Miller and Urey's own paper, A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions to find out what they actually intended the experiment to demonstrate.

Chemists can find a reaction to create an "amino acid" but amino acids forming the proteins for actual living organisms are of a specific chiral orientation -- unique and very specific - so then Urey Miller failed in the "building block" claim for abiogenesis ... details ... matter. as it turns out.

Not only could their contrived abiogenesis not "make the house" they could not even make "the bricks for the house" in terms of what could conceivably be used to build that house. It was epic fail.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Chemists can find a reaction to create an "amino acid" but amino acids forming the proteins for actual living organisms are of a specific chiral orientation -- unique and very specific - so then Urey Miller failed in the "building block" claim for abiogenesis ... details ... matter. as it turns out.

Not only could their contrived abiogenesis not "make the house" they could not even make "the bricks for the house" in terms of what could conceivably be used to build that house. It was epic fail.
But you misrepresented them as trying to and failing.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
apparantly I need to refresh Bobryan's memory
He posted in another thread

(emphasize is mine)

something like this as it turns out.

What do you like or dislike about the Creation Museum in Kentucky?

I like that you have free to believe in Creation while attending that museum and pretty much have no restrictions. Including finding actual evidence supporting creation as science fact. Its amazing how many people there share that same POV.

That which "never happened in nature" -- ie evolutition or any sort of fiction you wish to suppose cannot be "science fact" when the fact is - it "never happened in nature" and real life observations of 50,000 generations in the supposed domain of evolution prove it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Genesis 1:11. According to the Bible, there wasn't any life on Earth before that.

There was not a rabbit in my drive way before that.

That is not the definition of abiogenesis.

If I go to a newly formed volcanic Island and put a rabbit on it -- that is also "not abiogenesis".

How is this even the least bit confusing for anyone?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
There was not a rabbit in my drive way before that.

That is not the definition of abiogenesis.

If I go to a newly formed volcanic Island and put a rabbit on it -- that is also "not abiogenesis".

How is this even the least bit confusing for anyone?
No, it's not abiogenesis because the rabbit was already alive when you put it there. You're not bringing the rabbit into existence de novo. According to the Bible, God did not bring creatures to the Earth from elsewhere, He created them on the spot on an Earth where no life had previously existed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bungle_Bear
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,290
✟272,415.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I already pointed out that the " Falsification for Abiogenesis " was demonstrated in the Urey/Miller experiment over half a century ago.

How does the Miller-Urey experiment falsify any abiogenesis hypotheses?

Even if that particular experiment was debunked - which it wasn't (despite creationist wishes) as demonstrated by subsequent similar tests performed in the last ~75 years - all it would show is that the particular combination of gasses they chose couldn't produce pre-biotic amino acids and proteins.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Bingo is right. Just like the Bible says God created Adam from inorganic or inanimate substances.
But, but, but..... that's not what I meant. The Bible says, um, something different. And (let me change subject quickly) you're an atheist anyway because you disagree with me.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Speedwell
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,495
✟236,478.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
no doubt... but I am not the one that came up with this thread subject with that title.

"What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?"
No doubt, but this is the 32nd page on CF, where it is suggestive of a miracle if a thread stays on topic for more than three pages. So, the discussion has moved on so that one facet of it is very much based upon the distinction between the two.
If you are unable to mount any kind of an argument on this issue, just say so. I am sure there are many who would accept your self declaration of incompetence on the matter without challenge. But using this fatuous excuse that the issue is not in the thread title just comes across as evasive.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The Philosophy of Science and Karl Popper tells us that the capacity to falsify or refute a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be contradicted by evidence is what is necessary to test its validity. With abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution, the advocates of their theories or what I call scientific atheism have left no room for this capacity as they assume there is no God, creator, or other supernatural presence involved.

I suppose this can be extended to the Big Bang Theory, as well, as I think Father Georges Lemaitre's theory had its falsifiability removed. We have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for it, but still no acceptance of God as falsification to Big Bang Theory. Furthermore, the creation scientists such as Edward Blyth have been relegated to second class status for natural selection when he came up with the hypothesis before Charles Darwin and John Gould (Darwin's finches ornithologist and bird artist). I think even Darwin read the writings of Blyth on natural selection and took his ideas of natural selection from him.

Thus, my argument is how can abiogenesis, ToE, Big Bang, and even Darwin's explanation for evolution by natural selection be falsified if the creator or God have been systematically eliminated from the beginning (since 1850s)? The creation scientist, or those who believe in God (such as Edward Blyth), have been eliminated from peer review today.

well that is a fact. Thanks for posting it.

If such an "atheist-science devotee" as you describe had been at the foot of Sinai and had been asked to explain all those trumpet sounds and voice thundering down the sides of Sinai ... they would be obligated by their bias to start with "well there is no God in science - so most certainly the cause/source of that phenomena is not God according to science".

Once the right answer for "What actually happened in nature" is excluded by definition in an atheist-science context as you have described... then what is the "the limit" to the list of "did not happen in nature" alternatives that could be imagined?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Abiogenesis and evolution are distinct, though related concepts: abiogenesis is a hypothesis, .

no doubt... but I am not the one that came up with this thread subject with that title.

"What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?"


Irrelevant. The title is ambiguous.

Well no matter your preference - the title remains as it is when it comes to "Abiogenesis and the theory of evolution" getting falsified or not.

No doubt, but this is the 32nd page on CF, where it is suggestive of a miracle if a thread stays on topic for more than three pages. So, the discussion has moved on...

Indeed - the "any ol topic will do" replacement for the OP and title seems to have taken over - as you appear to suggest.
 
Upvote 0