What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

Bertrand Russell White

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2021
424
78
61
Brockville
✟21,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
Here's something else you can deny too:

optimized


A fascinating account of how each tribe literally fulfilled Jacob's deathbed prophecies, as given to them in Genesis 49.

Well worth denying, if you're a modern scholar looking to please ... well ... you know who. :oldthumbsup:

BTW, more and more Christians do not use predictive prophesy to try to establish facts about the Bible. They rightly realize that it is usually impossible to logically argue in this way. This is because too much has to be assumed - such as written material claimed as prophesy actually preceded the event prophesied (which is generally not possible to establish from lack of original written material or more generally no early written material).
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens

Let's look shall we?

What on earth is a Homo erectus or a Homo habilis?

These aren't made up creatures... there isn't any kind of clear line between "human" and "ape".

(Unless the only trait that matter is a pointy nose).

Me talking about Homo erectus and habilis questioning the easy distinction between "ape" and "human".

Variants of a single species.

Your response that they are just human variants.

Okay, if Homo habilis is a human, where's this fabled border between "pure human" and "pure ape"?

Just confirming that what you meant was that Homo habilis was human...

The border is the vast genetic differences between Australopithecus and Homo sapiens. Whenever well-preserved hominin skeletons are found, they can be readily identified as one or the other genus. So why should we assume one transitioned into another at some point?

Here we are with you still running with the Homo habilis is human narrative.

You don't seem to know very much about all the transitional hominids.

View attachment 297990

Why don't you tell me how easy it is to clearly define "human" and "ape".

Homo habilis is D... an upright tool maker, but clearly closer in form to Australopithicus than it is to Homo sapiens.

Now I point out how clearly not "human" a homo erectus is...

Clearly? Because of what? Skull shape? First the evidence for habilis is very shakey. Paleo experts have debated rather it's even a real species. The fossil evidence is fragmentary at best. Probably a mix of human and ape bones at one site.

And you start pretending that you knew all along and trying to mix in the narratives:
"It's entirely fake"
and
"Well scientists didn't think it was a new species anyway"

Which are contradictory arguments.
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,268
1,515
76
England
✟230,857.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
If it's not a human ancestor it's irrelevant. Who care about various extinct primates existing?

Do you think that the fact that Jesus, William Shakespeare and Isaac Newton are not the ancestors of any living people makes them irrelevant?
 
Upvote 0

Bertrand Russell White

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2021
424
78
61
Brockville
✟21,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
Even if this is true, it applies only to the first 700 million years of the Earth's history, that is, between about 4500 million and about 3800 million years ago. This was more than a billion years before the first multi-cellular life-forms evolved, and more than three billion years before the first vertebrates.

One can find all manner of stray factoids to support their position. If one wants to support Biblical cosmologies over those of evolutionary and scientific ones, they must have an detailed view from multiple independent lines of evidence (and argument). This is called consilience and I have yet (after looking for more than 30 years!) to find a religious account (Christian or otherwise) that provides anything like what science provides. Science's current account is going to be wrong in many respects, it may even be wrong in many major respects. However, it is the only full account we have. Anything else may have been excellent guesses from pre-scientific minds that seemed to make sense in their time but now have been completely shown to be false.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Then it's irrelevant.

No, I didn't say that either. It's closer to A than it is to a homo sapian. If it's not a human ancestor it's irrelevant. Who care about various extinct primates existing?

You are the one who brought up Australopithecus boisei, not me.

Genetic evidence demonstrate the pattern of relatedness between primates. Finding fossil evidence of extinct branches that are clearly related to creatures somewhere between modern humans and basal apes is just more support for that evidence.

If you thought your ancestors came from an area in the Netherlands... and they DNA tested some remains of a villager from 200 years ago with the same surname as your grandfather and the similarity came back as a distant ancestor or cousin then that would be support for the idea that your family came from there.

So it's a shattered skull of an extinct primate. Big deal.

A primate with clearly transitional features.

It has smaller jaw, flatter features, an upright gait and worked tools...
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
(Genesis was probably written in the 5th - 6th century BC).
Two questions for you:

1. When you say Genesis was written down, are you talking about the original source document? aka the autographs? or a copy?

2. Are you familiar with verbal plenary inspiration and, as well, verbal plenary preservation?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
BTW, more and more Christians do not use predictive prophesy to try to establish facts about the Bible. They rightly realize that it is usually impossible to logically argue in this way. This is because too much has to be assumed - such as written material claimed as prophesy actually preceded the event prophesied (which is generally not possible to establish from lack of original written material or more generally no early written material).
I gave you that prophecy in response to your challenge:
There are ZERO so called Biblical prophesies that have this level of detail and specificity. I challenge any Christian to show me EVEN ONE prophesy that is universally agreed to have been made 100's of years before the events that it involves which is as specific and detailed as my fictional one above.
Remember?
 
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
Two questions for you:

1. When you say Genesis was written down, are you talking about the original source document? aka the autographs? or a copy?
What original source document?

2. Are you familiar with verbal plenary inspiration and, as well, verbal plenary preservation?
A relatively modern Protestant doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

Bertrand Russell White

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2021
424
78
61
Brockville
✟21,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
Two questions for you:

Still no answer to my questions. Care to offer any?

1. When you say Genesis was written down, are you talking about the original source document? aka the autographs? or a copy?

For the purposes of demonstrating prophesy, it could be either. In the case of referring to when Genesis was originally written down, it would be the original autographs (or more precisely, the majority of the writing done on Genesis, excluding insertions added later) (Genesis is thought to be written between 5th - 6th century BC)

2. Are you familiar with verbal plenary inspiration and, as well, verbal plenary preservation?

Definitely don't subscribe to VPP (I see no evidence of this). There seems to be at least some additions over time. Most non-fundamentalist scholars would agree to this for both the OT and NT.

VPI is possible. However, there would seem to be no way for scholars to get back to these original autographs. I think Bart Ehrman makes an excellent case in implying this in his debate on YouTube with Dan Wallace -
Ehrman argues that we simply don't know how reliable early documents are past the point where we have copies. He uses the example of Mark. The oldest copy is 150 years older than when most scholars think Mark was originally written in 70 AD. We can't assume a certain level of copying accuracy because copying seems to get worse as we go back in time and we also don't know how many times Mark was copied in that 150 years. Likewise, we know very little about the accuracy of OT copying to draw firm conclusions. As per the original autographs, even if they had verbal plenary inspiration, there is no guarantee it could be preserved over time via VPP (and this seems not to be the case for many reasons - scribal errors, additions, deletions, etc. - which have all been identified in both the OT and NT). So VPI to me, is an interesting idea but something beyond being able to be justified rationally.

I think the strength in Ehrman's argument is that the burden of proof would be on the person making claims about the reliability of the Bible (say in the case we are discussing relating to the OT) because the claims are extreme. If one believed in VPI and/or VPP, and if they wanted to invoke them in reasoned debate in support of their position, they would first have to establish them. I see this as basically impossible without invoking faith which is an admission of ignorance.
 
Upvote 0

Bertrand Russell White

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2021
424
78
61
Brockville
✟21,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
I gave you that prophecy in response to your challenge:Remember?


Doesn't meet my challenge:
1. All it had was a name supposedly 300+ years before - only one aspect of my challenge (clear statement that Josiah was going to do .... in the future)
2. No collaborating evidence (such as other writings outside the Bible - independently dated by experts before Josiah, that refer to this passage in Kings) (thereby validating a date before the event)
3. No copy of an OT fragment or document, that has been dated by experts before Josiah's reign that had this information from Kings (which would also thereby validate a date before the event)
4. No other evidence that would indicate a date before Josiah's reign (which would again thereby validate a date before the event)
5. No consensus within the scholarly community supporting points 2 to 4 (which, if it existed, would thereby confirm that experts had looked at the body of evidence in favor of the prophesy, and finding sufficient support that indeed a specific prediction was made and happened as predicted).

The same can be said about Genesis and Jacob. So, yes, I remember you didn't meet the challenge!
When my challenge is met, I will gladly consider validated prophetic evidence from the Bible. Until that time, I will consider there is none.
 
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

Mr Laurier

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2021
1,141
366
57
Georgian Bay/Bruce Peninsula
✟31,584.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Here's something else you can deny too:

optimized


A fascinating account of how each tribe literally fulfilled Jacob's deathbed prophecies, as given to them in Genesis 49.

Well worth denying, if you're a modern scholar looking to please ... well ... you know who. :oldthumbsup:
I do not understand this?
Why would it be worth denying?
And who would a modern scholar be looking to please?
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
WUT?
I never posted any bible 'tales'.
You referenced them.
On the contrary, I mentioned flood accounts which are historically documented OUTSIDE the bible. (extra-biblical)
Really? WORLD-WIDE flood account? More tall tales to prop up your preferred tall tales?
If you wish to waive your hands and simply dismiss something as a mere "fabrication", then (ironically) it is you who are the one making stuff up. You are literally creating a myth of your own. Your mythology is that it never happened.
Cute, but no cigar. I do not accept tall tales as evidence.
There is evidence.
Tall tales?
That you find the evidence unpersuasive doesn't give you the right to re-define the definition of the word "evidence". Or to declare a victory of your own.
I find tall tales unpersuasive as evidence because tall tales do not trump physical evidence.
Sorry.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
There's no "threat".
Nor is there a boast.
Im telling you, they always end in tears.
No, it is a boast. We see in the new thread that all you are capable of is 'debating' what the bible actually says. Who cares?
I'm guessing tears of laughter at another creationist making a fool of himself...
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Every presentation of evidence is an assertion.
Im going to continue the Lion IRC Flood defense derail in a new/different thread.
You do not appear to understand the concept of evidence. Perhaps you should learn what is and what is not evidence before you try to defend your beliefs.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
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
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

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,588
71
Bondi
✟248,663.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Isn't he dead? Hope his logic led him to God before the end.

According to those who knew him best...no. But I'm actually half hoping that he was wrong. I love the thought of him having the opportunity of telling God what he really thought of Him.

I still miss him...
 
Upvote 0