What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[renniks]

The flood claim would leave massive evidence.

Which it did. It left multiple layers that are interpretated as millions of years of sediment.

 

[renniks]

Only to someone with the capacity to understand it.

The common theory among creationists is a post flood lake breaking through, not a flood event per say.

 

[Mountainmike]

subduction: there is no chance you will ever read science of any description whatever is provided, if you don’t like the conclusion.

In this case the experts agree with each other. They have procedures so rugged their evidence sends people to death row.

Your approach to it all is faith not science.

You know it, so do I.
Your choice, read it and learn. Or stay as an ostrich.

Where is the peer reviewed paper on this?

Do you know why your good doctor most likely did not publish such a paper? Other experts in the field would almost certainly refute it. In case you did not know proper publication is part of the scientific method. One has to provide enough information so that others can check out one's results. Your doctor does not appear to have done so.

When you provide valid sources we will study it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Because water follows the easiest course. Water doesn’t flow uphill.
Geologists do not agree on when or how the canyon was formed.

Huh? What are you taking notes from kent hovind? The river never needed to flow uphill but rather the whole meaning of uplift is that land rises up from beneath it. That's why the grand canyon is observed toward the rocky mountains as opposed to Louisiana lowlands and swamps.

I like how you're telling a geologist what geologists do or do not agree on.

Generally speaking, geologists have reached a consensus that the canyon formed due to uplift during the laramide orogeny. The only geologists I've ever heard of (I've never met any of the many I've worked with) that don't agree with this, are the few of the creation institute as far as I'm aware.

 

[AV1611VET]

Man did not exist millions of years ago.

Well you certainly got that right.

 

[AV1611VET]

One of my favorite pictures. This image alone refutes the Noah's Ark story:

How?

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

ID does not just claim that "God designed science." ID claims that "God designed science" but that the "science" which God "designed" is not always adequate to explain the results which we observe. No, ID claims that that the quarterback can't always throw the ball accurately by himself.

I don't think this explanation is quite correct. ID seems to say the following:

1. The universe and its laws, as normally conceived, were created/designed by an intelligence
2. Science would therefore have come from this intelligence because science/scientific knowledge evolved from human culture
3. Science would not necessarily explain all events if it limited its explanations to always fitting into a naturalistic methodology

ID strictly speaking doesn't say that the above was done by a God or gods. Although it usually seems to equate to a god with attributes like the Christian god. They would perhaps say that the "I" in ID could be one of the following:

1. The "I" in ID could be a God or,
2. The "I" in ID could be "gods" or,
3. The "I" in ID could be very powerful Intelligent agents that have technology or abilities far beyond our own but is neither a God or gods

They seem to be saying something like some statements of nature can be made but not understood within a naturalistic framework because this framework is incomplete. I'm not sure how practically or possibly this statement is since without being able to do empirical experiments on it, how could one establish it as a viable structure of knowledge. If you can do experiments on it, than it just seems like another part of the naturalistic methodology/explanation structure

 

[Frank Robert]

You think good forensic science is funny?
I don’t.
Blood. Human A/B
Tissue. Human, thin epithelium, eg face.

Nuclear DNA , couldn’t get it to PCR, despite quantity.
Mitochondrial DNA , present. Was not the same as statue owner.
That is what should surprise you. I doubt if it does because i doubt you understand why it is surprising.

Some vegetative matter: corresponds to thorns.
Wept and bled live on continuous film. No possibility of fraud.
Statue CT scan. No possibility of vents or passages

Tested by expert witness pathologists,
One day atheists might look at forensics.
I won’t hold my breath.

end of conversation - you refuse it study enough to make it worthwhile.

Not so fast.

Forensic Science International: Reports
Volume 2, December 2020, 100073
Unanticipated issues in serological analysis of blood species

The Shroud of Turin as a case example

Previous studies have shown that authentic blood components are present within the Shroud bloodstains, including hemoglobin, bilirubin, albumin, and immunoglobin [1,2]. The blood is typically described as being human (primate) in origin, based on certain serological experiments performed in the early 1980s. Unlike many of the other studied characteristics of the Shroud that are readily available in the scientific literature, the blood species results are incomplete, only referred to in several books, conference proceedings, and related Shroud-specialty journals [[3], [4], [5], [6]]. Although these studies were at best a work in progress, the perception exists that these results are well-established and scientifically confirmed. Indeed, the detail that the blood on the Shroud has been scientifically demonstrated to be “human” (or primate) is regularly cited as evidence towards the Shroud’s possible authenticity. From even the limited results that are available, a modern revaluation indicates that the blood on the Shroud should be reclassified as species unknown. This conclusion is based on an updated analysis of antibody (cross-)reactivity in the context of the original experimental design.


​

​

 

[Bradskii]

The difference is that it matters if it's designed. If not, nothing matters.

When God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, it was a reaction to the creation of gravity.
The Earth formed around a gravitational singularity.
Gravitational time dilation (GTD) means that the remote regions of the cosmos may be 13.8 billion years old or more, but the earth only 6000 or so years old, at the same time.

Nice answer. But not to a question I have posed. I didn't ask: Do you think that anything ultimately maters if there is no God?

I asked if there was any practical difference to us if everything was natural or designed by God. And I used the simple example of gravity.

It appears there is none.

 

[AV1611VET]

I asked if there was any practical difference to us if everything was natural or designed by God.

Welcome to 2021 AD.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only to someone with the capacity to understand it.

True, though it is not that difficult to understand. The problem is that creationists do not want to understand. They are looking for excuses to believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which it did. It left multiple layers that are interpretated as millions of years of sediment.

Demonstrably false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The common theory among creationists is a post flood lake breaking through, not a flood event per say.

The image that I posted cannot be explained that way.

 

[AV1611VET]

They are looking for excuses to believe.

We have a whole Book full of reasons to believe.

 

[Bradskii]

Welcome to 2021 AD.

Nup. Don't follow that...

 

[Speedwell]

We have a whole Book full of reasons to believe.

And why you try and hold the Gospel of Christ hostage to that book is beyond my understanding.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nup. Don't follow that...

How would you designate the year sans God?

 

[AV1611VET]

And why you try and hold the Gospel of Christ hostage to that book is beyond my understanding.

He wrote It.

 

[Speedwell]

He wrote It.

And that's the most important thing He ever did?

 

[AV1611VET]

And that's the most important thing He ever did?

He lived It. And will live It.