What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Can I make a guess based on 9th grade biology and internet observation?
Digital joint bone, not ancient, as not fossilised to my eye. scale unknown so no clue to ultimate size.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell us what that bone above is.

An Edmontosaurus annectens?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

An Edmontosaurus annectens?

Good for you, you googled similar images. I based my inference on observations of short bones relatively to their ability to be involved in flexion of the associated body part. While wrong in my original hypothesis I was in fact on the right track. You however did your usual and took the entire output of the science that you deny to find your answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good for you, you googled similar images.

I investigated before I communicated.

Something rarely done around here.

I based my inference on observations of short bones relatively to their ability to be involved in flexion of the associated body part. While wrong in my original hypothesis I was in fact on the right track. You however did your usual and took the entire output of the science that you deny to find your answer.

What science did I deny to find my answer?

Pick one -- (the right one, please):

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

 

[VirOptimus]

I investigated before I communicated.

Something rarely done around here.What science did I deny to find my answer?

Pick one -- (the right one, please):

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Except when its wine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except when its wine.

 

[Speedwell]

I investigated before I communicated.

Something rarely done around here.What science did I deny to find my answer?

Pick one -- (the right one, please):

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

And who gets to decide what the Bible says? If you are being "bullied" it's because you insist on being the one who gets to decide for everybody, even other people's children.

 

[VirOptimus]

Truth hurts?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

I investigated before I communicated.

Something rarely done around here.What science did I deny to find my answer?

Pick one -- (the right one, please):

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

You didn't actually do anything except take advantage of the science you generally deny. I posted my answer as an example of that method you deny. I created a hypothesis based on what I know and the evidence presented. My hypothesis was apparently correct on at least one of the three parts. You on the other hand consider me to be wrong not based on your idea that "the bible says it" but your silly statement because you question my position based on your use of the tacit admission that all of your x phi? is not really what you believe.

Your positioning of your investigation put the lie to your claim of pick the right one. LOL

 

[AV1611VET]

You didn't actually do anything except take advantage of the science you generally deny.

Either that, or I simply went to Post 2236, clicked the REPLY button, clicked the USE BB CODE EDITOR button, and got the URL of the IMG.

Easy peasy.

And here I though you would have been proud of me!

 

[Lion IRC]

None of that is evidence. You are just restating bible tales as fact.

WUT?
I never posted any bible 'tales'.
On the contrary, I mentioned flood accounts which are historically documented OUTSIDE the bible. (extra-biblical)
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.

I justify my belief in that you were asked about evidence, yet presented none, then all but declared victory.

There is evidence. 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.

Is there any evidence for miraculous events?

Yes.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Either that, or I simply went to Post 2236, clicked the REPLY button, clicked the USE BB CODE EDITOR button, and got the URL of the IMG.

Easy peasy.

And here I though you would have been proud of me!

I think we understand and I will leave you alone for the most part. I appreciate your stamina even if I find it possibly misguided. go for it Alfred.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think we understand and I will leave you alone for the most part. I appreciate your stamina even if I find it possibly misguided. go for it Alfred.

Well actually I think I owe you an explanation, if not an apology.

I forgot it was TAS that challenged us to identify that pic.

When you responded in Post 2243, it totally threw me for a loop, and I took the opportunity to make a dig about INVESTIGATING BEFORE YOU COMMUNICATE, which was aimed at pointing out the fact that I investigated it and came up with the right answer, so why can't guys do the same with even our basic doctrine?

 

[Job 33:6]

My impression is that creationists don't really get that scientists understand the subject better than they do. I hear all the time that it's just a matter of interpreting a body of data in reference to presuppositions, without support from related data or related scientific disciplines. Rennick's recent comment on hominid fossils is revealing: He truly believes that paleontologists merely line up fossils in accord with their presupposition of evolution and call it done--without confirming that assumption with information from other scientific disciplines.

I get the impression that often times they just aren't aware of how much is collectively known in science. Like they just have no idea. It's like someone picking up a basketball for the first time and thinking that maybe they can beat michael jordan (presumably because some people have religious reasons for disliking basketball), even though they've never seen jordan really play. Only jordan can really see clearly how the match will play itself out.

And I'm a Christian but I think that for many other Christians, even the slightest threat to belief in Jesus (or what they perceive is a threat) is really kind of a grave sin. What could be more dangerous than something that might threaten the validity of the written word? So naturally a lot of lay Creationists will flock to creation "scientists" for guidance. But even these "scientists" are intellectually in a similar boat where they themselves cannot really accept science, despite them on occasion having a phd or masters in a subject. And if these "scientists" can make cash selling books, then they have even less reason to really be critical of their own ideas. Money + Jesus = success. Saved in the afterlife and blessed in the world. So there's no reason to really be critical of ones ideas if Creationist "scientists" are in this position.

 

[AV1611VET]

I get the impression that often times they just aren't aware of how much is collectively known in science. Like they just have no idea. It's like someone picking up a basketball for the first time and thinking that maybe they can beat michael jordan, even though they've never seen jordan really play. Only jordan can really see clearly how the match will play itself out.

I like your analogy.

Reminds me of the book of Revelation, where Jesus documents how "the match will play itself out."

 

[Estrid]

My impression is that creationists don't really get that scientists understand the subject better than they do. I hear all the time that it's just a matter of interpreting a body of data in reference to presuppositions, without support from related data or related scientific disciplines. Rennick's recent comment on hominid fossils is revealing: He truly believes that paleontologists merely line up fossils in accord with their presupposition of evolution and call it done--without confirming that assumption with information from other scientific disciplines.

I guess they are not any of them accountants or lawyers
who understand the concept of due diligence, or educated
at all in any field that requires very hard work and attention
to detail, getting things right.
SEDI-(Sane evidence, different interpretation)
sound a fine shortcut, but few would get
on an airplane whose mechanics had zero
education, but did know to say,
"paradigm", and, "SEDI".

 

[Estrid]

WUT?
I never posted any bible 'tales'.
On the contrary, I mentioned flood accounts which are historically documented OUTSIDE the bible. (extra-biblical)
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.



There is evidence. 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.



Yes.

There was no flood and insisting there was
just discredits any other unevidenced belief.

 

[Speedwell]

Flood accounts from outside the Bible do not add up to the entire Earth being covered with water ca. 2600 BC.

 

[AV1611VET]

but few would get on an airplane whose mechanics had zero education, but did know to say, "paradigm", and, "SEDI".

QV this thread from my buddy Split Rock:

Two creationists take a Commercial flight

This guy got sixteen LIKES for it!

 

[renniks]

You dismiss reconstructions because you are too under-educated to understand how it all works, thus you project

The experts disagree with each other constantly about the bones and what they mean. Yes there's guesswork involved.