What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[SelfSim]

.. from zero intelligence can't come intelligence and engineering etc. is just something you see with your eyes everyday,

What I see with my eyes everyday, is people using words to convey what they're thinking .. so when you use the term 'intelligence', I also notice that it is you using that phrase to convey what you mean by that. I somehow also know that you, yourself, have the capacity for intelligence. So I can conclude that the quality of intelligence is present .. which then contradicts your concept of 'from zero intelligence can't come intelligence' because it took your intelligence to convey what you mean by 'zero intelligence'!

Having to explain all that is what is: RIDICULOUS'!

 

[Hans Blaster]

i don't want to be rude after all.

Well then try harder next time.

 

[Speedwell]

You know man invented a camera only 100 years ago or something like that, after thousands of years of advancement in science and study and effort etc, and evolution now without any science or intelligence at alll invented brains? the creation is always less than the creator i don't believe random change and death is more intelligent than ourselves. do you?

Actually, in a way, I do. The interacting stochastic processes which make up the biosphere have enough information processing capacity to account for the biological complexity which we observe; more than a human brain, anyway.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Agree with me than evolution is no more capable than that kid, you will because is truth.. how evolution built brains then? you know if evolution were possible there would be computer simulation of AI building stuff, and please don't tell me that exists, but the closer there is, the program is given input and already built solutions to chooose from, yes they would have created an ai that could build stuff good stuff i mean but the smartest people can't do that, what makes you think evolution can do better?

I do not agree.

Evolution likely grew brains bit by by, just as your brain and mine grew from a couple cells to a couple kg. Generation after generation if a genetic change caused the brain to grow more than in previous generations and that helped the creatures survive then those creatures were more able to survive and reproduce.

AI is far more limited than you seem to imagine it is. It has recently made some significant (and impressive) improvements on pattern recognition (faces and things like that) but it is not creative and perhaps more importantly, AI is not generally a *simulation* tool.

 

[NBB]

Grow brains bit by bit, ended up with a design that takes into account the whole body... everything is connected to the brain in a design way, that is smart. So to grow a hand you need to think of a design that is shared with the brain etc. Parts of the body take notes of the others, that a design choice, clearly evolution can't build this kind of stuff, evolutionists need to explain all this, how tiny changes can build and perfect something, because for natural selection to select random change has to build something, i really don't believe it can build anything.

 

[Shemjaza]

Grow brains bit by bit, ended up with a design that takes into account the whole body... everything is connected to the brain in a design way, that is smart. So to grow a hand you need to think of a design that is shared with the brain etc. Parts of the body take notes of the others, that a design choice, clearly evolution can't build this kind of stuff, evolutionists need to explain all this, how tiny changes can build and perfect something, because for natural selection to select random change has to build something, i really don't believe it can build anything.

Do you have a justification as to why evolution can't develop these things step by step?

The evidence supports that more complicated structures changed along with more complicated internal control structures.

The most ancient fossils have limited evidence of mobility and manipulation, but also limited evidence of complicated nervous systems.

WE can see similar structures in modern life, some animals only have a few neurons, while others like mammals have much more complicated brains.

 

[muichimotsu]

belief, thought, conviction whatever you wish, you think no people can experience God, you do, because you just tell it, that is just my belefs and i had no experience, why are you so certain then? because God is not something too far away from humans, and scientist create science because they experience things, this can be the same even if there is no hard evidence on hand, people all the time lives and acts from what they think and feel inside, and they can swear for those things.

No, I claim that their experience is not indicative of the God they believe in or any such reality without further demonstration and evidence. It's like you don't even care about whether something is accurate, merely that you feel it strongly and thus it must be true, which is foolish

You had an experience, I never said otherwise, you're lying again

Science is a method, not a product, you don't even know what you're talking about

I don't swear absolutely, I consider that my experiences are consistent and also falsifiable by others in terms of those things I'm confident on. You want to just baldly assert things and not care about any external evidence, which means the whole line of thought might as well just be wishful thinking on your part, plus you throw out a non sequitur as if science is comparable at all to your god delusions

 

[pitabread]

the creation is always less than the creator,

Not true. Read up on the concept of "emergent properties".

 

[Speedwell]

Grow brains bit by bit, ended up with a design that takes into account the whole body... everything is connected to the brain in a design way, that is smart. So to grow a hand you need to think of a design that is shared with the brain etc. Parts of the body take notes of the others, that a design choice, clearly evolution can't build this kind of stuff, evolutionists need to explain all this, how tiny changes can build and perfect something, because for natural selection to select random change has to build something, i really don't believe it can build anything.

You don't have to just believe it. You can study it and examine the evidence and learn why other people find it convincing.

 

[NBB]

Not true. Read up on the concept of "emergent properties".

Yes its true, you see this everywhere, give an example where the creation is more than than the creator.

 

[NBB]

You don't have to just believe it. You can study it and examine the evidence and learn why other people find it convincing.

No, because its not convincing at all, a simple organism can't rerrange itself to form a person later, even with millions of years and descendants, that just doesn't happen.

 

[NBB]

No, I claim that their experience is not indicative of the God they believe in or any such reality without further demonstration and evidence. It's like you don't even care about whether something is accurate, merely that you feel it strongly and thus it must be true, which is foolish

You had an experience, I never said otherwise, you're lying again

Science is a method, not a product, you don't even know what you're talking about

I don't swear absolutely, I consider that my experiences are consistent and also falsifiable by others in terms of those things I'm confident on. You want to just baldly assert things and not care about any external evidence, which means the whole line of thought might as well just be wishful thinking on your part, plus you throw out a non sequitur as if science is comparable at all to your god delusions

You just are assuming things again, that i can't possibly have met 'standards of evidence' why you are so sure? why experiences needs to be proved scientifically to the whole world to be true? you need the love for your parents or someone to be peer reviewed to be true? there are things that are true even if it can't be proved scientifically.

 

[muichimotsu]

You just are assuming things again, that i can't possibly have met 'standards of evidence' why you are so sure? why experiences needs to be proved scientifically to the whole world to be true? you need the love for your parents or someone to be peer reviewed to be true? there are things that are true even if it can't be proved scientifically.

Did I say I was absolutely certain? More deceptive strawmanning of what I said to make yourself look more "rational": where have I seen that before?

Experiences need to be demonstrated to have a casual relationship, not mere correlative, the latter is inference

My love for my parents is none of your business and was not remotely germane to the discussion, except by your faulty attempt to compare your imagined relationship to an equally fantastical being to me with my parents that I have evidence they are real

Also, pretty sure you're misusing proof in terms of science, which doesn't refer to either the legal conclusion or mathematical/logical conclusion. Something can be true in the provisional sense without being absolutely so and the status of something being concluded as factual is not the same as saying it is absolutely true unquestionably

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes its true, you see this everywhere, give an example where the creation is more than than the creator.

Mindless genetic algorithms can generate more efficient code then humans can write... it just takes many, many iterations.

We learned to create that way from the way life can evolve and develop over generations.

That's the point, tiny variations can create advantages, and those advantages get carried on. Over time changes can build up. That's how evolution demonstrably works in nature... and the evidence is that it has been happening that way for a very long time.

 

[NBB]

Did I say I was absolutely certain? More deceptive strawmanning of what I said to make yourself look more "rational": where have I seen that before?

Experiences need to be demonstrated to have a casual relationship, not mere correlative, the latter is inference

My love for my parents is none of your business and was not remotely germane to the discussion, except by your faulty attempt to compare your imagined relationship to an equally fantastical being to me with my parents that I have evidence they are real

Also, pretty sure you're misusing proof in terms of science, which doesn't refer to either the legal conclusion or mathematical/logical conclusion. Something can be true in the provisional sense without being absolutely so and the status of something being concluded as factual is not the same as saying it is absolutely true unquestionably

You don't have scientific evidence for a lot of stuff, but they are true anyway.
Its not deceptive strawmanning or whatever, it just the way you wrote and the impression it gave to me. you know

 

[NBB]

Mindless genetic algorithms can generate more efficient code then humans can write... it just takes many, many iterations.

We learned to create that way from the way life can evolve and develop over generations.

That's the point, tiny variations can create advantages, and those advantages get carried on. Over time changes can build up. That's how evolution demonstrably works in nature... and the evidence is that it has been happening that way for a very long time.

Give an example without evolution since, if evolution is false what other example can you give.

 

[Shemjaza]

Give an example without evolution since, if evolution is false what other example can you give.

I just said genetic algorithms.

It's a computer programming technique whereby software (or hardware) can improve on itself without any actual mind involved.

And evolution is absolutely true. We can see it happen on the small/short scale.
This means that despite us not being able to directly observe billions of years of development, we can examine the evidence with what we know about the way life works and reasonably conclude that it is the source and explanation for the diversity of life.

 

[NBB]

I just said genetic algorithms.

It's a computer programming technique whereby software (or hardware) can improve on itself without any actual mind involved.

And evolution is absolutely true. We can see it happen on the small/short scale.
This means that despite us not being able to directly observe billions of years of development, we can examine the evidence with what we know about the way life works and reasonably conclude that it is the source and explanation for the diversity of life.

I'm a programmer myself, not too advanced like engineer etc but yes, and i know those programs don't build from scratch anything, they are given input and already made solutions for the most part to choose from, which evolution don't have the luxury to get.

For me the origin of life is God, and evolution doesn't say anything about souls, which we have inside. And its the source of our intelligence and personality. Evolution doesn't seem to do justice to what of a great thing people and nature are.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm a programmer myself, not too advanced like engineer etc but yes, and i know those programs don't build from scratch anything, they are given input and already made solutions for the most part to choose from, which evolution don't have the luxury to get.

For me the origin of life is God, and evolution doesn't say anything about souls, which we have inside. And its the source of our intelligence and personality. Evolution doesn't seem to do justice to what of a great thing people and nature are.

Evolution isn't the origin of life either. But the chemistry of organic chemistry is an inherent and naturally occurring part of the universe.

The programs are example of something that can gain complexity and improve without a conscious designer.

Life operates the same way. We don't know how life initially started, but we definitely know how it can change and improve.

As to souls and minds, I don't believe in the supernatural... but I believe something truly special about existence and identity that is a part of us. But I can also see something pretty similar in the eyes of my dog.

Just because something is a part of the natural world, doesn't mean it isn't amazing and special.

I may not believe in God... but i know that I couldn't ever disprove him either. But if he does exist, he either makes use of evolution to change life, or he has built it to deliberately look like he does.

 

[Ophiolite]

For me the origin of life is God, and evolution doesn't say anything about souls, which we have inside.

It would be inappropriate for evolution to have anything to say about souls. There is no scientific evidence for souls. This does not mean they do not exist, but in the absence of such evidence it is impossible for evolution to address their existence or character.

And its the source of our intelligence and personality.

This is your opinion. Perhaps you are correct, however evolutionary theory and other related sciences account for our intelligence and personality quite adequately.

Evolution doesn't seem to do justice to what of a great thing people and nature are.

Again that is a personal view, made as an assertion with no supporting evidence. I'll offer you a similar assertion. As an agnostic, atheistic towards all major religions (and probably all minor ones), I find the development of the Universe from the Big Bang, the emergence of increasing complexity, in stellar and planetary systems, the appearance and subsequent evolution of life on Earth, and the evolution of creatures capable of investigating and progressively understanding these events, is astounding, remarkable and unsurpassingly* wonderful. Humans are the universe contemplating itself. Brilliant!

*Unsurpassed until we run into similar entities, or the next level of complexity emerges.