What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

That's your opinion. Not a fact. The facts don't support your opinion.

And you think the opinions of American Loon David Klinghoffer support you?

 

[Speedwell]

That's your opinion. Not a fact. The facts don't support your opinion.

I don't see any facts. All I see is a logical fallacy, an argumentum ad consequentiam.

 

[renniks]

And you think the opinions of American Loon David Klinghoffer support you?

So you send me a link saying he's an idiot? How childish. But par for the course from those arguing for evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

The most likely explanation I was wrong in assuming the fossils were in a Qpe layer.
I have a vague recollection of doing a fossil search in 'Batesford' quarry where marine fossils were found.
In the Geelong geological map there is a reference to Batesford limestone which is dated to the Tertiary Period.
What ever the situation is with the exception of the You Yangs which is a granite intrusion the entire region is low lying and has been flooded in the past by rising sea levels.

I'll take a look at your case when I have some free time.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

So you send me a link saying he's an idiot? How childish. But par for the course from those arguing for evolution.

Except that he is an IDiot, and I am not the one pretending that he has anything useful to say about the science of the Theory of Evolution.

Klinghoffer's arguments are like blaming Newton for falling down, they are that bad.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm not. Debated by other scientists. I'll look up names if you want.

Yeah, I'm not convinced by quotes pulled out of context to change meaning and imply the kind of disagreement.

It's a very common tactic called "Quote Mining", but a better term for it in this context is "bearing false witness".

These scientists who disagree, do any of them actually dispute that Homo habilis wasn't a real transitional primate? Or are they just disputing the names and lineages that are more apt?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

I'll take a look at your case when I have some free time.

Where is the Popcorn emoji?

 

[renniks]

Except that he is an IDiot, and I am not the one pretending that he has anything useful to say about the science of the Theory of Evolution.

Klinghoffer's arguments are like blaming Newton for falling down, they are that bad.

The point was what the theory does to people's perception of reality. If you tell someone they are just a smart chimp and survival of the fittest is the only rule, don't be surprised that they start acting like it.

 

[Speedwell]

The point was what the theory does to people's perception of reality. If you tell someone they are just a smart chimp and survival of the fittest is the only rule, don't be surprised that they start acting like it.

So don't tell them that--the theory of evolution doesn't. In fact it is mostly creationists who blow that horn. Start preaching the Gospel instead of trying to hold it hostage to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Lion IRC]

I dont use it at all.

But you DID use it.
You relied upon it to make a claim that another poster @AV1611VET wasn't interpreting it correctly.

 

[renniks]

Yeah, I'm not convinced by quotes pulled out of context to change meaning and imply the kind of disagreement.

It's a very common tactic called "Quote Mining", but a better term for it in this context is "bearing false witness".

These scientists who disagree, do any of them actually dispute that Homo habilis wasn't a real transitional primate? Or are they just disputing the names and lineages that are more apt?

Again, we are talking about a few skull fragments and 21 finger or hand bones, reduced to to 15 because some were actually from a monkey and one was a vertebra fragment. And a piece of a deformed lower jaw. Other paleo " experts" argued that the hand bones were actually from a Au. boisei( an ape) Human looking bones were found at the same site. After 50 years nobody knows for sure whether Habilis is a real taxonomic entity or just a collection of random bone fragments.
Bernard Wood is supposed to be one of the foremost authorities on Habilis and he came to the conclusion that Habilis isn't a human ancestor.

 

[Lion IRC]

But where did all the extra water actually go?

Back where it came from.

 

[Lion IRC]

I won't laugh at this but I will say that it's worth considering that apologetics may not be adequate if these apologetics aren't reflected in physical reality through scientific observation.

Apologetics necessarily includes the defense of miracles.
And that defense is typically offered to folks who have a methodological committment to the denial of miracles.

They literally prefer any theory OTHER THAN a supernatural explanation. Its a presuppositional bias against the idea that...

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8)

They deny any Bayesian notion that miracles are probable given certain background information, ie. God's existence.

 

[Lion IRC]

So, I'm not an atheist, but I am a Lover of God. For me, it's not a matter of if God could orchestrate a global flood, but that clearly it wasn't done as claimed. How do I know? Because there's absolutely no physical evidence in God's own Creation of a Global Biblical Flood. It's like a no-brainier for me.

You have to pick one or the other.
Either it happened or it didn't.

If you think it happened but left no trace of its happening, that won't satisfy bible skeptics.

And if you think it happened but just not the way the bible tells the story, that WILL satisfy the bible skeptics because you are validating their claim that the bible lied - invented a myth.

 

[Speedwell]

You have to pick one or the other.
Either it happened or it didn't.

If you think it happened but left no trace of its happening, that won't satisfy bible skeptics.

And if you think it happened but just not the way the bible tells the story, that WILL satisfy the bible skeptics because you are validating their claim that the bible lied - invented a myth.

Since when is a myth a lie?

 

[VirOptimus]

But you DID use it.
You relied upon it to make a claim that another poster @AV1611VET wasn't interpreting it correctly.

Wooosh

 

[renniks]

So don't tell them that--the theory of evolution doesn't. In fact it is mostly creationists who blow that horn. Start preaching the Gospel instead of trying to hold it hostage to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

That's the logical conclusion of the whole evolution theory. I'm a smart animal. I have every right to do whatever benefits me. Steal your stuff if I can, take your mate, whatever.

 

[Speedwell]

That's the logical conclusion of the whole evolution theory. I'm a smart animal. I have every right to do whatever benefits me. Steal your stuff if I can, take your mate, whatever.

Only for sociopathic atheists. The rest of us know better. I think you know better too, but set up that straw man because you have no real scientific argument against evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

Apologetics necessarily includes the defense of miracles.
And that defense is typically offered to folks who have a methodological committment to the denial of miracles.

They literally prefer any theory OTHER THAN a supernatural explanation. Its a presuppositional bias against the idea that...

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8)

They deny any Bayesian notion that miracles are probable given certain background information, ie. God's existence.

I view apologetics more as a broad type of defense or a way of arguing in favor for belief in Christ. I don't think it necessarily mandates belief in miracles such as a global flood though. Many apologists don't agree with doctrines involving the occurance of a global flood.

I just don't see debates with use of apologetics as particularly useful with respect to understanding geology. Because the science stands independently of theological arguments. Or the observations stand independently of ideas interpreted through scripture.

Apologetics is great, but it won't help us much with respect to nuclear physics of the sun for example, the topics just seem too different.

 

[dlamberth]

You have to pick one or the other.
Either it happened or it didn't.

If you think it happened but left no trace of its happening, that won't satisfy bible skeptics.

And if you think it happened but just not the way the bible tells the story, that WILL satisfy the bible skeptics because you are validating their claim that the bible lied - invented a myth.

Where I'm looking at is the Earth itSelf. The Earth can't lie. The Earth shows absolutely no sign of a Global flood, so it didn't happen. It's pretty simple.