What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Job 33:6]

Youre having a discussion with yourself about someone, somewhere who posted some other views which I do not hold.

Well you haven't shared your views, even when asked to. Shrugs*.

Do you have an opinion on what formed the order of fossils in the fossil succession?

Those that believe in global floods typically ascribe to the idea that it was a flood that produced the fossil succession.

But of course this never made sense under scrutiny. But what do you believe about the flood as it relates to life throughout earth history?

Is the k-t boundary a product of the flood, in your view? Did this flood kill the dinosaurs? What strata existed prior to this global flood, in your view?

Or perhaps you have not formed an opinion on these matters?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm talking about the Noachian Flood as described in the bible.

So how did the Ark survive through such a hostile maritime environment?

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

I don't.

Egyptology ain't my bag.

Convenient. No good explanation, just pooh pooh it away. I guess my questions to anyone arguing so dogmatically would be:

1. What kind of evidence would you consider changing you mind from?
2. Are you committed to your position come hell or high water?
3. Given we know so little from so much of the Bible, how can you be so sure of any position? As the number of Christianity's alone show (30K or more different groups or more), there is no general consensus on so many issues. (unacceptable answer - divine knowledge or insight from god or the Bible as anyone can claim this for their beliefs.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Convenient.

I suppose.

No good explanation, just pooh pooh it away.

I'm not "pooh poohing it away."

Egyptology ain't my bag, and I can't give a satisfactory answer to someone who thinks there's an "unbroken continuity of the Egyptian Old Kingdom period" that goes right through the time of the Flood.

Egypt didn't even exist until after the Flood, when Noah's grandson sired the first Egyptian: Mizraim.

Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

I guess my questions to anyone arguing so dogmatically would be:

1. What kind of evidence would you consider changing your mind from?
2. Are you committed to your position come hell or high water?
3. Given we know so little from so much of the Bible, how can you be so sure of any position?

1. I would have to see it in real time with my own eyes. Until then, the Bible rules.
2. Yes.
3. Some things are easy to understand. In the case of what we are discussing, one does not have to be a Rhodes scholar to realize that an empire cannot be up and running, when the empire's founder hasn't even been born yet.

As the number of Christianity's alone show (30K or more different groups or more), there is no general consensus on so many issues.

Using that logic, why are you a skeptic then? and why do atheists exist?

If I should doubt the Bible, based on differing opinions on a given subject, then what about the subjects that contain 100% consensus?

Such as: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD ...

We may differ on other subjects, but every Christian who ever lived, alive today, and will live tomorrow believes the above statement ... without fail.

(unacceptable answer - divine knowledge or insight from god or the Bible as anyone can claim this for their beliefs.)

Yes, I know.

Scholars have a blacklist of "unacceptables" that they adhere to without exception.

A blacklist, no doubt, forged in the classrooms of higher academia, run by the Muses.

 

[Speedwell]

I suppose.I'm not "pooh poohing it away."

Egyptology ain't my bag, and I can't give a satisfactory answer to someone who thinks there's an "unbroken continuity of the Egyptian Old Kingdom period" that goes right through the time of the Flood.

Egypt didn't even exist until after the Flood, when Noah's grandson sired the first Egyptian: Mizraim.

Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
1. I would have to see it in real time with my own eyes. Until then, the Bible rules.
2. Yes.
3. Some things are easy to understand. In the case of what we are discussing, one does not have to be a Rhodes scholar to realize that an empire cannot be up and running, when the empire's founder hasn't even been born yet.Using that logic, why are you a skeptic then? and why do atheists exist?

If I should doubt the Bible, based on differing opinions on a given subject, then what about the subjects that contain 100% consensus?

Such as: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD ...

We may differ on other subjects, but every Christian who ever lived, alive today, and will live tomorrow believes the above statement ... without fail.Yes, I know.

Scholars have a blacklist of "unacceptables" that they adhere to without exception.

A blacklist, no doubt, forged in the classrooms of higher academia, run by the Muses.

All so they can disagree with you about what happened after "In the beginning, God.." Aren't you pleased that you can give full time employment to so many?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already did support my claims. And they should be common knowledge, but apparently are not. Which leads to the question: why are colleges teaching poorly supported theories about origins as fact?

When and where? Every time that a person makes a claim he needs to be ready to support them with valid sources.

I have a feeling that you never properly supported your claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well you haven't shared your views, even when asked to. Shrugs*.

Do you have an opinion on what formed the order of fossils in the fossil succession?

Those that believe in global floods typically ascribe to the idea that it was a flood that produced the fossil succession.

But of course this never made sense under scrutiny. But what do you believe about the flood as it relates to life throughout earth history?

Is the k-t boundary a product of the flood, in your view? Did this flood kill the dinosaurs? What strata existed prior to this global flood, in your view?

Or perhaps you have not formed an opinion on these matters?

Another strategy that some Flood believers use is to not go into details on their version of the Flood. That way they can claim "strawman" when various flood models are refuted, all the while continuing to clearly lay out their personal version of the flood. It does not appear to be a very honest debating technique. It amounts to "You can't refute me because I refuse to explain what I believe."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope.
That would be a nil-all-draw. Not a refutation.

...assuming you weren't merely gainsaying or in denial as to the existence of evidence.

You forgot a very important part of the argument. If one side has evidence, and the other side does not, then the side without evidence can be refuted by a simple "you are wrong. I am pretty sure that was in my post. If it was you just quote mined. Naughty, naughty.

Oh look! You did quote out of context. Why did you leave out this line? There was no excuse to do so:

" If others make posts with evidence you do not get to do the same, you need to refute the evidence."

I was fairly sure that I would not make the mistake that your misleading post implies that I made. It is rather clear that you have no evidence for your beliefs and you know that others have more than enough.

 

[Lion IRC]

So how did the Ark survive through such a hostile maritime environment?

The Arc was designed by God.
The Titanic wasn't.
Hmmmm?

you haven't shared your views

That's not true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Arc was designed by God.
The Titanic wasn't.
Hmmmm?

Design has limitations.

 

[Lion IRC]

thankyou.
And having finally got this out of you...

Now, now. Don't whine.
The record shows that I was seeking to avoid a Flood Debate.
I take no pleasure in the wailing and gnashing of teeth when bible skeptics dont get what they expect.
But you kept pushing.

how do you explain the unbroken continuity of Egyptian Old Kingdom period?

The alleged unbroken continuity.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Arc was designed by God.
The Titanic wasn't.

Ya ... but ... but the Ark never encountered an iceberg!

 

[Lion IRC]

Ya ... but ... but the Ark never encountered an iceberg!

Well, it did, but absorbed the impact so well that it survived.
Cellulose wood fibre was a great design choice because its not brittle and has a good modulus of elasticity.

Great job #Team_Noah

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it did, but absorbed the impact so well that it survived.
Cellulose wood fibre was a great design choice because its not brittle and has a good modulus of elasticity.

Great job #Team_Noah

And yet we know it never happened. You only have mere belief and will confirm that by not defending your mere beliefs.

 

[Lion IRC]

We seriously need to get back on topic.
I have tried hard not to get into a Deluge Debate but it seems folks have an appetite so I will take up the further discussion in a different/new thread

The Philosophy of Science and Karl Popper tells us that the capacity to falsify or refute a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be contradicted by evidence is what is necessary to test its validity. With abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution, the advocates of their theories or what I call scientific atheism have left no room for this capacity

Team atheism pretty much abandoned Falsificationism after a brief love affair with Popper. Then they moved on to Verificationism. When that didn't work out for them, they gradually started flirting with the idea that hypotheses need not be strictly empirically test-worthy, but that it might be enough for a theory to be sufficiently "Elegant".

Yep. I kid you not. The epistemology of Elegance. It has the ring of truth. The science of gut feel intuition. I like the sound of that theory. Fedeism.

 

[Lion IRC]

And yet we know it never happened

Well WE know it did!

 

[Speedwell]

We seriously need to get back on topic.
I have tried hard not to get into a Deluge Debate but it seems folks have an appetite so I will take up the further discussion in a different/new thread



Team atheism pretty much abandoned Falsificationism after a brief love affair with Popper. Then they moved on to Verificationism. When that didn't work out for them, they gradually started flirting with the idea that hypotheses need not be strictly empirically test-worthy, but that it might be enough for a theory to be sufficiently "Elegant".

What planet did this happen on?

Yep. I kid you not. The epistemology of Elegance. It has the ring of truth. The science of gut feel intuition. I like the sound of that theory. Fedeism.

You're criticizing science for adopting the epistemology of creationism?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Well WE know it did!

And WE are waiting for some evidence. Back to you. all we have seen are assertions.

 

[renniks]

When and where? Every time that a person makes a claim he needs to be ready to support them with valid sources.

I have a feeling that you never properly supported your claims.

Because you don't read my posts apparently... but you have a feeling so of course you must be right.

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

That's exactly what I was talking about.

You don't reference where you get your data, but keep the story going.

Paranthropus boisei was yet another upright, transitional primate, not "an ape".

Every time you sneakily try to pass off your dishonest stories as evidence of your research, and refuse to show context we can see that you don't have a leg to stand on.

In addition, transitional fossil does not mean direct ancestor. Even Neanderthals aren't really direct ancestors... but they are clear evidence that humans are part of a closely related family with the rest of the apes.