What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Bertrand Russell White]

We are; but that doesn't mean we are "just chimps." We are a unique species of primate by any estimation. For Christians we are primates with immortal souls.

Like!

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

He's an atheist who dislikes fundamentalists (who can blame him?) and he doesn't know very much about religion so he tends to tar all theists with the same brush.

True - Alister McGrath would definitely agree!

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Lol, exactly what I said. Ok, so we are smart, special chimps. Doesn't sound a bit better. Doesn't make a person feel they are anything more than an animal created by chance mutations.

Unfortunately it is special primates whose distant ancestor is chimps and likely no eternal soul.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Yes, quit pretending it's just fundamentalists he hates. .. whatever you decide that means. A person who believes the fundamentals of the Christian faith is not a bad person.

I don't think Dawkins much differentiates between Christians. If you are not hard core evolutionist of his type you are just considered "stupid"

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

No, that's the Big Lie of creationism, fostered by Henry Morris, founder of the modern YEC movement: "The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God." Believe it if you must, but it's a theologically bankrupt notion combined with a straw-man version of evolution. Billions of theists know better

Agreed

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

No. Computers started in England.
Alan Turing WW2. First computer.

Actually depending how you classify a computer, it was earlier than that. It could be considered to have been created by Charles Babbage, Konrad Zuse, Stibitz, Atanasoff, Turing etc. In actual fact it evolved like most everything else over time.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

A scientist who does science very well.
Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of a religion.
Dawkins would accept evidence of a god, if such evidence was more than empty shrieking of "BELIEVE OR ELSE!"

I don't believe it is possible (even in principle) to show evidence for a god. How do you show that your evidence demonstrates an omnipotent and/or omniscient being? How could you ever collect enough information in a finite amount of time and with finite resources? Impossible!! Meaningless from the standpoint of how science is normally done and the aims of science. Even if you had a very large finite amount of evidence for god, lets say a googolplex raised to a googolplex, it might still only point to a very large but finite being in terms of power, and knowledge. This is why discussions related to science can't involve gods, they are impossible to validate (and cause all sorts of philosophical problems that are intractable and unnecessary) and why methodological naturalism is necessary.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Belief is not a requirement in science. In science, it's all about the evidence. I'm sure that, as a scientist, Dawkins would accept a different scientific explanation for which there is abundant and more compelling evidence.

Case in point, the geologists of 17th and 18th century Northern Europe who went looking for evidence of the Noachian flood (eventually) accepted the conclusion that the Noachian flood never happened based on the geology that was underfoot, that surrounded them and that they were studying. I.E. they wanted to find evidence of Noah's flood, but accepted another scientific explanation because that's what the evidence indicated. That's how science works, that's what scientists do.

The issue scientists have (as well as those of us laymen who like, study and reasonably understand sceince) is with an "alternative explanation" for which there is no, repeat, no credible evidence (hint: the Delk Track doesn't count as credible evidence).

This is a very good point. The people that actually showed that the Noachian flood was porbably a myth were Christians!! They were actually hoping to find evidence! They were humble enough to accept that there was no evidence for such a think, a least not globally. It would be inspiring to see Christians today who could be humble enough to accept the verdict of the evidence. However, many still want to hold on to a myth that probably was co-opted from ancient Sumerian mythology based on real life local floods. The Biblical account is a rather late account compared to the many accounts from around the world including the Babylonian and Sumerian accounts.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

This is an case of you confusing religion and science. Those who are interested in science appreciate outstanding scientists even if they may brood about the scientist's religion. I am sure atheists who are interested in evolution admire Kenneth Miller.

Good point, I may disagree with someone but I can admire their science. Other examples come to such as an Astrophysicist who was a Christian and worked with Hawking Don ???

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Missing the point entirely. I don't care if he's a pig farmer. Why would a Christian listen to an anti God individual, when we are instructed not to?

"To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good."

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."

I'm not talking to the atheists here. I'm asking those who claim to be believers. Why listen to people who hate what you believe in?

A typical radical Christian response and technique from the earliest days of Christianity. Demonize those who disagree with you and claim you have "special knowledge" even over other Christians. This type of behavior led to the current Bible several hundred after the time of Jesus. Had the radical orthodox sect of Christianity not triumphed, Christianity would have been much different as the Bible would have been much different (include or exclude different books).

 

[Astrid]

I don't believe it is possible (even in principle) to show evidence for a god. How do you show that your evidence demonstrates an omnipotent and/or omniscient being? How could you ever collect enough information in a finite amount of time and with finite resources? Impossible!! Meaningless from the standpoint of how science is normally done and the aims of science. Even if you had a very large finite amount of evidence for god, lets say a googolplex raised to a googolplex, it might still only point to a very large but finite being in terms of power, and knowledge. This is why discussions related to science can't involve gods, they are impossible to validate (and cause all sorts of philosophical problems that are intractable and unnecessary) and why methodological naturalism is necessary.

Goodness, so complicated and so many unnecesssry words!

If there is a God who is not allowing for any evidence
He can prevent detection.
Ifn he's omnipotentvand all, then it's a cinch to make
for universally convincing ways to show his presence.

 

[Astrid]

This is a very good point. The people that actually showed that the Noachian flood was porbably a myth were Christians!! They were actually hoping to find evidence! They were humble enough to accept that there was no evidence for such a think, a least not globally. It would be inspiring to see Christians today who could be humble enough to accept the verdict of the evidence. However, many still want to hold on to a myth that probably was co-opted from ancient Sumerian mythology based on real life local floods. The Biblical account is a rather late account compared to the many accounts from around the world including the Babylonian and Sumerian accounts.

"Probably" a myth?

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Goodness, so complicated and so many unnecesssry words!

If there is a God who is not allowing for any evidence
He can prevent detection.
Ifn he's omnipotentvand all, then it's a cinch to make
for universally convincing ways to show his presence.

We are talking about humans detecting god with finite amounts of time and money in the real world. There is no possible way to determine "infinites" with finite methods and resources. How would you do this?

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

"Probably" a myth?

At that time, many scientists still favored a universal flood as a real possibility. The paradigm had not moved away from favoring a Noah flood scenario. Science works on the basis of not just one or two experiments supporting certain theories but a body of evidence/knowledge and consilience with other parts of science. This didn't wholly exist at this time.

 

[Astrid]

We are talking about humans detecting god with finite amounts of time and money in the real world. There is no possible way to determine "infinites" with finite methods and resources. How would you do this?

You think math is inadequate to show that Pi
has an infinite number of decimal places?

It is evident that "god" is nonexistent, or undetectable,

Which it is, and why, who knows.

You did notice though that I pointed out if he is undetectable,
that's his choice no matter what methods we tried?
And if he was ok with it, a child could prove he is there?

Simple.

 

[Astrid]

At that time, many scientists still favored a universal flood as a real possibility. The paradigm had not moved away from favoring a Noah flood scenario. Science works on the basis of not just one or two experiments supporting certain theories but a body of evidence/knowledge and consilience with other parts of science. This didn't wholly exist at this time.

No need to explain to me how science works.
You didn't explain your choice of "probably".

 

[Ophiolite]

No it hasn't. You're probably thinking of the Louis Pasteur experiments re: biogenesis, that specifically had to do with modern complex forms of life spontaneously originating from non-life.

Current abiogenesis research deals with the origination of simpler, primitive life on Earth.

IT is also worth noting that, contrary to @TruthMatersMost 's claim, science did not prove that life can only come from life. Rather it demonstrated that in all situations that were investigated life arose only from pre-existing life. It did not, and could not, demonstrate that life could never arise from non-life. (Though other considerations made it unrealistic to envisage complex life arising from non-life. Still not equivalent to proof.)

 

[renniks]

A typical radical Christian response and technique from the earliest days of Christianity. Demonize those who disagree with you and claim you have "special knowledge" even over other Christians. This type of behavior led to the current Bible several hundred after the time of Jesus. Had the radical orthodox sect of Christianity not triumphed, Christianity would have been much different as the Bible would have been much different (include or exclude different books).

So, your Bible isn't inspired, which means you can choose to believe anything nothing it says...

 

[renniks]

So what? There have not been any serious attempts to do so, but there have been a plethora of possible routes to life from non-life proposed and critiqued.

It probably took many millions of years for the process to occur. I'm sure you can give us simple humans a millenia or two to work out the details, or were you hoping for a result before you died?

Adding lots of time doesn't somehow make the impossible possible.

 

[pitabread]

Adding lots of time doesn't somehow make the impossible possible.

There is nothing inherently impossible about life from non-life.