What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

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.

But if you traced that problem to its source, what would that problem be?

What I hear you saying is, "Inject God into the equation and science goes 404. Therefore it is necessary to keep God out of the equation in order to keep the status quo."

I love this picture:

It shows how science can only go so far, then hits a wall it can't get around.

In short, God is not the problem; the problem lies on our end.

 

[renniks]

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

Then I guess I can make it happen. "Lamp, Walk across the room!"
Drat, I must not be doing it right.

Seriously, if there's nothing impossible about it, we oh- so- smart humans could certainly do it.
But it's actually impossible.

 

[pitabread]

Then I guess I can make it happen. "Lamp, Walk across the room!"
Drat, I must not be doing it right.

Your sarcasm is noted, but not relevant.

Seriously, if there's nothing impossible about it, we oh- so- smart humans could certainly do it.
But it's actually impossible.

Just because we haven't figured everything out doesn't make something impossible.

There was a time when people were claiming that space flight was impossible, until we went and did it.

Being a nay-sayer is an easy job. But such people are largely forgotten in history.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is a very good point.

Not really.

The people that actually showed that the Noachian flood was probably a myth were Christians!!

For how long?

They were actually hoping to find evidence!

Nothing wrong with that I guess. If they want to walk by sight, go for it. But if there's nothing in your field of view, don't blame it on the Documentation. Especially if we're dealing with a Supreme Being who can do anything: like clean up after Himself.

They were humble enough to accept that there was no evidence for such a thing, a least not globally.

Fair enough. There's no evidence.

But why? because none was generated? because God cleaned it up? because what replaced the mess looks like there was no mess in the first place?

There's more than one reason you don't find anything, you know.

It would be inspiring to see Christians today who could be humble enough to accept the verdict of the evidence.

Which is what? I'll accept there's no evidence (with two exceptions I won't elaborate on here) for the sake of arguing.

Where does that leave us? mything the point? or speculating that there's more to the story than what was documented?

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.

And that's just wrong. In their zeal to myth the point and not allow for any other speculations, they overlooked the fact that Sumeria came much later after the Flood. Not to mention the fact that Shem, who was an eyewitness on the Ark, lived right up to the time of Jacob, and was available to set the record straight.

The Biblical account is a rather late account compared to the many accounts from around the world including the Babylonian and Sumerian accounts.

Not even close.

 

[AV1611VET]

The term abiogenesis simply means "life from non-life".

And that in itself is a lie; since God is life Who created life.

So it's life from [the] Life.

They need to come up with another term.

An honest one.

Meaning that's not going to happen.

 

[AV1611VET]

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).

Ya ... and if someone else would have written The Preservation of Favoured Races, it would have been worded differently as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ifn he's omnipotent and all, then it's a cinch to make for universally convincing ways to show his presence.

Like coming here in Person and dying on a cross?

 

[renniks]

Your sarcasm is noted, but not relevant.



Just because we haven't figured everything out doesn't make something impossible.

There was a time when people were claiming that space flight was impossible, until we went and did it.

Being a nay-sayer is an easy job. But such people are largely forgotten in history.

Believing in miracles is fine. But you should at least admit you are in the same boat as theologians when you propose that the impossible happened.
Science cannot deal with what can not be observed or tested.

 

[pitabread]

Believing in miracles is fine. But you should at least admit you are in the same boat as theologians when you propose that the impossible happened.

Except I'm not proposing that it is impossible. And FWIW, not all theologians claim that is impossible either. Don't confuse all theologians with creationists.

Science cannot deal with what can not be observed or tested.

Fortunately abiogenesis can be and is being tested. As I said earlier, scientists have figured out a lot of the steps. It's largely a matter of putting it all together.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

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.

Things in the real world always involve finite quantities which we may idealize with geometric concepts such as values like pi or e. Pi is an ideal construct of mathematics - Something called a circumference, diameter etc. in proportion precisely described in mathematical idealizations. Mathematically we can describe this because of our exact definitions in terms of infinite series and the exact mathematical geometric definition of a circle. The infinite series has an infinite number of terms but this can't be actually written out as an actually infinite quantity, neither can its decimal expansion. It can be proved to be infinite and transcendental but that is it. Computers and calculators only ever use a finite number of terms of the infinite mathematical series to generate values to be used by engineers and scientists (approximation algorithms) in the real world. This is fine for applications in science and engineering but not fine when trying to establish something infinite (requiring infinite precision). We can use infinite quantities in the real world as long as the problems we are trying to solve don't require actual manipulation of the infinities written out as actual infinities and requiring infinite precision.

To describe god in the real world one would have to generate an actual infinite set of characteristics and then actually verify them to what one considers are those of god, which is impossible. Impossible because one would have to first try to determine them (which couldn't be done because it would take an infinite amount of time and infinite precision), show they corresponded to what was called god (again impossible) and not to some other potentially infinite being that might exist but perhaps not as great or as powerful or as knowing. This is equivalent to comparing countable to uncountable infinities but requiring that the infinities actually be expressed (all terms actually written out), something impossible in the real world.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

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

I suggest you read up on the history of science if you are not familiar with the developments of these things.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fortunately abiogenesis can be tested.

Can be ≠ has been.

 

[renniks]

Fortunately abiogenesis can be tested.

There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action. It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment.
As far as can be observed, living things can only come from other living things.
Given the extraordinary complexity of living organisms, it's become more and more an absurd proposition. If you can not demonstrate that it happened, it's a belief, not science.

 

[Kylie]

That's because (and this is a shot in the dark) you've never read anything he's written. He's a brilliant scientist, an excellent writer (his scientific books are much better than the ones on religion) and not afraid to call it as he sees it.

I loved The Ancestor's Tale.

 

[pitabread]

There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action. It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment.
As far as can be observed, living things can only come from other living things.
Given the extraordinary complexity of living organisms, it's become more and more an absurd proposition. If you can not demonstrate that it happened, it's a belief, not science.

The job of the nay-sayer is an easy one.

 

[renniks]

The job of the nay-sayer is an easy one.

Yeah, athiests are some of the biggest nay-sayers on here.
Ironically, they claim miracles can't happen, all the while having to accept that life is a miracle that they have no explanation for.

 

[pitabread]

Yeah, athiests are some of the biggest nay-sayers on here.
Ironically, they claim miracles can't happen, all the while having to accept that life is a miracle that they have no explanation for.

I'm not talking about what atheists are saying. I'm talking about what you are saying.

Your attempt to shift the topic is noted though.

And FWIW, life from non-life is not considered miraculous insofar as divine intervention goes. It's biochemistry. Now if creationists want to claim otherwise, then the onus on them to show how life was created supernaturally. Otherwise creationists are just resorting to an argument from ignorance based on a "god of the gaps"-style theology.

 

[SelfSim]

There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action. It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment.

There have been experiments conducted beyond earth to see if abiogenesis occurs in those environments.

As far as can be observed, living things can only come from other living things.

As far as things can be observed, living things are composed of active biochemistry involving active and inactive organic compounds.

Given the extraordinary complexity of living organisms, it's become more and more an absurd proposition.

Given the extraordinary complexity of living organisms and technologies to investigate their origins, the progress has been evidently remarkable.

If you can not demonstrate that it happened, it's a belief, not science.

Known biochemistry theory produces testable predictions of interest in the field of Abiogenesis research .. These predictions are currently under test.

 

[renniks]

Known biochemistry theory produces testable predictions of interest in the field of Abiogenesis research .. These predictions are currently under test.

Fancy way of saying that they haven't been able to show it's possible.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Not really.For how long?Nothing wrong with that I guess. If they want to walk by sight, go for it. But if there's nothing in your field of view, don't blame it on the Documentation. Especially if we're dealing with a Supreme Being who can do anything: like clean up after Himself.Fair enough. There's no evidence.

Using a supreme being to explain the world is easy. Anything can be explained no matter how ridiculous. Even non-evidence right. No thought or logic necessary.

But why? because none was generated? because God cleaned it up? because what replaced the mess looks like there was no mess in the first place?

I hope you don't believe this drivel! I suppose you deny all the laws of logic and everything else to justify your ideas. At least Christians of the past never stooped so low, they had integrity to call a spade a spade. You do them a great disservice with this type of thinking. It is no wonder fundamentalists have such a bad reputation and why some people go so far as to see them as insane.

There's more than one reason you don't find anything, you know.Which is what? I'll accept there's no evidence (with two exceptions I won't elaborate on here) for the sake of arguing.

Where does that leave us? mything the point? or speculating that there's more to the story than what was documented?And that's just wrong. In their zeal to myth the point and not allow for any other speculations, they overlooked the fact that Sumeria came much later after the Flood. Not to mention the fact that Shem, who was an eyewitness on the Ark, lived right up to the time of Jacob, and was available to set the record straight.Not even close.

Sumer (not Sumeria, no such place) is where the original Biblical Myth of the flood came from (or via Babylon that got it from a earlier tradition that was passed down from Sumer). There is no such person as Shem (prove it with evidence, if you think there is), like everything else in Genesis, it is myth.