What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Bertrand Russell White]

Interesting remark.

Of his eleven brothers, which one did Joseph put behind bars, and what does his name mean?

Extra credit: What is that a picture of?

Yes, the Jewish fictional writers were quite clever weren't they. I don't for one minute believe they were writing history (as do most scholars), although they may have been writing something equivalent to today's historical fiction.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Either that, or it's basic doctrine with us.It applies to us too. We're in the same dispensation (Grace or Church Age) as Paul was, when he wrote it.What do you think the Holy Spirit is?You mean like here ...

Naaa, scholarship has long since demonstrated ideas like these are incorrect.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

... where God put the leaders that married our women and basically destroyed the earth?Only to have who take their place? It could be that angels are still falling today.I'm sure God had His reasons for creating Lucifer and the third of the angels that would initially rebel. Who am I to suggest He should have done otherwise?Your lack of understanding is noted.And how did He put it? did He say, "Hang on, I'll be right back"? or did He say He would return at the end of this dispensation, when the "times of the Gentiles be fulfilled"?

You do know that the "times of the Gentiles" started in AD 70, and will end at Armageddon, don't you?They did nothing. They realized God works on a timetable.

Oh, is this in the Bible? Nope again! Another made up idea to solve various problems that arise from assuming the Bible is inspired and having to deal with text.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Either that, or it's basic doctrine with us.It applies to us too. We're in the same dispensation (Grace or Church Age) as Paul was, when he wrote it.What do you think the Holy Spirit is?You mean like here ...

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

... where God put the leaders that married our women and basically destroyed the earth?Only to have who take their place? It could be that angels are still falling today.I'm sure God had His reasons for creating Lucifer and the third of the angels that would initially rebel. Who am I to suggest He should have done otherwise?Your lack of understanding is noted.And how did He put it? did He say, "Hang on, I'll be right back"? or did He say He would return at the end of this dispensation, when the "times of the Gentiles be fulfilled"?

You do know that the "times of the Gentiles" started in AD 70, and will end at Armageddon, don't you?They did nothing. They realized God works on a timetable.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Either that, or it's basic doctrine with us.It applies to us too. We're in the same dispensation (Grace or Church Age) as Paul was, when he wrote it.What do you think the Holy Spirit is?You mean like here ...

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

... where God put the leaders that married our women and basically destroyed the earth?Only to have who take their place? It could be that angels are still falling today.I'm sure God had His reasons for creating Lucifer and the third of the angels that would initially rebel. Who am I to suggest He should have done otherwise?Your lack of understanding is noted.And how did He put it? did He say, "Hang on, I'll be right back"? or did He say He would return at the end of this dispensation, when the "times of the Gentiles be fulfilled"?

You do know that the "times of the Gentiles" started in AD 70, and will end at Armageddon, don't you?They did nothing. They realized God works on a timetable.

All mythology and all nonsense. No evidence whatsoever for any of this (Lucifer, angels, armageddon etc.)

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

After being created by humans that were created by God to create. So, no, they don't actually create themselves.

By this logic then we don't create anything either. However, create doesn't have to mean create the way you use.

 

[dlamberth]

But our other cousins: monkeys, lemurs, and apes don't embarrass you?

I like the diversity of our family. Nothing to be embarrassed about. There is lots of family sacredness going on there.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

He's just another bigoted athiest. Yawn.

He has accomplished something in his life. I doubt that he is as bigoted as many fundamentalists I've met. He is at least consistent with his WV and behavior, many fundamentalists don't seem to be.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

The important features to keep in mind about bigoted atheists and bigoted Christians is that they are bigots. I sense you view the atheism and the Christianity as the important features of their character.

Great point! It's kind of like worrying about an atheist because she is atheist who is an upstanding citizen, is kind to everyone, never says anything against people, honest, hardworking etc. more than the wretched Christian fundamentalist who hates everyone (including other Christians), cheats on his wife, doesn't obey the law (because its secular), loves to puff himself up by saying how many times he has read his Bible, gone to church and how many Bible verses he knows.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

No scientific method I'm aware of starts out with: 'Step #1: assume a form of naturalistic uniformitarianism. If you think it does, please cite the reference for that. (I would say that is just a belief you (and many others) hold there).

There's no pre-conditions needed prior to doing science. In fact the one you claim there, makes zero impact on the outcomes of properly conducted objective testing, anyway.
If you think it does; can you give an example of where you think it does?
So too, does the type of mind which perceives those processes and laws. How do you discount that demonstrably evident fact, (along with any of its influences), in forming the conclusions on the constancy of 'processes and laws' there?
Science's 'laws and processes' were evidently distinguished for the purposes of being useful for us. They make sense to a human mind. There is zip objective evidence that they would make sense to non-human minds elsewhere in the universe. (In fact the latter mentioned type of mind there, still takes a human mind to imagine it as existing, anyway ..)
No .. they don't think about them because they are completely irrelevant to the science they're doing. They are therefore not part of doing science.
Your assumption there is nothing more than yet another untestable belief, which is neutralised and bypassed in the drive to perform science's objective testing.

Its also noted that you almost demonstrated why those assumptions have nothing to do with science there .. (which was my point). You however, backed away from forming the logical conclusion there for some reason though ..(?)
Why do you think 'their models don't come up against them'?
I agree that science (in particular, QM) returns knowledge which forces philosophical rethinking about 'what nature is like'. That rethinking however, stands quite independently from doing science. This is the main point I'm making here. Philosophy is not science. Science starts out with no pre-assumptions about the nature of reality. Such pre-assumptions are philosophical notions, as they invariably assume untestable 'truths' (aka: beliefs).

I would recommend you take a course or two on the history of science and the philosophy of science at the university level. Without building on good foundations (parts of philosophy and mathematics), science may be done but not done well. It may also be done well without realizing or acknowledging it is being done well because the person is abiding by good foundational principles of mathematics and philosophy. Ignorance does not nullify the basis must be based on principles in mathematics and philosophy.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

No scientific method I'm aware of starts out with: 'Step #1: assume a form of naturalistic uniformitarianism. If you think it does, please cite the reference for that. (I would say that is just a belief you (and many others) hold there).

There's no pre-conditions needed prior to doing science. In fact the one you claim there, makes zero impact on the outcomes of properly conducted objective testing, anyway.
If you think it does; can you give an example of where you think it does?
So too, does the type of mind which perceives those processes and laws. How do you discount that demonstrably evident fact, (along with any of its influences), in forming the conclusions on the constancy of 'processes and laws' there?
Science's 'laws and processes' were evidently distinguished for the purposes of being useful for us. They make sense to a human mind. There is zip objective evidence that they would make sense to non-human minds elsewhere in the universe. (In fact the latter mentioned type of mind there, still takes a human mind to imagine it as existing, anyway ..)
No .. they don't think about them because they are completely irrelevant to the science they're doing. They are therefore not part of doing science.
Your assumption there is nothing more than yet another untestable belief, which is neutralised and bypassed in the drive to perform science's objective testing.

Its also noted that you almost demonstrated why those assumptions have nothing to do with science there .. (which was my point). You however, backed away from forming the logical conclusion there for some reason though ..(?)
Why do you think 'their models don't come up against them'?
I agree that science (in particular, QM) returns knowledge which forces philosophical rethinking about 'what nature is like'. That rethinking however, stands quite independently from doing science. This is the main point I'm making here. Philosophy is not science. Science starts out with no pre-assumptions about the nature of reality. Such pre-assumptions are philosophical notions, as they invariably assume untestable 'truths' (aka: beliefs).

Your statement "There's no pre-conditions needed prior to doing science ..." Assumptions and other factures are always part of science especially social science. However, even in pure science, the human element is involved as QM has demonstrated. Good science tries to off-set as much of this as possible. However, the human factor and current issues always can influence methodological design of experiments etc. Science does start with certain pre-assumptions of reality otherwise there would be no interpretative framework at all ... again I would suggest learning more about the philosophy of science.

 

[Bradskii]

From what I can see this is true. There are lots of other people who are Anglicans and in large mainline denominations that would agree. Many Christians agree and actually encourage scientists to deride fundamentalist type of thinking because their beliefs are so bad "in the face of obvious scientific evidence." It is embarrassing when your cousin is the equivalent of an "intellectually social drunk"

Quite right.

And in passing, I believe I made some derogatory comment directed at you when you first started posting. Something along the lines of you being a troll. No excuses - I was wrong, and I apologise.

 

[sjastro]

Go forth and air no more.

Sound advice for flatulence sufferers.

 

[dlamberth]

Yes, the Jewish fictional writers were quite clever weren't they. I don't for one minute believe they were writing history (as do most scholars), although they may have been writing something equivalent to today's historical fiction.

If nothing else, I'd say that they were written through a distinct religious lens.

 

[Astrid]

Sound advice for flatulence sufferers.

I intended a double intender.

 

[renniks]

The important features to keep in mind about bigoted atheists and bigoted Christians is that they are bigots. I sense you view the atheism and the Christianity as the important features of their character.

That depends. I'm sure someone can be bigoted in both camps.

 

[renniks]

Not that I agree with you that they are bigots, but being a bigot or an atheist does not preclude making major contributions and being of service to humanity that they have provided.

Such as?

 

[renniks]

I think Dawkins has struggled to free himself from the religious Anglican (C of E) indoctrination he suffered during his youth(?) In contemplating the complexity of life in his early teen years, he saw a different way of looking at biological complexity through a naturalistic viewpoint.

My personal view is that because he continues to have to struggle in order to maintain clarity on this viewpoint, we see this aspect more when he grapples with folk who actually embrace religious indoctrination. (Ie: we instinctively see 'the struggle' perhaps more than we listen for the objective evidence he brings to the table).

Ironically, he's now an indoctrinater.

 

[renniks]

By this logic then we don't create anything either. However, create doesn't have to mean create the way you use.

No we aren't the original creators of anything. We only create imitations of what God already created.

 

[renniks]

He has accomplished something in his life. I doubt that he is as bigoted as many fundamentalists I've met. He is at least consistent with his WV and behavior, many fundamentalists don't seem to be.

In your opinion, maybe.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No we aren't the original creators of anything. We only create imitations of what God already created.

What is a car an imitation of? A horse? A camel?

Please.

Ooh. How about the printing press? What in nature is like that?