What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[muichimotsu]

The fact that science rejects the word of God is hardly surprising. Science is not God and has no more authority to speak about creation than a goldfish. Evolutionists trot out the idea of falsification as if it a magic spell that makes their conclusions beyond dispute. That concept is false. I've been to the Source, God H imself

Perhaps you should consult a dictionary as I had to. Irruption: "a breaking or bursting in; a violent incursion or invasion"

No one said science was God, that's irrelevant to the reliability of one in terms of genuine truth versus mere convictions. And science doesn't speak about nonsensical unfalsifiable ideas because it's no more their purview than it is to speak on philosophy,

No one said it was beyond dispute either, that's fundamentally a mischaracterization of science by someone who barely appears to have any understanding of it to begin with

Yeah, cute twisting of words to make it seem like you're a victim instead of just being honest that you were called out on being wrong

 

[muichimotsu]

Lucy is the one that was presented.

There is disagreement that Lucy walked upright since her skeleton does not have a foot. It's only by the knee, but doubters state the knee shows she was a knuckle walker, i.e four limbs. OTOH, the gorilla foot is similar to a modern gorilla and shows the apes were still climbing trees. It falsifies the theory that apes walked upright. We see that today with modern apes. Even a bear can walk more upright that an ape.

You realize...apes are a broader category than just one species, right? I'm not remotely a biologist and I'm aware of that, how are you considering yourself even remotely well versed on the subject if you throw out idiocy like that?

 

[jamesbond007]

You appear to understand neither half of 'Precambrian rabbit'.

That's atheist science's explanation of falsification and only that. I expanded it to evidence of something that contradicts the time chronology based on the layers of the Earth. The creation scientists do not believe the layers how time as catastrophism mixed the layers.

 

[muichimotsu]

The Bible is God's word and science backs up God's word in Genesis. Why do you think the atheist scientist use abiogenesis to describe their lie? Science doesn't back it up.

No it doesn't, because Genesis is not describing a real event necessarily. Biblical literalism is a poison that utterly destroys one's capacity to think rationally until you break free from that kind of nonsense that everything has to be taken as an actual historical event, or more ridiculous, something scientific.

Abiogenesis is not a lie, because you havne't demonstrated that it is a known fact that life came by "creation" (whatever that means) and thus abiogenesis as a model is not intentionally stating what it knows to not be true as true. At least be accurate and say they're wrong instead of attributing malice to them. Hanlon's razor, the more you know!

And science backs it up far better in the limited studies we still have versus anything of creation, because the latter is fundamentally outside of time and space by its very nature of being tied to a transcendent being. Now if you want to posit aliens, that's at least in the realm of nature in some measure, not your imaginary friend that conveniently is outside time and space, yet intervenes in time and space on occasion

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The Bible is God's word and science backs up God's word in Genesis.

Science also refutes Genesis. Why don't you mention that?

Why do you think the atheist scientist use abiogenesis to describe their lie? Science doesn't back it up.

Science neither confirms nor denies abiogenesis.

 

[jamesbond007]

Science simply ignores religious texts. The data about the natural world are to be found out in the natural world.

It wasn't true before the 1850s. Atheist science ignores the Bible. Real science would find that science backs up what is stated in the Bible, mostly Book of Genesis.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It wasn't true before the 1850s. Atheist science ignores the Bible. Real science would find that science backs up what is stated in the Bible, mostly Book of Genesis.

How does atheist science differ from theist science? Please be specific

 

[muichimotsu]

That's atheist science's explanation of falsification and only that. I expanded it to evidence of something that contradicts the time chronology based on the layers of the Earth. The creation scientists do not believe the layers how time as catastrophism mixed the layers.

I don't think you understand the fossil record and such as well as you believe, because the layers are not the absolute indication in themselves, that's why we have radiocarbon dating and consideration of variations

Catastrophism is too grandiose in scale to explain what we have, to my knowledge, dated in a period of time that fits with gradualism. And I'm also pretty sure the idea of a global flood is physically impossible given the amount of water on the earth unless you goalpost shift to suggest the earth was perfectly rounded somehow and then added onto itself, in which case, I'd sooner believe the earth was impacted by an asteroid and the extra crust and such just built up over billions of years.

 

[jamesbond007]

You realize...apes are a broader category than just one species, right? I'm not remotely a biologist and I'm aware of that, how are you considering yourself even remotely well versed on the subject if you throw out idiocy like that?

Sure, and I presented the gorilla that was still climbing trees. Lucy is a composite of apes and not austr. afar. It is just an assumption that ape-like creature became human. We have no apes today that are bipedal, so the evidence favors the creationists.

 

[muichimotsu]

How does atheist science differ from theist science? Please be specific

Somehow I think the idea is already mistaken given that we have demonstrable evidence of theist scientists who accept evolution as true, for instance.

This is the same asinine notion that there is an atheist or theist worldview when a worldview is more complex than merely atheism or theism

 

[muichimotsu]

Sure, and I presented the gorilla that was still climbing trees. Lucy is a composite of apes and not austr. afar. It is just an assumption that ape-like creature became human. We have no apes today that are bipedal, so the evidence favors the creationists.

One gorilla you observe is not all gorillas, there are subspecies within that. And climbing trees does not preclude walking on the ground as well, it's not nearly that simple

No it really doesn't, because the bipedal development was a branch from a common ancestor BETWEEN humans and other apes. Or did you not realize we are technically apes too taxonomically speaking? I know you like to think we're super special, but considering a gorilla can rip my arms off, we're only as special as our brains have developed by evolution.

 

[muichimotsu]

Boy, you are full of contradictions.

Only if you expect science to make claims of absolutes, which is a strawman if I ever heard one, since science necessarily must make provisional claims by methodological naturalism and skepticism

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Boy, you are full of contradictions.

Do you know what a contradiction is?

 

[muichimotsu]

If irrelevant as you state, then I agree. We should allow creation science to be taught in public schools to offer an alternative to evolution and just repeal the laws.

That doesn't follow to your conclusion: legal process has made decisions in regards to whether intelligent design and creationism are properly scientific or even in the same dimension as evolutionary theory, the Dover decision one of the more notable ones.

But you also don't get to repeal laws because you personally are credulous and ignorant about what constitutes science and prefer to treat everything as "equal" when that's not how honest investigation or seeking of knowledge works. Some things are outdated because they fail in any predictions they really make, like alchemy or astrology. And creationism/intelligent design is not a scientific model unless you stretch it to mean virtually nothing resembling science.

 

[muichimotsu]

Do you know what a contradiction is?

I doubt they even know what a scientific theory is, given the general line of "argument" assumes things that aren't in the realm of science, but pure superstition or dogma

 

[jamesbond007]

I don't htinik you understand the fossil record and such as well as you believe, because the layers are not the absolute indication in themselves, that's why we have radiocarbon dating and consideration of variations

Why is Precambrian Rabbit a falsification then? That's your claim. Pleas explain.

the Dover decision one of the more notable ones.

Dover had to do with ID. Edwards with creation science.

I doubt they even know what a scientific theory is, given the general line of "argument" assumes things that aren't in the realm of science, but pure superstition or dogma

You haven't answered my questions about time chronology of layers nor provided arguments for the Precambrian Rabbit, so I may as well state I won.

ETA: The names of the layers refer to location and not time. Just the names itself backup the creation science side as it states fossils show just where the creature died and not associated with time.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Sorry, yours is a dumb question.!

Name calling. Very grown up.

One big example is creation science states God was the cause of the beginning of spacetime and the universe, i.e. Big Bang by Father Georges Lemaitre. Atheist science still has no explanation.

Please confirm I have understood correctly - the difference you want to call out is that a theist scientist inserts an unevidenced step into science.

If that is the case, please explain the value of this additional step. Why is it required? Is there any difference in the output of formulae, chemical reactions etc? I asked for specifics, please provide some.

 

[Aussie Pete]

No one said science was God, that's irrelevant to the reliability of one in terms of genuine truth versus mere convictions. And science doesn't speak about nonsensical unfalsifiable ideas because it's no more their purview than it is to speak on philosophy,

No one said it was beyond dispute either, that's fundamentally a mischaracterization of science by someone who barely appears to have any understanding of it to begin with

Yeah, cute twisting of words to make it seem like you're a victim instead of just being honest that you were called out on being wrong

You really don't get it, which is hardly surprising. GOD is Truth. Anything that contradicts God's word is worthless. Evolution is contrary to God's word and hence untrue.

 

[muichimotsu]

Why is Precambrian Rabbit a falsification then? That's your claim. Pleas explain.

1st off, I didn't make that claim, keep your facts straight and 2nd, it's a falsification because it contradicts the predictive model that shows that such a creature would not have existed in that time frame relative to what we understand about how things came about over millions of years through evolution

Dover had to do with ID. Edwards with creation science.

Point remains, there are legal decisions in regards to these as to whether they are strictly science and not violation of the establishment clause of the U.S. constitution. Have you read that? It's pretty cool and there's LOTS of stuff I haven't even looked into myself, but FFRF is also a place you can look for more information, along with the ACLU. Unless you're too afraid for some reason.

You haven't answered my questions about time chronology of layers nor provided arguments for the Precambrian Rabbit, so I may as well state I won.

Okay, that juvenile mentality is to be expected from someone who's so thoroughly convinced that they're right they don't even care about having a discussion, but prefer to pontificate and preach at people, a Dunning-Kruger symptom, practically

ETA: The names of the layers refer to location and not time. Just the names itself backup the creation science side as it states fossils show just where the creature died and not associated with time.

No, it doesn't show where they died, that's not how fossilization works, which DOES involve time, because a creature could be buried and not strictly fossilize, it will vary because of, you know, nature and physics. Just like how we don't always get a complete skeleton either. I'm not remotely a scientist, but I get the feeling you're parroting the kind of pseudo science and garbage thinking that encourages conviction over truth, which is toxic AND poisonous, because it builds up AND it is to the detriment of rational discussion, assuming that rhetoric is more important than logic, spinning something to seem true with no regard to contradictory evidence or observations.

Look into confirmation bias, might make you realize something ugly about yourself that needs changing

 

[muichimotsu]

You really don't get it, which is hardly surprising. GOD is Truth. Anything that contradicts God's word is worthless. Evolution is contrary to God's word and hence untrue.

That's a tautology, you can't conflate two things that are categorically distinct in what their properties are.

Evolution is clearly not contrary to God's word or there wouldn't be Christians that believe it. You don't get to gatekeep based on your intransigent dogmatic attitude, actually point it out in a way that is honest and not question begging

And God's word is, by any reasonable assessment, NOT a scientific textbook, so you've completely missed the point with this absurd literalism and idolization of a religious scripture to think that anything against it is wrong.

Then again, it's amusing the contradictions here, when technology can be argued to be against God by the Amish, yet here you are not realizing any cognitive dissonance by using the internet to spread this asinine tripe that you think will convince anyone of anything unless they're as credulous as you are and ignorant of science to boot