What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[renniks]

If "first cause" is even anything besides philosophical
speculation, which, for all that science is decided for
what may be fancied as speculation, the whole concept of
"God" is the speculation of all time.

The so called science of the past is chock full of speculation.

 

[driewerf]

There's everything instead of nothing. Science doesn't know why.

So your "god-fact" is just a god-of-the-gaps argument. Noted.
Christians do here a very poor job at representing christianity. First a childish "no true Scotsman fallacy" and now god-of-the-gaps.
Sigh. I'll still stay atheist for a while.

 

[AV1611VET]

Christians do here a very poor job at representing christianity.

It depends on who's doing the grading, doesn't it?

 

[Astrid]

Until the facts are found to be, in fact, mistakes. Then they have to come up with new " facts"
So, there are no facts in reality.

A scientist will say, "it's a fact that this is my data".

As for data changing, we'll sure, mistakes are made.

However, it's a deep mischaracterization to suggest
all "facts" are mistakes and will change.

The data that inddicate that, say, Boyles law
is sound is daily demonstrated billions of times
by practical people such as yourself.
If exceptions, failures to hold true began
showing up, everything would spin out of control
in short order.
The same holds true for pretty much any
physical law or theory.

You are of course invited to submit an actual
example of your claim.

 

[renniks]

So your "god-fact" is just a god-of-the-gaps argument. Noted.
Christians do here a very poor job at representing christianity. First a childish "no true Scotsman fallacy" and now god-of-the-gaps.
Sigh. I'll still stay atheist for a while.

It's not the gaps. It's literally everything that exists.

 

[renniks]

A scientist will say, "it's a fact that this is my data".

As for data changing, we'll sure, mistakes are made.

However, it's a deep mjscgaracterization to say all facts are mistakes
and will change.

The data that inddicate that, say, Boyles law
is sound is daily demonstrated billions of times
by practical people such as yourself.
If exceptions, failures to hold true began
showing up, everything would spin out of control
in short order.
The same holds true for pretty much any
physical law or theory.

You are of course invited to submit an actual
example of your claim.

Every defunct evolution theory.

 

[Speedwell]

Every defunct evolution theory.

You mean Lamarckianism?

 

[Astrid]

Every defunct evolution theory.

Well, let's see. We asked for an example of such a fact.

No theory is a fact. Fail.

Didn't think you could do it.

 

[Astrid]

You mean Lamarckianism?

Let's not change the subject. He was talking about facts changing.
Not theories being disproved.

 

[driewerf]

It depends on who's doing the grading, doesn't it?

The only grading that counts is whether people are moving toward or away from christianity under influence of the chritians's posts here. And there the grade is fail.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only grading that counts is whether people are moving toward or away from christianity under influence of the chritians's posts here. And there the grade is fail.

Who moved away from Christianity when Jesus and Paul walked the earth?

Oh sure, some almost believed ...

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

But since about the time of Isaac Newton, academia pushes people further and further away from Christianity.

 

[Astrid]

The only grading that counts is whether people are moving toward or away from christianity under influence of the chritians's posts here. And there the grade is fail.

I had no idea how weird n wacky some " christian"
beliefs are until I started hearing such things as how
the excess water from the "flood was wafted to, Neptune.

Or any of the inane and utterly uninformed things people try to say
against evolution.
It's on them, on their instructors, and it's all very much too bad.

Now, I don't believe any of the core concepts, the
existence or God or the role of Jesus.

But those things are far beyond the power of a few silly
creationists to add to or diminish.

Mileage may as the say of course, vary.

 

[AV1611VET]

I had no idea how weird n wacky some "christian"
beliefs are until I started hearing such things as how the excess water from the "flood was wafted to, Neptune.

And how "weird n wacky" did you think it was when this oddball asked his antagonists where they thought the water went, and either didn't get an answer, or was told there was no flood?

But like you said, the mileage may vary.

Depends on which side of the odometer one is on, doesn't it?

 

[driewerf]

Who moved away from Christianity when Jesus and Paul walked the earth?

Whatever the answer to that question is, it is irrelevant for today. Neither Jesus nor Paul are walking the earth today. You, on the contrary are posting here, and your postings (and that of your fellow christians) do influence anyone who reads this. So it's your posting behaviour that you have to contemplate. The fact that you come up with an nonsensical response as the one above shows (once more) that you are unable to reflect on your own behaviour.

i want to point out that that kind of behaviour pushes people away from christianity. You don't need to admit. Just need to think about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever the answer to that question is, it is irrelevant for today. Neither Jesus nor Paul are walking the earth today. You, on the contrary are posting here, and your postings (and that of your fellow christians) do influence anyone who reads this. So it's your posting behaviour that you have to contemplate. The fact that you come up with an nonsensical response as the one above shows (once more) that you are unable to reflect on your own behaviour.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion; that's for sure.

I'd hate to think I (or we) have made the faith:

1 Timothy 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

Or we are of those ...

Romans 1:18b ... who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

But I'm not afraid to speculate, when it comes to questions pertaining to what is neither written in the Bible, nor taught as science.

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate

In any event, one quick question:

That word in your post I highlighted in red, did you mean "any," or "a"?

 

[Speedwell]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion; that's for sure.

I'd hate to think I (or we) have made the faith:

1 Timothy 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

Timothy was talking about faith in Christ, not faith in the magical properties of an ancient Hebrew creation story.

 

[AV1611VET]

Timothy was talking about faith in Christ, not faith in the magical properties of an ancient Hebrew creation story.

If you, or anyone, want to think our explanations turn you off, you're entitled to do so.

But to ask me to explain how all those animals were able to fit aboard the Ark, (thinking science has a "gotcha question"), I'm going to speculate a plausible answer.

I'm not going to just lie down and let science roll over me and my beliefs.

You wanna steamroll your science through the Bible, go for it.

But then don't whine when you get a bad taste in your mouth.

 

[Frank Robert]

The so called science of the past is chock full of speculation.

Speculation is pre-science. It becomes science with testable hypothesis that can be supported or falsified.

Science is method, religion is belief, they are only enemies for those who do not understand them.

 

[VirOptimus]

That "No True Scotsman Fallacy" accusation was pulled out of thin air, in my opinion, just to handwave away my points; and, frankly, didn't set well with me.

The accusation didn't even "fit the crime."

The fact is, I am not obligated to accept Charlemagne as a brother in Christ; and if that means I'm appealing to the No True Scotsman Fallacy, then someone's grabbing at straws to disagree with me.

It was a textbook "no true scotsman".

 

[renniks]

Well, let's see. We asked for an example of such a fact.

No theory is a fact. Fail.

Didn't think you could do it.

Right, because it's all theory. Even the theory of gravity. Are you really claiming that the laws of science never get modified? Really?