What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Frank Robert]

How creationist of you.

I like it. It's accurate to the point.

 

[renniks]

Lie.



If I estimate that tree is 30m high because I can see stuff nearby that I know the size of it isn't a guess... and it certainly doesn't make it just as reasonable to agree with someone who claims the tree is a foot high because he really likes that idea.



Not being 100% certain about things is called being honest, not guessing.



Creationists love to take discussion about which exact family of catlike/doglike animals is the root of the split as portray it as if it sheds doubt on the process.

We have the genetic evidence and the the evidence of the appropriate transitions species and branches in the right time frame... no, we don't know the exact timeline and we likely never will.

Funny thing is, atheist will believe that the universe came from nothing based on someone's speculation. They will believe life came from nothing. But they won't believe that a man came back to life even with eyewitness accounts.
They will believe we know what animals were around 64 million years ago. But they won't believe in a book that's the most documented history book of all time.

 

[renniks]

The dating methods are correct, the only people who do not accept the evidence are those who have a vested interests like a religious belief in a young earth. Science has method and supporting data, religion has apologetic. Which one is a guess and which one isn't?

Once again the only people calling them guesses are those who have vested interests like AIG, DI, and ICR that do apologetics and zero science.

That's a lie. The creationists use scientific methods also, they just plug their findings into a different model.

 

[renniks]

Yes, it is much more silly.
We know this due to many pieces of corroborating evidence.
I note that you have studiously ignored the references I have provided, and instead chose to whine about the diagram Speedwell provided.
I suspect that you arguing well above your station.

And I suspect you're another one with nothing but insults to add.

 

[Speedwell]

That's a lie. The creationists use scientific methods also, they just plug their findings into a different model.

What findings? What research do they do?

 

[renniks]

I love it when creationists unwittingly expose their nearly complete lack of relevant knowledge and understanding.

Yep nothing but insults... It's rare to find anyone practicing critical thinking these days.

 

[Frank Robert]

They will believe we know what animals were around 64 million years ago. But they won't believe in a book that's the most documented history book of all time.

A book that has 1000s of interpretations and numerous contradictions is hardly documented. There is more disagreement than agreement on the historicity of the bible, we don't even know with certainty who wrote the various texts, when they were written or under what circumstances.

Criticism of the Bible

 

[Speedwell]

Yep nothing but insults... It's rare to find anyone practicing critical thinking these days.

You have made statements in this forum describing evolution and the theory of evolution which are not accurate. Notice, we are not just this minute discussing whether or not the theory of evolution is true. Let's leave that issue aside for the moment. Before we consider whether the evolution is true, we have to understand what it is. But you have made inaccurate statements about the theory of evolution and there are two possibilities: That you are knowledgeable about the theory and are making these statements as a rhetorical strategy. Or, you are actually ignorant of the theory. I am inclined to the latter view because it is the more charitable of the two and because some of your descriptions of evolutionary theory line up pretty well with the straw men erected by creationist apology sites like AiG, ICR, etc. and perhaps you have just let yourself be pranked by them.

That is my "critical thinking" on the matter. I can't help it if you regard our attempts to correct your misunderstandings of what evolutionary theory says as an attack. It's not meant to be one

 

[Frank Robert]

That's a lie. The creationists use scientific methods also, they just plug their findings into a different model.

I believe the phase used by AIG and DI and ICR is that creationists have the same data but interpret it differently. I agree they interpret it differently but to do so they need to use a method other than the scientific method which makes it not science. The mentioned institutes do a lot apologetics but zero science.

 

[renniks]

A book that has 1000s of interpretations and numerous contradictions is hardly documented. There is more disagreement than agreement on the historicity of the bible, we don't even know with certainty who wrote the various texts, when they were written or under what circumstances.

Criticism of the Bible

There have been thousands of archaeological discoveries in the past century that support every book of the Bible.

 

[renniks]

What findings? What research do they do?

They do the same research, with the same laboratories, just different conclusions in regards to origins.

 

[Speedwell]

There have been thousands of archaeological discoveries in the past century that support every book of the Bible.

But they don't support the creationists' choice of literary genre for Genesis.

 

[renniks]

I believe the phase used by AIG and DI and ICR is that creationists have the same data but interpret it differently. I agree they interpret it differently but to do so they need to use a method other than the scientific method which makes it not science. The mentioned institutes do a lot apologetics but zero science.

How would you know.. have you visited their laboratories? Have you seen their experiments?
Or are you just talking through your hat?

 

[Speedwell]

They do the same research, with the same laboratories, just different conclusions in regards to origins.

In other words, they cherry-pick the research done by actual scientists.

 

[Speedwell]

How would you know.. have you visited their laboratories? Have you seen their experiments?
Or are you just talking through your hat?

What laboratories? What experiments?

 

[renniks]

In other words, they cherry-pick the research done by actual scientists.

Now you're proposing that a Christian can't be a scientist. How ridiculous!

 

[Frank Robert]

They do the same research, with the same laboratories, just different conclusions in regards to origins.

If you believe that can you list please list the scientific labs and the research methods they use.

 

[Speedwell]

Now you're proposing that a Christian can't be a scientist. How ridiculous!

I can propose no such thing. There are too many respected scientists who are Christians, even in the field of evolutionary biology. I've met a few myself. When I was an undergraduate (more years ago than I care to admit) at a Catholic university the head of the biology department, a Brother in orders, was considered one of the leading scientific experts on the evolution of bats.

 

[Frank Robert]

How would you know.. have you visited their laboratories? Have you seen their experiments?
Or are you just talking through your hat?

I read their apologetics on a DI, AIG and ICR. It gets difficult at times because the vast majority of their articles are science denial. I also frequent Peaceful Science where there is interaction with knowledgeable Christians, agnostics and atheists that get along. The scientists commenting are accomplished in their fields and some well known theists like WLC contribute to the content from time to time. Here is a topic discussed last month Ken Ham Responds to William Lane Craig at Peaceful Science. As far as visiting creationists labs please tell us where they are and about their experiments if any because there is nothing about them on the creationists websites.

 

[Frank Robert]

There have been thousands of archaeological discoveries in the past century that support every book of the Bible.

Which ones of the thousands support a 6000 year old earth, which ones support the flood, which ones support the exodus, which ones support the book of Job. When it comes to the NT there is some support for Jesus and some of the apostles and that Gehenna was a garbage dump but little else.

There are some interesting books in the bible though like the Song of Solomon and David and Jonathan.