What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Bertrand Russell White]

Are you getting tired to not come up with a better response. perhaps you don't know very much if you can't think of something more insightful to say.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Enough to see hot air.

Are you getting tired to not come up with a better response. Perhaps you don't know very much if you can't think of something more insightful to say.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

I note that despite your unnecessary verbosity, you failed to answer his question.
interesting.
I also note your use of the phrase "historical science." A slip, perhaps?

I could not care less what you can accept.

Trying to establish something from the past is called historical science.

 

[Speedwell]

Are you getting tired to not come up with a better response. Perhaps you don't know very much if you can't think of something more insightful to say.

Sorry for all the suspicion, but we've seen too many posters start in the same vein as you have, only try to sneak in a literal inerrant Genesis, a young Earth and a global flood while they think we're not looking.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Trying to establish something from the past is called historical science.

You may well be sincere in your attempts to bring your knowledge to this board, but you should also understand that you are apparently not in your normal conversational environment and that some of the language you are using has different meanings. you are using several tropes of the young earth creationist that if they are not what you mean, you will have to learn the local idiom and police your own language.

 

[Astrid]

You seem to get pretty testy when you are challenged a little bit. I'm sorry if you see my challenge as "the air of assumed superiority..." Perhaps you are mirroring your own behaviors and actions with others. Although I can't say because I don't know you. You seem to have very rigid definitions and pre-conceived ideas about what a skeptic is and does. I'm sorry if I don't conform to your categories of what a skeptic must and must not do. Most people view me as quiet and unassuming, which I usually am. However, when someone makes ridiculous accusations and claims like you have, I will respond.

Again, I'm sorry you get really testy when I throw a bit of sarcasm your way. I've found that people who know lots of science and are secure in their knowledge don't need to worry about how much of this and how much of that they know, or whether they have taken this course or that course or how many PhD's they have. I'm not saying you are this type of person but you are acting like it. Perhaps your defense mechanisms have just kicked in too much. Perhaps you are really a nice person.

You also are very hung up on me not falling into your nice neat categories and preconceived ideas - like being a creationist or ID proponent. Why is that? Does it shake up your little world too much! Unless you've lived a pretty sheltered life, you should have realized by now that there are lots of different people across the spectrum with different beliefs and ideas. But perhaps I expect too much. Perhaps you need to get out more with philosophical and other humanity types from school and have a good time. I have no problem being a science geek too (often got labelled this when I was in university) but spending too many hours in the books can make a person pretty one dimensional (not saying this is you, but I have known lots of people that talk like you who spent way too much time studying science in some little hole). If this is you (hopefully not), take some advice, the world tends to favor people who are social and spend time learning emotional intelligence skills by interacting with a wide range of people - even if they are string theorists (and btw - one of my best friends in U wrote papers with Witten and Polchinski in grad school and after, if you know who they are, on developing membrane theory)

Do you know much beyond science? Have you read much beyond your chemistry?

Anyway, in responding to your divergent thinking and comments in your posts on what we were talking about originally (which is usually what creationists and ID proponents do when they can't answer what their opponents bring up) lets bring the discussion back to the original discussion, shall we.

As if you had any demonstrated capacity
to challenge or shake up anyone with your
pedestrian observations.

Or to "upset me" however much garbage
you make up, tho I will note it's a shabby
device, esp used on women who so easily
get irrational, the "sorry" and the lil
hook that, yup its defensive if I object,
all noted.

Original topic. Shall we, indeed.

Do you have some point, some semi original
observation? Been asking for it, it's not a moment
too soon.

 

[VirOptimus]

Are you getting tired to not come up with a better response. Perhaps you don't know very much if you can't think of something more insightful to say.

I see what you are, I just dont understand the need to lie for Jesus.

 

[Astrid]

Sorry for all the suspicion, but we've seen too many posters start in the same vein as you have, only try to sneak in a literal inerrant Genesis, a young Earth and a global flood while they think we're not looking.

Funny how many of us saw the same thing.
I was just waiting to hear how he loves science
but.

 

[Astrid]

You seem to get pretty testy when you are challenged a little bit. I'm sorry if you see my challenge as "the air of assumed superiority..." Perhaps you are mirroring your own behaviors and actions with others. Although I can't say because I don't know you. You seem to have very rigid definitions and pre-conceived ideas about what a skeptic is and does. I'm sorry if I don't conform to your categories of what a skeptic must and must not do. Most people view me as quiet and unassuming, which I usually am. However, when someone makes ridiculous accusations and claims like you have, I will respond.

Again, I'm sorry you get really testy when I throw a bit of sarcasm your way. I've found that people who know lots of science and are secure in their knowledge don't need to worry about how much of this and how much of that they know, or whether they have taken this course or that course or how many PhD's they have. I'm not saying you are this type of person but you are acting like it. Perhaps your defense mechanisms have just kicked in too much. Perhaps you are really a nice person.

You also are very hung up on me not falling into your nice neat categories and preconceived ideas - like being a creationist or ID proponent. Why is that? Does it shake up your little world too much! Unless you've lived a pretty sheltered life, you should have realized by now that there are lots of different people across the spectrum with different beliefs and ideas. But perhaps I expect too much. Perhaps you need to get out more with philosophical and other humanity types from school and have a good time. I have no problem being a science geek too (often got labelled this when I was in university) but spending too many hours in the books can make a person pretty one dimensional (not saying this is you, but I have known lots of people that talk like you who spent way too much time studying science in some little hole). If this is you (hopefully not), take some advice, the world tends to favor people who are social and spend time learning emotional intelligence skills by interacting with a wide range of people - even if they are string theorists (and btw - one of my best friends in U wrote papers with Witten and Polchinski in grad school and after, if you know who they are, on developing membrane theory)

Do you know much beyond science? Have you read much beyond your chemistry?

Anyway, in responding to your divergent thinking and comments in your posts on what we were talking about originally (which is usually what creationists and ID proponents do when they can't answer what their opponents bring up) lets bring the discussion back to the original discussion, shall we.

Oh, someone was pointing out you might
police your words of language...an air of assumed
superiority is conveyed by words like "cute", " you obviously
don't know", " how old are you " "do,you know much "
"take some advice" etc. Those with emotional intelligence
have insight to know how others will respond to such.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Trying to establish something from the past is called historical science.

Its called "science" if its done using science as the primary tool.
Erase all record of WW2. Let the last veterans die without so much as a post-it note that there was a war from 1939 to 1945. Burn the movies, and the books. Demolish the monuments.
Wait another century.
Sink a spade in the Tartar Ditch. In the Rzhev forests. And in the Kalach hills.
What will you find?

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Unless you wish to introduce magic ( talk about fallacy)
then abio had to have occurred somewhere sometime.

Not strictly true. I tend to lean this way though.

Again you go back to time machines and space travel,
along with the excessively, yes OBVIOUS point that we will
never know exactly what happened.

No, with backward time travel, it could be determined precisely.

As for doubt or lack thereof-
If you were a scientist or even a moderately informed
amateur you would know that amino acids for,m
under a variety of conditions, and have noted their
recent discovery on a comet.

As I said, I know all that. I have been thinking of these issues since our previous discussions - it might be possible to have some type of non-earth based telescope or other astronomical equipment to establish that on planets like early earth, amino acids formation could be detected. If a survey was done of many such star systems with many such planets like ours in different parts of the universe, that established a credible body of knowledge for a theory/model than I would grant the point of natural based explanation for amino acids on a primitive earth was highly probable. I'm not sure how close we are to something like this. I'm not aware of anything more than astronomical devices that seem to show excellent evidence for planets around suns. I'm not sure whether these possible planets are similar in size to earth.

I would, unlike creationists, welcome such experiments and study. The results would be very insightful and helpful determining the issues in question. Although we couldn't control for things like we can for experiments on earth we could get a lot of potentially excellent information. This would then help to give real credibility to the man made controlled experiments on these issues on earth. This type of combined science would go a long way in eliminating the issues inherent on trying to account for historical issues in science from only the vantage point of made up experiments and methods from guesses based on that historical science. I'm sure that they are probably trying to get to this place today, I'm just not aware of any programs doing this that are likely to accomplish this. If there are, I welcome learning about them! I know they do large scale astronomical data collections on many parts of the universe to validate or invalidate certain theories, no reason this couldn't possible in what we are discussing.

If you have a point to make it is still not evident.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Its called "science" if its done using science as the primary tool.
Erase all record of WW2. Let the last veterans die without so much as a post-it note that there was a war from 1939 to 1945. Burn the movies, and the books. Demolish the monuments.
Wait another century.
Sink a spade in the Tartar Ditch. In the Rzhev forests. And in the Kalach hills.
What will you find?

This is a trivial example and not applicable to our discussion because it is dealing with something that is very recent in geological time. As time passes, information is lost. Or maybe you would disagree? If you lost only 1 billionth of a percent every year, in three billion years you would only have close to zero information left. (Whereas in a 1000 years after your example, nothing much is lost at all as you indicate) A billionth of a percent lost is a very generous allowance. At 1 millionth of a percent loss every year, you are looking at virtually zero, a probability well below 10 ^ -100 (which would more likely be the case, and I'm still probably being too generous). Our human tendency is to be poor be at making judgements when very large and very small numbers are involved. This is one of those cases. Another trivial example would be the rule of 72 for interest. This rule of thumb works pretty well until you get closer to 0 and 72 because of the logarithmic nature of interest.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

You may well be sincere in your attempts to bring your knowledge to this board, but you should also understand that you are apparently not in your normal conversational environment and that some of the language you are using has different meanings. you are using several tropes of the young earth creationist that if they are not what you mean, you will have to learn the local idiom and police your own language.

I know that people like to easily categorize people into this group or that. They try to determine this by the type of language they use or don't use etc. Normal human tendency to simplify and understand. It makes the world easier to comprehend. Unfortunately my friend, the world doesn't work that way in general. Life is messy.

Also, precise examples would help. Just throwing out statements like "that some of the language you are using has different meanings. you are using several tropes of the young earth creationist that if they are not what you mean" aren't very helpful.

 

[Astrid]

Magic, time travel, spaceship. Four words.

 

[tas8831]

Many creationist geologists....all six of them, maybe?

Indeed. Besides, neither author of that screed can hold a candle to Stuart Nevins!

 

[Astrid]

I know that people like to easily categorize people into this group or that. They try to determine this by the type of language they use or don't use etc. Normal human tendency to simplify and understand. It makes the world easier to comprehend. Unfortunately my friend, the world doesn't work that way in general. Life is messy.

Also, precise examples would help. Just throwing out statements like "that some of the language you are using has different meanings. you are using several tropes of the young earth creationist that if they are not what you mean" aren't very helpful.

This entire post is talking down from a pose
of assumed superiority. Just, you know, if
specific examples are needed.

 

[tas8831]

http://ezlab.zrc-sazu.si/uploads/2011/05/Agnarssonal2010_Carnivora.pdf

Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia)


No, that is silly.

So weird that you ignored posts like this and instead pulled a standard creationist antic of claiming that I just have insults as an excuse to ignore the explanations which you apparently cannot handle.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

This is a trivial example and not applicable to our discussion because it is dealing with something that is very recent in geological time. As time passes, information is lost. Or maybe you would disagree? If you lost only 1 billionth of a percent every year, in three billion years you would only have close to zero information left. (Whereas in a 1000 years after your example, nothing much is lost at all as you indicate) A billionth of a percent lost is a very generous allowance. At 1 millionth of a percent loss every year, you are looking at virtually zero, a probability well below 10 ^ -100 (which would more likely be the case, and I'm still probably being too generous). Our human tendency is to be poor be at making judgements when very large and very small numbers are involved. This is one of those cases. Another trivial example would be the rule of 72 for interest. This rule of thumb works pretty well until you get closer to 0 and 72 because of the logarithmic nature of interest.

Again you are as Estrid says pretending superiority. exponential decay is not a foreign concept to many of us though I will admit it is to some. That said, I ask again, do you apply the same logic to our ability to discover things about the early universe?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

I know that people like to easily categorize people into this group or that. They try to determine this by the type of language they use or don't use etc. Normal human tendency to simplify and understand. It makes the world easier to comprehend. Unfortunately my friend, the world doesn't work that way in general. Life is messy.

Also, precise examples would help. Just throwing out statements like "that some of the language you are using has different meanings. you are using several tropes of the young earth creationist that if they are not what you mean" aren't very helpful.

No problem, the world is messy. Actually messy is not a great word, but we can accept that it will work in this case, but the more important part of your statement is that you are implying that I do not recognize this. More important is your use of expressions like "unfortunately my friend". That will do for a specific example in this post, for several more, read back in the responses to your post where several more were pointed out with comments that your use of those expressions characterized you as a particular type of poster.

 

[tas8831]

Ah, the Galileo gambit.
Pity that despite their millions of dollars of tax-free donations and income from sales of nonsense-filled tomes, the DI nor any other creationist 'science' group has been able to produce anything of merit supportive of their bible-based assertions. It is almost as if they have nothing of merit to offer, but you would continue to give them their day in court, so to speak.
I won't. They've had their chance and all they can vomit up are attacks and attempts to 'cast doubt' on evolution - nearly all of which are spurious at best.