What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[jamesbond007]

The entire concept of seeking falsification for abiogenesis leads to the nonsensical notion that the organic processes we observe in life, must also be falsifiable, in spite of the fact that they are readily observable, (along with the inorganic compound constituents of bio-chemistry).

The only unknowns in abiogenesis are the minimum timeframes and the specific external conditions (or tolerence levels) required before the molecular self replication process can take place, beyond Earth's specific instance of life.

Seeking falsification of the concept of abiogenesis, simply because one believes that falsification is required to restore scientific credibility of what is already blatantly observable, is as much a total waste of time as anything else I can (personally) imagine.

Also, the idea that the wave of some magic wand speeds up that process, or reveals some long-imagined believed-in 'truths' about the universe, has nothing to do with the scientific principle of abiogenesis and therefore renders the enquiry about its falsification completely moot and therefore, a totally useless exercise.

If this an admission of there is nothing to falsify abiogenesis and ToE, then I will chalk it up to two bogus hypotheses and move on. It isn't that important in the overall scheme of things. Most people don't accept atheism and atheistic science -- For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate.

The evidence so far shows no abiogenesis in our solar system, not even a microbe after at least 4.5 billion years. You can practically forget intelligent aliens. As for ToE, people believe natural selection which is part of creationsm, too. They may not believe in evolution by natural selection for macroevolution.

 

[jamesbond007]

How do you propose to scientifically test God and/or the supernatural? If you want to make a claim that science can actually test the supernatural, then explain how that can possibly be done.

Otherwise the supernatural will continue to have no part in science. All the creationist whining in the world won't change that.

One way to scientifically test God is to test what it says in the Book of Genesis (Bible) and science has backed that up even thought the Bible isn't a science book. We also have the KCA, as mentioned, to show there was a supernatural event with the Big Bang. The evolutionary thinking proponents have no valid explanation for the big bang even though they extensively studied it and found the fine tuning paramenters.

ETA: God is assumed to be fourth dimensional being and thus would be able to affect the third dimension and time. All we can do is adhere to time as time waits for nothing in our 3D universe as expressed as in the idiom, "Time and tide waits for no man."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, for a theory to be valid one has to explain how it could be falsified. For example, the Bible and God could be falsified by showing contradictions in the work and God.

Looks like the bible is falsified then: 101 Bible Contradictions.

As for contradictions in God, it's not clear what that means (there are logical contradictions in the idea of omnipotence + omniscience + omnibenevolence). What, exactly, would falsify God?

With creation cosmology, it would be debunk Kalam's Cosmological Argument.

That's been done many times; for example, Refutation of Kalam Cosmological Argument.

So, it appears that the bible and creation cosmology have both been falsified, and we're waiting for the criteria for the falsification of God so we can complete the trinity...

 

[SelfSim]

If this an admission of there is nothing to falsify abiogenesis and ToE, then I will chalk it up to two bogus hypotheses and move on.

Your chalk marks would be nothing more than an incomprehensible graffiti-like rant then ..
Both abiogenesis and evolution refer to principles which are used to form the basis of a theory (in the case of the theory of evolution) and a testable hypothesis (in the case of abiogenesis hypotheses).

You are trying to falsify observable principles .. which is like trying to deny a word definition whilst continuing to use that same word to convey its meaning. Its just delusional behaviour.

The evidence so far shows no abiogenesis in our solar system, not even a microbe after at least 4.5 billion years.

No .. abiogenesis was derived from the simple observation of the presence of life on Earth (which is part of our Solar Sysytem). Your elimination of that fact is just delusional ..

Secondly, there has been only one test beyond Earth for life .. the Mars Viking probe program back in the 1970s. The conclusion was ambiguous .. which is insufficient for eliminating the possibility of microbial life there (and abiogenesis/evolution).
You need to go away and learn some scientific history.

You can practically forget intelligent aliens. As for ToE, people believe natural selection which is part of creationsm, too. They may not believe in evolution by natural selection for macroevolution.

Beliefs don't matter .. Objective testability is all that matters when it comes to scientific theories ..

.. And I don't care if this thread has been moved for administration reasons... Wherever you make false claims about scientific principles/theories or hypotheses, as you continue to do .. you will also continue to be corrected!

 

[pitabread]

One way to scientifically test God is to test what it says in the Book of Genesis (Bible) and science has backed that up even thought the Bible isn't a science book.

How does one test the Book of Genesis? What has science perportedly backed up in the Bible?

Furthermore, how does testing the Bible explicitly test the supernatural?

We also have the KCA, as mentioned, to show there was a supernatural event with the Big Bang.

The Kalam cosmological argument doesn't actually support this. It merely presumes a supernatural origin.

The biggest issue with this argument as well is the presumption of classical causality. Yet we know that classical causality may not always apply, just as classical physics does not explicitly apply to ever facet of the universe.

It also makes other assumptions about the nature of our universe that we don't currently know or can otherwise verify at this time. Stating basic premises don't really help if the premises themselves cannot be explicitly demonstrated.

The evolutionary thinking proponents have no valid explanation for the big bang even though they extensively studied it and found the fine tuning paramenters.

That's just an argument from ignorance. That isn't a scientific test of the supernatural.

Three strikes, yer out.

 

[Strathos]

If you want to argue that God directly caused the Big Bang, you also have to agree that the earth formed billions of years later and life evolved to its present form over a period of billions of years.

 

[pitabread]

If you want to argue that God directly caused the Big Bang, you also have to agree that the earth formed billions of years later and life evolved to its present form over a period of billions of years.

Consistency in the support of scientific findings is not the strong point of creationists, that's for sure.

 

[Brightmoon]

I'm not a mind reader when you don't explain. Instead of insulting me, why don't you explain your argument. There seems to be no point to your argument, but make up stuff to explain ToE. It seems I struck a nerve in atheists with where's the falsification for abiogenesis and ToE and they cannot present anything to back it up. You certainly don't answer my question.

1 I did explain what a mosaic trait was and gave examples. 2 I’m not an atheist . You mischaracterize people who accept evolution as atheists . Please stop repeating that because it’s not true. Atheism has nothing to do with a confirmed fact of nature

 

[MIDutch]

The Theory of Evolution might be in trouble if creationists would hurry up and find that big wooden barge that survived the hypothesized global flood.

Heck, they've had 4400+ years to find it and they (supposedly) know EXACTLY where it is.

Or even a "quick" experiment: build a full scale replica of Noah's ark using the provided instructions and materials, tools and ship building techniques from the appropriate time, fill it full of live stock and supplies, along with 8 people, seal it up watertight and let it drift around the North Sea (to simulate the turbulence of a global flood) for 10 months and see what happens. Christianity is a MULTIBILLION dollar business. Someone should be able to come up with the funds to conduct an experiment like this.

 

[MIDutch]

Oh, oh, oh. [waving hand wildly] I've always liked this refutation of the Theory of Evolution:

The Alvis Delk Track

Fred Flintstone's footprint being squashed by Barney the Purple Dinosaur's footprint, proving that humans and dinosaurs lived together.

 

[Brightmoon]

The Delk prints are well known to be fake

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have to say: it's one thing SAYING that you can falsify evolution. It's a wholly different to actually doing it.

 

[MIDutch]

I have to say: it's one thing SAYING that you can falsify evolution. It's a wholly different to actually doing it.

You would think that creationists would have figured that out after 160 years worth of abject failure (if you go back to Darwin, or 270 years of abject failure if you go back to Pierre Louis Maupertuis papers on reproductive variability producing new species over time).

 

[MIDutch]

The Delk prints are well known to be fake

Correct. I was merely highlighting the "kind" of "evidence" that creationists keep coming up with as "refutation of evolution". I was just being a little contrarian for not using [/s]

 

[Brightmoon]

I figured you were being sarcastic but I wanted to make sure that the creationists here understood that what you were describing was fake crap. They have a tendency think every ridiculous essay, that agrees with their take on the Bible, is accurate.

 

[MIDutch]

I figured you were being sarcastic but I wanted to make sure that the creationists here understood that what you were describing was fake crap. They have a tendency think every ridiculous essay, that agrees with their take on the Bible, is accurate.

All you have to do is LOOK at it to know it's a fake. Unfortunately for them, creationists don't have anything better to present.

 

[Brightmoon]

You’re talking about people who think archaeopteryx and Lucy were fakes . They can’t tell the difference. They don’t even have minimal knowledge about basic anatomy

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Oh, oh, oh. [waving hand wildly] I've always liked this refutation of the Theory of Evolution:

The Alvis Delk Track

Fred Flintstone's footprint being squashed by Barney the Purple Dinosaur's footprint, proving that humans and dinosaurs lived together.

Why would such an important find be housed in a two-bit museum in the ass-end of Texas? Oh wait, I forget how powerful the <insert world domination conspiracy> is.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why would such an important find be housed in a two-bit museum in the ass-end of Texas? Oh wait, I forget how powerful the <insert world domination conspiracy> is.

I object. Glen Rose is some beautiful country. College Station, OTOH ...

 

[Ophiolite]

Pause for Thought:

It is very easy to laugh at Cretionist arguments, to dismiss their ill informed views, to mock their evident ignorance (and ignorance of evidence), but eventually it becomes tedious and we look more and more like a pack of hyenas fighting over the remains. (Apologies to hyenas if they normally share equably.)

As others have noted, the persistence of disagreement stems from the source of viewpoint (beliefs, if you prefer). Creationists base their views upon faith and specifically faith in a literal interpretation of Scripture. The rest of us, Christians, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, etc base our views upon evidence, scientifically gathered, tested and validated. It's probably unrealistic to think the two viewpoints can ever be reconciled. Creationist will not abandon their faith. The rest will not forego the evidence.

I imagine this must be especially frustrating for those Christians who feel science is a means for exploring the majesty of God's creation and thus enhancing apprecaition of His work.

What frustrates me is the insistence of some (most?) Creationists to deny the evidence for evolution, or to seek to use pseudo-scientific arguments to support their position. Just tell me you don't believe the evidence, but don't deny it exists. I'm fine with that. Just say your faith denies the reality of evolution rather than absuing science to pretend support for your view. I'm fine with that too.