What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

But creationism forces dishonesty on people.

Read that again slowly.

 

[Astrid]

No, it has just changed it's meaning somewhat since Darwin's day.

You will never get that agreed to.

 

[renniks]

Gods or other supernatural causation would not be accepted in a scientific publication because science deals only with the natural. If you have a natural explanation, no one cares what your personal philosophy or religion are.

Circular logic: You can't prove God because that would be religion so if God exists he's not allowed to be acknowledged as having any affect on the stuff he would affect. Good way to never find out if there's more than the natural world.
The materialist as Chesterton said, doesn't dare allow for even a hint of the miraculous. It would ruin his tidy world view.

 

[AV1611VET]

You KNOW FULL WELL that you are using the subtitle out of context, to misrepresent the book as a racist call for genocide.

Nice try, Dan, but it's not working. The more you post, the more this thread is going to get shut down.

 

[Speedwell]

Circular logic: You can't prove God because that would be religion so if God exists he's not allowed to be acknowledged as having any affect on the stuff he would affect. Good way to never find out if there's more than the natural world.
The materialist as Chesterton said, doesn't dare allow for even a hint of the miraculous. It would ruin his tidy world view.

I'm sure that sounds convincing to you, but most of us here know better than to confuse the methodological materialism of science with the metaphysical naturalism of atheism.

 

[Bradskii]

Writer's choice.

And because it exposes a mindset in others that is what we call "stinkin thinkin".

You were found out. You should have checked the meaning of the phrase before you started. But I guess you had no reason to. You didn't realise what it meant until you were called out. At least you have learned something about the book today. A copy of which I actually have in front of me. Sixth edition for a princely 2 shillings and sixpence. And according to the blurb on the back 'Worth almost a guinea'.

It's quite a problem arguing against something when you have limited knowledge about it, isn't it...

 

[Astrid]

Except that you are.


WRONG! And deliberately so.
Other people use the correct title, or the accepted abbreviation, to be clearly understood. You however, deliberately use a misleading fragment of the SUBtitle, to
misrepresent the book, and the author.
THAT is the problem.


No. What the arsed is "arc and spark" anyway? You keep vomiting it up whenever you get held accountable.

Why dont you tell me, since it is YOUR fantasy. I've never claimed to be anybody's spokesman.


For what? Holding you accountable to basic morality?




... even though it is deliberately misleading.


... which was an honest answer. Unlike your tactic of trying to create deliberate confusion.
The partial subtitle, is not the title.



You KNOW FULL WELL that you are using the subtitle out of context, to misrepresent the book as a racist call for genocide.

And you know full well that there are people
who will never take responsibility for rhemselves.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Nice try, Dan, but it's not working. The more you post, the more this thread is going to get shut down.

wow.
So please do enlighten me. What am I trying? What is not working?

 

[Mr Laurier]

And you know full well that there are people
who will never take responsibility for rhemselves.

alas, sad but true

 

[Hans Blaster]

Circular logic: You can't prove God because that would be religion so if God exists he's not allowed to be acknowledged as having any affect on the stuff he would affect. Good way to never find out if there's more than the natural world.
The materialist as Chesterton said, doesn't dare allow for even a hint of the miraculous. It would ruin his tidy world view.

This is just the product of your lack of understanding of what science is and what science does. (It's not all that uncommon a lack of understanding. It's widespread on this sub-forum and throughout society.)

Science is not an all-encompassing enterprise or philosophy.

Science is a practice and set of processes for understanding the part of the world we call "natural" by the examination of natural phenomena and the identification of natural explanations.

Science doesn't do theology, or literary studies, or economics, or history, or philosophy, or poetry, or law, or any number of things outside its operational range.

Supernatural causation is not part of the scientific remit. Attempts to explain phenomena by supernatural causation would be rejected a scientific journal not because the journal rejects the supernatural or gods, but because it is off topic. Scientific journals do not publish poetry (try a poetry magazine or journal), or legal scholarship (try the law review), or philosophy, or pure mathematics, or reviews of daytime soap operas.

 

[Hans Blaster]

wow.
So please do enlighten me. What am I trying? What is not working?

There are two ways threads are usually shut down:

1. Major and repeated rule violations though these risk having your account suspended.

2. When you're losing the battle badly in a thread that you created, you can as OP request it be closed.

 

[Astrid]

There are two ways threads are usually shut down:

1. Major and repeated rule violations though these risk having your account suspended.

2. When you're losing the battle badly in a thread that you created, you can as OP request it be closed.

"Don't feed the troll" and a thread will die of starvation.

 

[AV1611VET]

You were found out. You should have checked the meaning of the phrase before you started. But I guess you had no reason to. You didn't realise what it meant until you were called out.

Keep posting, Brad. You're quick to judge me, aren't you?

QV please:

Guys, I agree with you that he means "species" --- okay?

In Darwin's eyes, race = species --- no argument.

Note the date of that post (7 February 2009).

It's quite a problem arguing against something when you have limited knowledge about it, isn't it...

It sure is, as you are demonstrating.

 

[VirOptimus]

QV please:

SOURCE

So I'm going to have to disagree with you on this (unless whomever is using it doesn't know any better).

You admitted that you use it to ”shake things up” i.e. trolling.

 

[renniks]

Supernatural causation is not part of the scientific remit. Attempts to explain phenomena by supernatural causation would be rejected a scientific journal not because the journal rejects the supernatural or gods, but because it is off topic. Scientific journals do not publish poetry (try a poetry magazine or journal), or legal scholarship (try the law review), or philosophy, or pure mathematics, or reviews of daytime soap operas.

All of which totally misses the point. If there's a super intelligence guiding all natural processes, it has to affect science. To say science can't deal with it, or be used to measure its effect, means the scientific method is willfully inadequate and needs a revision.

 

[Speedwell]

All of which totally misses the point. If there's a super intelligence guiding all natural processes, it has to affect science. To say science can't deal with it, or be used to measure its effect, means the scientific method is willfully inadequate and needs a revision.

How would you change it? What do you expect to detect? There is no reason to suppose that divine causality acts in the same manner as the natural causality which science studies, or that an apparently sufficient set of natural causes for a phenomenon rules it out.

 

[renniks]

How would you change it? What do you expect to detect? There is no reason to suppose that divine causality acts in the same manner as the natural causality which science studies, or that an apparently sufficient set of natural causes for a phenomenon rules it out.

Before Darwin, biologists attributed the beauty, integrated complexity, and adaptation of organisms to their environments to a powerful designing intelligence. Consequently, they also thought the study of life rendered the activity of a designing intelligence detectable in the natural world.

Scientists now affirm that natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without itself being guided by any intelligence.
Richard Dawkins notes that “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” Similarly, Bill Gates observes that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Biotechnologist Leroy Hood describes the information in DNA as “digital code.”

No theory of undirected chemical evolution explains the origin of the information needed to build even the first living cell.

The information on a computer screen can be traced back to a user or programmer.
Archeologists infer ancient scribes from hieroglyphic inscriptions.
We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know that specified information — whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in a radio signal — always arises from an intelligent source.

The theory of intelligent design is not based upon ignorance or “gaps” in our knowledge, but on scientific discoveries about DNA and on established scientific methods of reasoning.

 

[Hans Blaster]

All of which totally misses the point. If there's a super intelligence guiding all natural processes, it has to affect science. To say science can't deal with it, or be used to measure its effect, means the scientific method is willfully inadequate and needs a revision.

(oddly enough I think we're making progress. Don't have a lot of time right now so here's a short reply.)

Science depends on regularity of the underlying nature of the things being studied. Are the properties of nature (relatively*) constant. These include things like the fundamental constants of physics as well as derivative properties like those of chemicals or the elasticity of materials. For life this means that the biochemical properties of various proteins, lipids, etc., are steady.

If some sort of god or superbeing wants to mess with any of these things we are studying it will make it impossible for our methods to work. Such changes would be outside the scope of what science can examine.

If a god wanted to make the moon disappear (as in no longer exists) science couldn't study that. Essentially the natural is the predictable or the reliable such that it could be predicted.

*we do test for the constancy of the fundamental constants. Even if we didn't have an explanatory mechanism we could deal with the gravitational constant changing by 1 part per million every year. It would just be part of the laws of gravity.

 

[Speedwell]

Before Darwin, biologists attributed the beauty, integrated complexity, and adaptation of organisms to their environments to a powerful designing intelligence. Consequently, they also thought the study of life rendered the activity of a designing intelligence detectable in the natural world.

Scientists now affirm that natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without itself being guided by any intelligence.
Richard Dawkins notes that “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” Similarly, Bill Gates observes that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Biotechnologist Leroy Hood describes the information in DNA as “digital code.”

No theory of undirected chemical evolution explains the origin of the information needed to build even the first living cell.

The information on a computer screen can be traced back to a user or programmer.
Archeologists infer ancient scribes from hieroglyphic inscriptions.
We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know that specified information — whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in a radio signal — always arises from an intelligent source.

The theory of intelligent design is not based upon ignorance or “gaps” in our knowledge, but on scientific discoveries about DNA and on established scientific methods of reasoning.

Now all you have to do is show that a stochastic process cannot produce specified complexity. Dembski hasn't been able to do it yet; maybe you can.

 

[Frank Robert]

Before Darwin, biologists attributed the beauty, integrated complexity, and adaptation of organisms to their environments to a powerful designing intelligence. Consequently, they also thought the study of life rendered the activity of a designing intelligence detectable in the natural world.

Scientists now affirm that natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence without itself being guided by any intelligence.
Richard Dawkins notes that “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” Similarly, Bill Gates observes that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Biotechnologist Leroy Hood describes the information in DNA as “digital code.”

No theory of undirected chemical evolution explains the origin of the information needed to build even the first living cell.

The information on a computer screen can be traced back to a user or programmer.
Archeologists infer ancient scribes from hieroglyphic inscriptions.
We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know that specified information — whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in a radio signal — always arises from an intelligent source.

The theory of intelligent design is not based upon ignorance or “gaps” in our knowledge, but on scientific discoveries about DNA and on established scientific methods of reasoning.

The problem with intelligent design is that it can explain everything.

When ID enthusiasts examines an image of bacteria with flagella, like this one

they will usually default to intelligent design because their belief leads them to expect design. For others who have a bit of knowledge of evolution of living organisms understand that the flagella evolved via natural processes.