What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[renniks]

The laws of nature certainly exist. What is illogical is to suppose that if they exist they must have been put in place by your particular God.

They certainly could not have been put in place without a law giver. Order from chaos is illogical.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Aren't you the guy who thinks artificial selection in wheat production somehow proves macro evolution?

No. I'm the guy who KNOWS that SEXUAL selection can be achieved as readily by human intervention, as by predation or climate. And that there is no "macro evolution".
Just as there is no "macro gestation", or "macro decay".

Yeah I quit listening to you a while ago.

Your failures are not something to brag about

 

[renniks]

Yes, he is constantly using a God of the Gaps Fallacy. It amounts to:

I don't understand how this works, therefore God.

You have failed to show how anything could exist without a first cause.

 

[renniks]

No. I'm the guy who KNOWS that SEXUAL selection can be achieved as readily by human intervention, as by predation or climate. And that there is no "macro evolution".
Just as there is no "macro gestation", or "macro decay"

Are you still holding up that massive strawman that creationist deny natural selection?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have failed to show how anything could exist without a first cause.

You have not shown that a cause is needed. You do not understand your logical fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you still holding up that massive strawman that creationist deny natural selection?

Not a massive strawman since some do deny it.

 

[renniks]

By being neither.

So it's not guided? "
"Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’" ( CS Lewis)
And they are still trying to prop up the idea of a universe that has laws for no discernible reason.

 

[Speedwell]

They certainly could not have been put in place without a law giver. Order from chaos is illogical.

And the only alternative to your God is chaos. Got it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have failed to show how anything could exist without a first cause.

There is no need to do that. We know that things exist. If you follow William Lane Craig I can guarantee that you do not understand the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it's not guided? "
"Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’" ( CS Lewis)
And they are still trying to prop up the idea of a universe that has laws for no discernible reason.

Yes, C.S. Lewis was not reasoning properly there. He is making an unjustified assumption.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep. Your use of "challenges" is an automatic admission that you are wrong.

And your challenges aren't?

My Goosenecks challenge.
My scientific evidence challenge.
My Creationist Fossil Record Challenge

 

[renniks]

And the only alternative to your God is chaos. Got it.

The only alternative to a Creator is nothing existing. If we find a cave painting ...even if it looks like a mentally deficient first grader did it ,we assume an intelligent being was involved.
But when we find out our DNA is more complicated than a supercomputer we don't assume the same?
I think you have to turn in your common sense to be an evolutionary scientist.

 

[Speedwell]

You have failed to show how anything could exist without a first cause.

That is a metaphysical proposition, not a scientific one. Science observes and studies orderly behavior in nature--that's as far as science goes into the question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And your challenges aren't?

My Goosenecks challenge.
My scientific evidence challenge.
My Creationist Fossil Record Challenge

Nope. Mine are very few and far between. I have not abused that idea to death. Even worse for you, mine were not shown to be wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. Mine are very few and far between. I have not abused that idea to death. Even worse for you, mine were not shown to be wrong.

LOL -- sounds par.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL -- sounds par.

Of course. When you keep losing arguments it gets repetitive after a while.

 

[Frank Robert]

Lol, there's evidence literally everywhere.

• “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics” (2)

Frank Tipler

Notice that Tipler is specifically referring to his, "own special branch of physics." He will do creationists a huge favor when he comes up with testable hypothesis for his special branch of physics.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Are you still holding up that massive strawman that creationist deny natural selection?

Given that there is no such strawman for me to hold up.

 

[renniks]

That is a metaphysical proposition, not a scientific one. Science observes and studies orderly behavior in nature--that's as far as science goes into the question.

Basically you have to appeal to your own ignorance and claim that because science can't explain a first cause, there probably wasn't one. But the very existance of rules in the universe should make the scientific argument for you, that something or someone outside of the universe had to set things in motion.

 

[Shemjaza]

Lol, there's evidence literally everywhere.

• “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics” (2)

Frank Tipler

Okay, a physicist claims that Judeo-Christian theology can be derived from the laws of physics. That would be a great example if you could actually present how that works.

It's a pretty big claim... and I'm pretty dubious.