What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[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.

Hence the hilarious Onyate Man episode that ensnared so many creationists.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

There would probably be ethical objections to such an experiment.

 

[Ophiolite]

There would probably be ethical objections to such an experiment.

I would certainly be opposed. The ark might run into and destroy the windfarm offshore Aberdeen. Construction of the windfarm infuriated Trump because he argued it interfered with the view from his Aberdeenshire golf course. I couldn't rationally support something that might bring such undeserved comfort to Trump.

 

[jamesbond007]

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.

No, the Earth isn't that old. It's ridiculous to think it billions of years old. No planet would last that long as we are losing our magnetic field and much of the Earth was formed by catastrophism. We have the evidence of a global flood as our planet is the only one 3/4 covered by surface water. What the Earth has such as plate tectonics and such aren't found anywhere else. It also has a carbon cycle to support carbon based life. What other planets have these things? None that I know of.

 

[jamesbond007]

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

I still don't appreciate your condescension, so this is my last post to you.

If what you say is true, then there would be more transitional fossils. Also, it would have to happen in a short period of time. One cannot falsify billions of years with experiment. Instead, the creation scientists point out the great fraud committed by the atheist scientists and their followers for the other creatures that were supposed to be transitional such as Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Peking Man, and more.

 

[jamesbond007]

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?



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.



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

Three strikes, yer out.

All your arguments are off topic. Why don't you start your own thread? You haven't answered the question posed by the topic.

I was nice enough to answer a few of your questions, but your questions and arguments do not address anything for this thread. I'm going to have to assume you don't have anything.

 

[Shemjaza]

I still don't appreciate your condescension, so this is my last post to you.

If what you say is true, then there would be more transitional fossils. Also, it would have to happen in a short period of time. One cannot falsify billions of years with experiment. Instead, the creation scientists point out the great fraud committed by the atheist scientists and their followers for the other creatures that were supposed to be transitional such as Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Peking Man, and more.

Except you are just spreading the lies of Kent Hovind. Not presenting anything like an actual presentation of the fossil evidence for human evolution.

Do you know how Piltdown man was revealed as a fraud? By scientists examining the evidence thoroughly because it was inconsistent with all the other evidence.

(It's the height of irony to smear a whole field of study with the "work" of a Creationist who went to jail for his own fraud and dishonesty.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Posting a Chick Tract.

Yeah, I'm calling it. OP doesn't actually about science in the slightest, and has no actual interest in it either.

 

[pitabread]

All your arguments are off topic. Why don't you start your own thread? You haven't answered the question posed by the topic.

I already addressed that: the supernatural cannot be scientifically tested and therefore cannot be considered vis-a-vis any sort of scientific hypothesis, theory, etc. And that all the whining in the world isn't going to change that.

Now if you want to claim otherwise, you need to come up with a method by which the supernatural can be scientifically tested. Which is what I was asking of you, but you appear to be having difficultly providing.

 

[Brightmoon]

I still don't appreciate your condescension, so this is my last post to you.

If what you say is true, then there would be more transitional fossils. Also, it would have to happen in a short period of time. One cannot falsify billions of years with experiment. Instead, the creation scientists point out the great fraud committed by the atheist scientists and their followers for the other creatures that were supposed to be transitional such as Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Peking Man, and more.

what are these supposed to be ? Your misunderstandings of the Hominidae fossil record doesn’t count as a refutation.

 

[pitabread]

Posting a Chick Tract.

Yeah, I'm calling it. OP doesn't actually about science in the slightest, and has no actual interest in it either.

I suspect OP may just be a Poe. Their posts have a certain Poe-like quality to them.

 

[SelfSim]

The OP queries the validity of the ToE, Big Bang and Abiogenesis by erroneously assuming the adoption of Popper's Realism (and its falsification notion) as being the only philosophical stance for creating the consistent 'thinking space' for allowing science to proceed. It isn't.

Apart from the unevidenced (and ultimately errored) assumption made by the OP, the issue also embedded in the argument is the key, (often unstated), assumption of Popper's Realism, in that there exists 'universal truths', (eg: the physical laws), which science is then believed to be seeking 'to discover' .. rather than simply acknowledging all that is observably happening there, is humans attempting to come up with a consistent explanation of observables, which can be understood.

The idea of discoverable 'universal truths' may have resonated with the religious doctrines infused in early 20th Century thinking, (ie: discovering God's 'designs'), but it is now clearly challenged for example, when it comes to explaining QM phenomena - in particular, related to QM decoherence when the observer itself is modelled as a quantum system. This challenge has been also highlighted when attempting to combine QM thinking with Relativity, (eg: by physicists such as Hawking - The Grand Design), but the challenge raised has been largely overlooked and unrecognised as 'Popperism' continues to steam-roller onwards, regardless.

Falsification of scientific theories/hypotheses has its usefulness in our everday world (eg: 'black swans') but we clearly can't proceed in science merely assuming it as one of those Popperist universal 'truths' which apply under all circumstances, (which then demonstrably continues to put religious beliefs on a par with philosophically held ones, dragging the misconceived view of science along with it).

Philosophical Realism and Deism are both demonstrably belief-based .. which, I think, is really what the OP is really taking issue with (all-be-it very poorly distinguished, expressed and argued).

 

[Strathos]

No, the Earth isn't that old. It's ridiculous to think it billions of years old. No planet would last that long as we are losing our magnetic field and much of the Earth was formed by catastrophism. We have the evidence of a global flood as our planet is the only one 3/4 covered by surface water. What the Earth has such as plate tectonics and such aren't found anywhere else. It also has a carbon cycle to support carbon based life. What other planets have these things? None that I know of.

In that case, you can't invoke the Big Bang.

 

[SelfSim]

I still don't appreciate your condescension, so this is my last post to you.

Yet another flounce, eh?

And all in order to cover up the real motivation of a pathetically weak science-bashing stance ..

 

[SelfSim]

All your arguments are off topic. Why don't you start your own thread? You haven't answered the question posed by the topic.

You haven't even recognised the overwhelmingly voluminous, logical and scientifically valid answers given throughout this thread ..
(Not to mention your completely off-topic, laughable, overtly ad-hom and insult attacks!)

I was nice enough to answer a few of your questions, but your questions and arguments do not address anything for this thread. I'm going to have to assume you don't have anything.

Yet another unjustifiable assumption .. to pile ontop of all the others you've made then, eh?

 

[SelfSim]

What the Earth has such as plate tectonics and such aren't found anywhere else.

You actually have to look before making bogus claims!
From Plate Tectonics/Other Celestial Bodies:

On 8 September 2014, NASA reported finding evidence of plate tectonics on Europa, a satellite of Jupiter—the first sign of subduction activity on another world other than Earth.

Titan, the largest moon of Saturn, was reported to show tectonic activity in images taken by the Huygens probe, which landed on Titan on January 14, 2005.

It also has a carbon cycle to support carbon based life. What other planets have these things? .

Titan has a carbon cyle (hydrocarbons):

Titan's atmospheric composition is nitrogen (97%), methane (2.7±0.1%), hydrogen (0.1–0.2%) with trace amounts of other gases. There are trace amounts of other hydrocarbons, such as ethane, diacetylene, methylacetylene, acetylene and propane, and of other gases, such as cyanoacetylene, hydrogen cyanide, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, cyanogen, argon and helium. The hydrocarbons are thought to form in Titan's upper atmosphere in reactions resulting from the breakup of methane by the Sun's ultraviolet light, producing a thick orange smog.

 

[Belk]

I suspect OP may just be a Poe. Their posts have a certain Poe-like quality to them.

Nope. Same schtick for years.

 

[jamesbond007]

In that case, you can't invoke the Big Bang.

Sure, I can. If we use radiocarbon dating, a form of radiometric dating, then we get an age for the Earth as around 40,000 - 50,000 years as C14 has been found to still be present (when it shouldn't be if the Earth was billions of years old!). The discrepancy could be from C14 being added to the sample being measured or we do not know exactly how much the object originally had.:

"Radiocarbon Found!
Imagine the surprise when every piece of “ancient” carbon tested has contained measurable quantities of radiocarbon!8 Fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, limestone, marble, and graphite from every Flood-related rock layer—and even some pre-Flood deposits—have all contained measurable quantities of radiocarbon (figure 6). All these results have been reported in the conventional scientific literature.

This finding is consistent with the belief that rocks are only thousands of years old, but the specialists who obtained these results have definitely not accepted this conclusion. It does not fit their presuppositions. To keep from concluding that the rocks are only thousands of years old, they claim that the radiocarbon must be due to contamination, either from the field or from the laboratory, or from both. However, when technicians meticulously clean the rocks with hot strong acids and other harsh pre-treatments to remove any possible contamination, these “ancient” organic (once-living) materials still contain measurable radiocarbon.

Since a blank sample holder in the AMS instrument predictably yields zero radiocarbon, these scientists should naturally conclude that the radiocarbon is “intrinsic” to the rocks. In other words, real radiocarbon is an integral part of the “ancient” organic materials. But these scientists’ presuppositions prevent them from reaching this conclusion.

Radiocarbon in Fossils Confirmed
For some years creation scientists have been doing their own investigations of radiocarbon in fossils. Pieces of fossilized wood in Oligocene, Eocene, Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, and Permian rock layers supposedly 32 to 250 million years old all contain measurable radiocarbon, equivalent to “ages” of 20,700 to 44,700 years.9 (Creation geologists believe that with careful recalibration, even these extremely “young” ages would be less than 10,000 years.)

Similarly, carefully sampled pieces of coal from 10 US coal beds, ranging from Eocene to Pennsylvanian and supposedly 40 to 320 million years old, all contained similar radiocarbon levels equivalent to “ages” of 48,000 to 50,000 years.10 Even fossilized ammonite shells found alongside fossilized wood in a Cretaceous layer, supposedly 112 to 120 million years old, contained measurable radiocarbon equivalent to “ages” of 36,400 to 48,710 years.11

Radiocarbon Is Even in Diamonds
Just as intriguing is the discovery of measurable radiocarbon in diamonds. Creationist and evolutionary geologists agree that diamonds are formed more than 100 miles (160 km) down, deep within the earth’s up-per mantle, and do not consist of organic carbon from living things. Explosive volcanoes brought them to the earth’s surface very rapidly in “pipes.” As the hardest known natural substance, these diamonds are extremely resistant to chemical corrosion and external contamination. Also, the tight bonding in their crystals would have prevented any carbon-14 in the atmosphere from replacing any regular carbon atoms in the diamonds.

Yet diamonds have been tested and shown to contain radiocarbon equivalent to an “age” of 55,000 years.12 These results have been confirmed by other investigators.13 And calculations have shown that any radiation from trace uranium in the earth near the diamonds would have been totally incapable of producing from any nitrogen in the diamonds these measured levels of in situ carbon-14.14 So even though these diamonds are conventionally regarded by evolutionary geologists as up to billions of years old, this radiocarbon has to be intrinsic to them. This carbon-14 would have been implanted in them when they were formed deep inside the earth, and it could not have come from the earth’s atmosphere. This is not a problem for creationist scientists, but it is a serious problem for evolutionists."

Radiocarbon Dating: Questions Answered

Can Carbon Dating Be Trusted?

Thus, the creation scientists believe the Earth isn't billions of years old, but thousands and that the universe is the same age of thousands of years old and that's when the Big Bang happened.

 

[jamesbond007]

Except you are just spreading the lies of Kent Hovind. Not presenting anything like an actual presentation of the fossil evidence for human evolution.

Do you know how Piltdown man was revealed as a fraud? By scientists examining the evidence thoroughly because it was inconsistent with all the other evidence.

(It's the height of irony to smear a whole field of study with the "work" of a Creationist who went to jail for his own fraud and dishonesty.)

That isn't all that the atheist scientists have been caught lying about. What about Darwin himself? His Darwinism led to social Darwinism or racism, the pseudoscientific eugenics by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton (which Darwin supported), the rise of Nazism and Hitler, the Holocaust or genocide of Jews, Planned Parenthood and genocide of blacks (which goes on to this day in poor black, Hispanics, and other minority neighborhoods). Basically, we find the falsification of uniformitariansim is catastrophism and that was demonstrated by the Mt. St. Helens volcano, the global flood, and the finding of plate tectonics.

"During the last 50 years an enormous amount of information has been collected that supportscatastrophism andintelligent design.

The Mount St. Helens eruption and subsequent erosion has taught us that rapid deposition and rapid canyon erosion is a fact. It doesn’t take years to form. It doesn’t take rocket science to know that life forms cannot be fossilized unless buried rapidly."

Catastrophism Versus Uniformitarianism

 

[jamesbond007]

Anyway, I am wrapping up my contributions to this thread as there does not seem to be any falsification to abiogenesis and ToE. All we end up doing is get off the subject and argue ToE or abiogenesis which doesn't get us anywhere.

For the creation science side, it would be finding contradictions in the Book of Genesis and the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Instead, the proponents of abiogenesis and ToE can't readily find a falsification to show that their theory is valid. IOW, abiogenesis may or may not happen. ToE may or may not happen. If your opponent does not have something to argue against, then your theory cannot be valid. We can state for certain that it does not happen.

Something like dark energy is explained in the Book of Genesis as God stretching out the heavens like a tent. With evolutionary thinking and cosmology, they just state it may or may not exist. It's invisible and cannot be measured. Thus, without a way for someone who doesn't believe in it to be able to falsify it, then the idea itself is bogus. It does not exist.

I thought at least, a few of you would find one for ToE. JBS Haldane said the Precambrian Rabbit and Richard Dawkins added a Precambrian hippo. Thus, finding fossils or objects out of sequence with the time chronology of the layers should be falsification. I have an easy one and that is the name of the layers are based on location and not time. Thus, it backs up what the creation scientists say that the fossils just show where the poor creature died, not when.

Thanks to those who participated.