• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
They understand it the same way anyone does. They just disagree that it can account for major changes, like one kind of animal to another kind.
There are no major changes, just a lot of small ones.
 
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I know, I know, he brought it up and I responded in kind. Unfortunately we have another creationist that claims his beliefs are logical but refuses to learn even the basics of science, let alone the basics of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
They understand it the same way anyone does. They just disagree that it can account for major changes, like one kind of animal to another kind.
And to add on to the previous post responding to you, there is no "change of kind". Evolution does not have that. You are still an ape, you are merely a different ape from chimpanzees, bonobos etc.. You are still a primate, you are just a different primate from lemurs, monkeys, etc. You are still a mammal, you are just a different mammal than cows and cats. The list goes on with bigger and bigger groups. When you say "change of kind" you lose the debate.
 
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,049
2,232
✟210,340.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
explain please? I'm generally following you, but?
'Nature' and 'reality' are words .. they convey meaning amongst us humans. The meaning of those words amongst objective thinkers, (ie: scientists), has overlaps and differences from the common language meanings. In science (eg: Physics), the meanings are constantly under review. Those meanings depend on physical models corroborated by empirical testing of them.

Some people throw around words as though the meanings of them are somehow 'intrinsic' and were mysteriously uncovered as though they are some kind of fairy dust floating around in the aether, and then simply put in a book called a dictionary or something. They are anything but intrinsic .. and in science the meanings come following lots of hard work, sometimes, over many years and generations of testing ideas. The meanings of the 'reality' and 'nature' words do not escape that process.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Not recently. You have only made claims. Your Shroud claims were refuted with sources. When it comes to your claims, not so much.

And you do not seem to understand the concept of evidence. Would you care to discuss it?
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,049
2,232
✟210,340.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Cute phrases like: 'Faith as big as a mustard seed can move mountains', are easy to digest for non-thinkers and are the primary reason behind the propagation of pseudoscience, along with the equally nonsense term of: 'alternative facts'. Truisms also fall into that same category.

Metaphors such as 'mustard seed' might be the staple diet for non-thinkers but 'what a mountain is', is no metaphor!
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,049
2,232
✟210,340.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
And you do not seem to understand the concept of evidence.
Its taken me a quite a long time to come around to that view (due to my giving benefit of the doubt to those who throw around the term without stopping to clarify what they mean when they use it).
However, thanks to MM, he's recently made it crystal clear .. via his quest for 'a truth' in the shroud matter.
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,052
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Of course there is no change of kind.
A katydid or dragonfly is still insect- kind.
An amphibian is still fish- kind, a bird is dinosaur-
kind.
It's what we been trying to tell them for so
long!! They almost get it, "no change of kind"
but, I guess the are just too egotistical for that
final epiphany.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,835
16,470
55
USA
✟414,716.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat

This thread is about falsification of scientific theories in the creation/evolution debate, not "atheism".

Quit dragging "atheists" into your argument. None of your arguments are about the existence or believe in a god, ergo, the "atheism" of some of your sparring partners is irrelevant.
 
Reactions: Astrid
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,835
16,470
55
USA
✟414,716.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat

I only read a chunk of the Lion & the closet one that was part of our 6th grade lit. reader. I thought it was dreadful, but then, i don't care for fantasy.
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,052
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I only read a chunk of the Lion & the closet one that was part of our 6th grade lit. reader. I thought it was dreadful, but then, i don't care for fantasy.

I was 13 when I tried.
Totally not fot me either.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,449
✟156,970.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Lol, " you just don't understand. " That's all you know how to say. You understand nothing.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,465
4,001
47
✟1,118,829.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Pretty sure he has a book or two. I haven't read them.
It's very telling that firstly you don't know the supposed evidence linking physics to evidence for theology; and secondly that the author has published "a book or two" rather than a series of peer reviewed papers that have changed all physics forever.

Rael has published a book or two and he thinks Intelligent Design is proof of an eternal atheist universe and kindly space aliens.

Evidence is what science has and so far its detractors seem to only claim... til they need to present it and then it either doesn't matter or there's a conspiracy.
 
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Site Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,684
6,191
Erewhon
Visit site
✟1,118,453.00
Faith
Atheist
Dull title. What's it about?
Here. Just watch "An Atheist Reads" chapter by chapter take down of Mere Christianity.
There are some authors that this tuber shows no respect to but he honestly respects Lewis' writing. Nevertheless, one can only consider Lewis convincing if one is already a believer--like any book of apologetics.
 
Upvote 0