What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

Pigeon chess.

 

[Strathos]

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.

That's because radiocarbon dating is only accurate up to 50,000 years. You might as well try to use a yardstick to measure the grand canyon. And none of that has anything to do with the inconsistency of invoking the Big Bang but denying the science behind it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

It would have helped if you'd actually even attempt to present something that could falsifiy abiogenesis or the theory of evolution rather than just going off the rails at anyone and everyone.

 

[Shemjaza]

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

Vile.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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).

That's just... so wrong that it nowhere near approaches the level of even being wrong. It's just an absolute lie.

 

[pitabread]

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).

Well sure, racism, eugenics and genocide didn't exist before 1859.

 

[jamesbond007]

Well sure, racism, eugenics and genocide didn't exist before 1859.

Darwin and his family were racists. It's undeniable in Darwin's second book The Descent of Man. And why do you think his cousin came up with Eugenics or scientific genocide?

I think racism ended up being falsified by debunking Darwin. Or else you follow evolution which is based on racism as humans began with a proto ape in Africa. IOW, those humans from Africa is lower on the evolutionary level according to ToE. Maybe that's it's attraction. You guys want to believe in scientific racism.

 

[pitabread]

Darwin and his family were racists.

So was a good proportion of the general population back then.

And why do you think his cousin came up with Eugenics or scientific genocide?

Came up with eugenics and genocide? Again, do you really believe these things started in the 1850's?

Are we being Poe'd or is your understanding of world history truly that abysmal?

Or else you follow evolution which is based on racism as humans began with a proto ape in Africa. IOW, those humans from Africa is lower on the evolutionary level according to ToE.

There is no "evolutionary level". This is just a strawman that creationists throw around because they don't understand anything about biology and evolution.

 

[jamesbond007]

It would have helped if you'd actually even attempt to present something that could falsifiy abiogenesis or the theory of evolution rather than just going off the rails at anyone and everyone.

You still don't get it. That is my question. One should present what would falsify abiogenesis or ToE? Then the opponents would know what they would have to do or show your theory is false. It doesn't mean that you are falsifying it. It makes for a valid theory according to Karl Popper. OTW it's something that can't be falsified and can be discarded as one could not show the truth to it either. It would all be circumstantial evidence. If evolution is fact, then one should be able to present a falsification like JBS Haldane and Richard Dawkins did.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You still don't get it. That is my question. One should present what would falsify abiogenesis or ToE? Then the opponents would know what they would have to do or show your theory is false. It doesn't mean that you are falsifying it. It makes for a valid theory according to Karl Popper. OTW it's something that can't be falsified and can be discarded as one could not show the truth to it either. It would all be circumstantial evidence. If evolution is fact, then one should be able to present a falsification like JBS Haldane and Richard Dawkins did.

Something to falsify the theory of evolution: a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layer of fossils. It's that simple.
Abiogenesis is harder to falsify since it's more of a hypothesis than a theory so it's not really something that could be readily falsified yet, as much as it's not really something that can be definitively evidenced to be a fact. Advanced life popping into existence before your eyes on another planet would probably go a long way to being good falsification.

 

[jamesbond007]

So was a good proportion of the general population back then.



Came up with eugenics and genocide? Again, do you really believe these things started in the 1850's?

Are we being Poe'd or is your understanding of world history truly that abysmal?



There is no "evolutionary level". This is just a strawman that creationists throw around because they don't understand anything about biology and evolution.

All of your arguments just sound like denial of the facts.

Even your graphs are racist.

Sexist, too?

 

[jamesbond007]

Something to falsify the theory of evolution: a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layer of fossils. It's that simple.
Abiogenesis is harder to falsify since it's more of a hypothesis than a theory so it's not really something that could be readily falsified yet, as much as it's not really something that can be definitively evidenced to be a fact. Advanced life popping into existence before your eyes on another planet would probably go a long way to being good falsification.

Now you got it! Thank you for you last statement as it means abiogenesis can be discarded as non-scientific. For example, we have no falsification for dark energy, either. It means ToE cannot explain how life started even though we are here. Even my evolution website admitted life is rare. The only thing I can think of to show abiogenesis since it can't be done on Earth is to show life in outer space or another planet. One microbe or historical evidence for it. Notice what elimination of God has done. It eliminated the falsification of abiogenesis or Genesis.

 

[Brightmoon]

What facts ? All you come up with are creationists misconceptions of evolution , other science facts , and abiogenesis that you’ve been told repeatedly were wrong . Darwin and his extended family the Wedgwood’s were an abolitionists . Darwin was more of a classist than a racist . He learned taxidermy from a Black man . Yes he was sexist all Victorian men were

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Or else you follow evolution which is based on racism as humans began with a proto ape in Africa. IOW, those humans from Africa is lower on the evolutionary level according to ToE. Maybe that's it's attraction.

And yet nowhere in modern scientific literature will you find that claim. Not in biology, not in psychology, not in any science.

Yes, people over two hundred years ago had racist views on the world. Even hundreds of years before that, their views on race were bizarre and twisted. The English thought the French were a race apart, and vice versa. It was also not helped that your own holy book, which you tout with such vehemence as perfect truth, was often used (and still is used) to try and support racism.

Why, even during the American Civil War, congressman George Pendleton of Ohio was stated as saying of the Thirteenth Amendment: "Man should not make equal that which God has made unequal".

So no, Darwin did not create the theory of evolution to be racist. In fact, evolutionary theory shows that racism is a bunk idea and worthy of ridicule and scorn.

Now you got it! Thank you for you last statement as it means abiogenesis can be discarded as non-scientific. For example, we have no falsification for dark energy, either. It means ToE cannot explain how life started even though we are here. Even my evolution website admitted life is rare. The only thing I can think of to show abiogenesis since it can't be done on Earth is to show life in outer space or another planet. One microbe or historical evidence for it. Notice what elimination of God has done. It eliminated the falsification of abiogenesis or Genesis.

No idea what dark matter has to do with the theory of evolution because that's cosmology not biology. And the theory of evolution does not explain how life started, it merely explains how life changed due to climate and environment, a fact that is readily available to anyone with the most basic of high school education. Life is not rare since it is all around us. We only think it rare because we don't know what else exists in the wider cosmos around us yet.

And Genesis can be falsified? Oh, that's easy. No genetic bottle-neck in human populations stemming from two single people and no genetic bottle-neck stemming from Noah and his family. Any attempt to say otherwise is complete nonsense and Biblical idolatry.

 

[Speedwell]

Now you got it! Thank you for you last statement as it means abiogenesis can be discarded as non-scientific. For example, we have no falsification for dark energy, either. It means ToE cannot explain how life started even though we are here. Even my evolution website admitted life is rare. The only thing I can think of to show abiogenesis since it can't be done on Earth is to show life in outer space or another planet. One microbe or historical evidence for it. Notice what elimination of God has done. It eliminated the falsification of abiogenesis or Genesis.

I suspect you have me on ignore, but maybe somebody else will repost my comment:

The assertion that the existence of God falsifies the theory of evolution is a lie.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

(For @Speedwell ) The assertion that the existence of God falsifies the theory of evolution is a lie.

 

[pitabread]

All of your arguments just sound like denial of the facts.

Except you haven't presented any facts; just a twisted view of science and history in a vain attempt at well-poisoning.

Even your graphs are racist.

Sexist, too?

There is no doubt that racism, sexism, etc., was a thing in Darwin's time. And Darwin himself was a product of his time.

However, your attempts to paint the science of evolution as being responsible for these things is without any basis whatsoever.

Heck, if want examples of racism and sexism, just try reading your own Bible.

 

[driewerf]

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.

Well... that's exactly what ken Ham did.

Oh wait, he build his ark in Kentucky, far from the sea.
Oh Wait, he had an entire crew at his disposal.
Oh wait, they used 21st century tools.
Oh wait, it never accommodated big numbers of animals with al their feed and water and waste.

 

[driewerf]

I suspect you have me on ignore, but maybe somebody else will repost my comment:

The assertion that the existence of God falsifies the theory of evolution is a lie.

Quoting Speedwell.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Looks less like POE, more like trolling to me...