What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Bungle_Bear]

History = His story.

No, it really doesn't.

History = knowledge acquired from inquiry.

 

[VirOptimus]

History = His story.

No.

 

[loveofourlord]

How is that a falsification of evolution? All it does is show that 8 years ago, archaeologists and paleontologists found a new species of ape that existed between basal primate and modern humanity.

And also, since this does need to be pointed out a few times, the fossil of Lucy is not the be-all and end-all of evidence of Australopithecus fossils, with more than 300 different specimens being discovered.

Lucy wasn't even the first, just the most famous, the one involved in the whole creationist lie about lucies knee bone was found shortly before her.

 

[loveofourlord]

You are hopelessly confused ..

We continually access our concept of time.

Please demonstrate your evidence for your assertion that 'we do not have access to time'.

I think he means access time, as 4 dimensional beings could which is they can travel across time the same way we can travel along the 3 other dimensions. Were 3 dimensional beings in 4 dimensions. But we can't go through the 4th other then one second at a time.

 

[loveofourlord]

The fact that science rejects the word of God is hardly surprising. Science is not God and has no more authority to speak about creation than a goldfish. Evolutionists trot out the idea of falsification as if it a magic spell that makes their conclusions beyond dispute. That concept is false. I've been to the Source, God H imself

Perhaps you should consult a dictionary as I had to. Irruption: "a breaking or bursting in; a violent incursion or invasion"

Any time that relgigious say that X is outside of the science it's been shown wrong, plus it harms science and our knowledge. If we held that belief we still think the sun revolved around the earth. Or know nothing about biology and medicine.

 

[loveofourlord]

Time is a testably objective concept in science which generates abundant evidence and that is the only reason science regards time as existing.

The 'Big Bang' is a cosmological model. That model would be completely meaningless unless time is included as a dimensional attribute of that model.
Your erroneous assumption of 'no time' leads to complete gobbledygook. Which is what renders it a scientifically invalid concept.

Our minds invoke the dimension of time in order to explain the dimensionality of the spacetime model.

You erroneously assume time is a 'thing' which exists independently from our concept of it.
You have zip objective evidence for that assumption. It is nothing more than just another belief which can be put on top of the pile of all the others driving your misconceptions about what's real .. and what isn't.

I'm not even convinced time exists as anything but a concept. That it's not a actual thing, just the label we put on movement, and have long eraniously mistaken for a real thing.

 

[Mr Laurier]

The Philosophy of Science and Karl Popper tells us that the capacity to falsify or refute a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be contradicted by evidence is what is necessary to test its validity. With abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution, the advocates of their theories or what I call scientific atheism have left no room for this capacity as they assume there is no God, creator, or other supernatural presence involved.

I suppose this can be extended to the Big Bang Theory, as well, as I think Father Georges Lemaitre's theory had its falsifiability removed. We have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for it, but still no acceptance of God as falsification to Big Bang Theory. Furthermore, the creation scientists such as Edward Blyth have been relegated to second class status for natural selection when he came up with the hypothesis before Charles Darwin and John Gould (Darwin's finches ornithologist and bird artist). I think even Darwin read the writings of Blyth on natural selection and took his ideas of natural selection from him.

Thus, my argument is how can abiogenesis, ToE, Big Bang, and even Darwin's explanation for evolution by natural selection be falsified if the creator or God have been systematically eliminated from the beginning (since 1850s)? The creation scientist, or those who believe in God (such as Edward Blyth), have been eliminated from peer review today.

Mr Darwin believed in "God". He was a devout christian for most of his life, and even in his last years continued to insist that a god was necessary.
Darwin also acknowledged his debt to Mr Blyth. And to Mr Matthew. And to Mr Lamarke.

If you want to falsify evolution, produce a crocoduck. Or a chimera. Or a cat giving birth to a dog.

 

[Mr Laurier]

We have plenty of evidence for God the creator such as the Bible and how it backs up science. Also, we find intelligence behind the beauty and complexity of nature.

You have a book of mythology, translated and edited to serve the agenda of kings, emperors, and popes.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want to falsify evolution, produce a crocoduck.

Will a platypus do? or will it just be labeled a "monotreme" (i.e., "specialized") and forgotten?

 

[driewerf]

Will a platypus do? or will it just be labeled a "monotreme" (i.e., "specialized") and forgotten?

Is the platypus forgotten? That's strange. Nearly every biology textbook that I have seen mentions the platypus, and a google search gives 14 million hits. That's hardly forgotten.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have a book of mythology, translated and edited to serve the agenda of kings, emperors, and popes.

If you're referring to the Bible, is that why the common people went to their deaths? believing a book of mythology, translated and edited to serve the agenda of kings, emperors, and popes; said agenda being the martyrdom of the common people who believed the very book of mythology that gives said leaders the agenda to martyr them?

Knocking on castle door: "Hello!? I'm a commoner, and I believe your book of mythology! Carry out your agenda from it on me, please!"

 

[AV1611VET]

Is the platypus forgotten? That's strange. nearly every biology textbook that I have ssen mentions the platypus, and a google search givs 14 million hits. That's hardly forgotten.

By "forgotten," I meant the issue of it being an example of creation hand waved away.

For example, I believe that if a crocoduck was truly found ... it would just be labeled "specialized," and that would be the end of it.

Ditto for rabbits in the preCambrian, the owlcat, the apewalrus, and anything else science can sweep under the rug.

 

[Speedwell]

If you're referring to the Bible, is that why the common people went to their deaths? believing a book of mythology, translated and edited to serve the agenda of kings, emperors, and popes; said agenda being the martyrdom of the common people who believed the very book of mythology that gives said leaders the agenda to martyr them?

Knocking on castle door: "Hello!? I'm a commoner, and I believe your book of mythology! Carry out your agenda from it on me, please!"

Christian martyrs didn't die for the Bible, they died for Christ. People didn't even start worshipping the Bible instead of Christ until after the Reformation and certainly very few (if any) have died for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Christian martyrs didn't die for the Bible, they died for Christ. People didn't even start worshipping the Bible instead of Christ until after the Reformation and certainly very few (if any) have died for it.

Uh-huh. And I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[Speedwell]

Uh-huh. And I'm Genghis Khan.

So who are these martyrs to the Bible we've never heard about?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Will a platypus do? or will it just be labeled a "monotreme" (i.e., "specialized") and forgotten?

Neither.
A Platypus is, by definition, already a monotreme. And is a distinct clade already. It is not a composite made by grafting parts of other animals into a new animal.

 

[Mr Laurier]

If you're referring to the Bible, is that why the common people went to their deaths? believing a book of mythology, translated and edited to serve the agenda of kings, emperors, and popes; said agenda being the martyrdom of the common people who believed the very book of mythology that gives said leaders the agenda to martyr them?

Knocking on castle door: "Hello!? I'm a commoner, and I believe your book of mythology! Carry out your agenda from it on me, please!"

Huh? That would be one of the books. Alongside the Q'Ran.

You are so far out of the park, you are not even in the same city.
Said agenda has NEVER BEEN the martyrdom pf any common people. Rather the accumulation of wealth and power for a small class of people.

Knocking on castle door: "Hello!? I'm a commoner, and I believe your book of mythology! Carry out your agenda from it on me, please!"
Gets a bill for rent and taxes.

 

[Astrid]

Parts of the theory of evolution has holes and are falsifiable. Evolution as adaptation to an environment, changes in diet, natural selection, and interbreeding, has been observed. Although these are just examples of microevolution, and not macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution has not been observed, is arguable, and probably always will be because you can't test the DNA of fossils, and there just isn't enough evidence in the fossil record to prove it true. There are many people that believe in evolution and God, and it doesn't hinder their faith.

Every field of study has holes, every theory is falsifiable.
Nothing is proved science.
"Mscroevolution" is the only remotely reasonable explanation
for the fossil record. Anything is " arguable " but
argument says substance is vapid.
The only faith threatened by ToE is the faith of
uneducated and / or intellectually dishonest people
in their personal infallibility.

 

[Mr Laurier]

By "forgotten," I meant the issue of it being an example of creation hand waved away.

For example, I believe that if a crocoduck was truly found ... it would just be labeled "specialized," and that would be the end of it.

Ditto for rabbits in the preCambrian, the owlcat, the apewalrus, and anything else science can sweep under the rug.

If a crocoduck were found, all of evolutionary biology would be dumped immediately.
We would all become creationists.

 

[loveofourlord]

Mr Darwin believed in "God". He was a devout christian for most of his life, and even in his last years continued to insist that a god was necessary.
Darwin also acknowledged his debt to Mr Blyth. And to Mr Matthew. And to Mr Lamarke.

If you want to falsify evolution, produce a crocoduck. Or a chimera. Or a cat giving birth to a dog.

well we DID find the duckcroc does that count? :> hehe Nice to see someone use their own stupid strawman back at them hehe :> Surprised no ones tried to disprove evolution using the platypus in ages here.

spoke too soon...hehe :>