What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Speedwell]

No, because I admit I have faith. The people arguing for evolution claim they have facts. What they really have is some information and a lot of speculation.

Yes, we have facts--and a plausible and a so far uncontradicted explanation for them. You have faith that an ancient Hebrew text can only be understood as one particular literary genre. I think that sums up the "gap" between creationists and non-creationists we have been discussing in the other thread pretty well.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No argument there.

Science isn't omniscient, it is myopic.

We have corrective lenses for myopia. (They're based on the science of "optics". See Newton, Franklin, etc.)

 

[AV1611VET]

We have corrective lenses for myopia. (They're based on the science of "optics". See Newton, Franklin, etc.)

Uh-huh.

What's this?

 

[renniks]

Yes, we have facts--and a plausible and a so far uncontradicted explanation for them

Uncontradicted? Hardly. And you can not call it both a theory and a fact.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Uh-huh.

What's this?

Looks like a planetary nebula to me.

Are we going to play "identify the things I've got pictures of" now?

 

[renniks]

No, you were told that theories are not facts.

No proof equals no facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Looks like a planetary nebula to me.

Are we going to play "identify the things I've got pictures of" now?

It is called "The Eye of God Nebula."

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is called "The Eye of God Nebula."

Actually it's called "NGC 7293" or the "Helix Nebula". Like I said -- a planetary nebula.

Some good optics (and a CCD plus a few filters) are needed to make a picture like this. I'm not sure what you point was.

 

[sjastro]

It is called "The Eye of God Nebula."

No its proper name is NGC 7293.

The Hubble image is a narrow-band image.
Here is an image of mine of NGC 7293 taken with broad-band filters.

 

[Frank Robert]

Yes, science comes with an escape hatch.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is having a "built-in self-correction" .

 

[AV1611VET]

Science isn't omniscient, it is myopic.

We have corrective lenses for myopia. (They're based on the science of "optics". See Newton, Franklin, etc.)

Uh-huh.

What's this?

It is called "The Eye of God Nebula."

Actually it's called "NGC 7293" or the "Helix Nebula".

No its proper name is NGC 7293.

Thanks for the QED, fellas.

Here's another one:

Parse this sentence as you see it: GODISNOWHERE.

 

[Frank Robert]

No, because I admit I have faith.

Then why demean value of belief & faith by ridiculing science as belief and/or faith?

The people arguing for evolution claim they have facts. What they really have is some information and a lot of speculation.

What don't you understand about speculation being the road to hypotheses and hypotheses build the road to theories?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thanks for the QED, fellas.

"QED" comes after a logical proof. What exactly do you think you're proving. The main problem with your "games" is that it is rarely clear what on earth you are trying to demonstrate or prove.

 

[AV1611VET]

What exactly do you think you're proving.

That science is myopic.

What is this, and how did it get here?

 

[Frank Robert]

Lol, I was just told there are no facts in science... you all need to make up your minds.

The definition for a scientific fact is accepted reality. What your definition for a fact?

 

[Hans Blaster]

That science is myopic.

What is this, and how did it get here?

So we are going to play "identify my pictures".

That looks like the Grand Canyon of the Colorado. If so, it is an erosion feature caused by the uplift of the Colorado plateau while the river continued to cut through it.

 

[Speedwell]

Uncontradicted? Hardly. And you can not call it both a theory and a fact.

No, "facts" refers to the physical evidence. "Theory" refers to the explanation for those facts, the physical evidence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That science is myopic.

Some scientists have myopia, but that's why we wear corrective lenses.

 

[Frank Robert]

Which I just said with less words...
It's all theories. It's not proven facts.

Your arguing against science being self-correcting.

Next week or next year there will be new theories.

What do you have against progress?

 

[AV1611VET]

That looks like the Grand Canyon of the Colorado. If so, it is an erosion feature caused by the uplift of the Colorado plateau while the river continued to cut through it.

One more question please?

What are these for?

(Notice I said, what are they for?)