What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

You probably have some obscure case in which that may have happened so let's hear about it.

Roe v Wade

Is that obscure enough?

Here's another one:

Italian seismologists cleared of manslaughter

 

[renniks]

[

please identify these "assumptions" you speak of.

1.F.M. Wuketits, an evolution theorist, writes [W5, p. 11]: “We pre-suppose the essential correctness of biological evolution, yes, we assume that evolution is universally valid.”

: Evolution is a universal principle: “The principle of development not only holds for life on earth; it extends much further. It is quite clearly the most widely valid principle imaginable, because it encompasses the entire universe. . . . All of reality around us is characterized by a history of self-development. Biological evolution is only part of this universal process” (Hoimar von Ditfurth; [D3, p. 22]).


One should not drag in a creator (or synonyms such as designer, planning spirit, or “demiurge”). Ernest Kahane, a French molecular biologist, formulates it as follows [S5, p. 16]: “It is absurd and absolutely preposterous to believe that a living cell could come into existence by itself; but, notwithstanding, I do believe it, because I cannot imagine anything else.”
Another Assumption follows as a consequence :
This world, including all living organisms, is based exclusively on matter and materialistic principles.

Another assumption:Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the more complex, from non-life to life, from lower to higher life-forms.

How many more do you want?

 

[Speedwell]

You probably have some obscure case in which that may have happened so let's hear about it.

You shouldn't have said that. Now we'll get to hear about the Hindenburg (scientists claimed that hydrogen was safe and uninflammable) and Thalidomide (scientists claimed it was safe and had no side effects).

 

[Speedwell]

[

1.F.M. Wuketits, an evolution theorist, writes [W5, p. 11]: “We pre-suppose the essential correctness of biological evolution, yes, we assume that evolution is universally valid.”

: Evolution is a universal principle: “The principle of development not only holds for life on earth; it extends much further. It is quite clearly the most widely valid principle imaginable, because it encompasses the entire universe. . . . All of reality around us is characterized by a history of self-development. Biological evolution is only part of this universal process” (Hoimar von Ditfurth; [D3, p. 22]).


One should not drag in a creator (or synonyms such as designer, planning spirit, or “demiurge”). Ernest Kahane, a French molecular biologist, formulates it as follows [S5, p. 16]: “It is absurd and absolutely preposterous to believe that a living cell could come into existence by itself; but, notwithstanding, I do believe it, because I cannot imagine anything else.”
Another Assumption follows as a consequence :
This world, including all living organisms, is based exclusively on matter and materialistic principles.

Another assumption:Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the more complex, from non-life to life, from lower to higher life-forms.

How many more do you want?

Those are all interesting opinions, but what makes you think that they are widely held or normative?

 

[renniks]

About what?

About God.

 

[renniks]

Those are all interesting opinions, but what makes you think that they are widely held or normative?

It's obvious. You can't get the whole muck to us model without those assumptions.

 

[Frank Robert]

Roe v Wade

Is that obscure enough?

Here's another one:

Italian seismologists cleared of manslaughter

Those are legal decisions not scientific ones.

 

[Speedwell]

It's obvious. You can't get the whole muck to us model without those assumptions.

Yes, you can. Metaphysical materialism is not a requirement for doing science.

 

[Speedwell]

About God.

So you believe.

 

[Astrid]

I can make a pretty good guess. But you aren't likely to find a bone even 50 years old just laying out somewhere. They degrade pretty fast. That's why fossils aren't generally bones that just laid there and got covered by leaves or whatever, those are long gone.

So you kinda noticed (50 years is way way too long) how bones
disintegrate.

You did not, as researchers have longvsince done, is to set out bones of
different sorts in different localities and meticulously record the stages of
disintegration. So a forensic pathologist with LAPD won't just be guessing
about the time a body was tossed in the desert.

I am relating this to a fossil site where largely disintegrsted bones
are found together with one's perfectly intact ones.

Would you agree that the animals died at different times?

If you found gouges on some of the bones that match the pattern
known to all who have seen what dogs do to bones, would you
attribute the marks to some animal's chewing?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Roe v Wade

Is that obscure enough?

Here's another one:

Italian seismologists cleared of manslaughter

So no case of scientists playing footsie with labels. Just an un-obscure American court case, and an obscure Italian court case.

 

[AV1611VET]

You shouldn't have said that. Now we'll get to hear about the Hindenburg (scientists claimed that hydrogen was safe and uninflammable) and Thalidomide (scientists claimed it was safe and had no side effects).

I never said scientists said that hydrogen was safe and uninflammable.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those are legal decisions not scientific ones.

Wouldn't it be nice if science had some organization it was accountable to for?

 

[AV1611VET]

So no case of scientists playing footsie with labels.

Just "child in the womb" relabeled to "fetus," and L'Aquila labeled "safe."

That's all.

ETA: I could go on about Thalidomide labeled a prenatal wonder drug, Pluto labeled our ninth planet, and the Titanic labeled "unsinkable," but I won't.

And remember those famous last words some heard? "Go with throttle-up"?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Wouldn't it be nice if science had some organization it was accountable to for?

Alas, they only have humanity.

 

[Astrid]

[

1.F.M. Wuketits, an evolution theorist, writes [W5, p. 11]: “We pre-suppose the essential correctness of biological evolution, yes, we assume that evolution is universally valid.”

: Evolution is a universal principle: “The principle of development not only holds for life on earth; it extends much further. It is quite clearly the most widely valid principle imaginable, because it encompasses the entire universe. . . . All of reality around us is characterized by a history of self-development. Biological evolution is only part of this universal process” (Hoimar von Ditfurth; [D3, p. 22]).


One should not drag in a creator (or synonyms such as designer, planning spirit, or “demiurge”). Ernest Kahane, a French molecular biologist, formulates it as follows [S5, p. 16]: “It is absurd and absolutely preposterous to believe that a living cell could come into existence by itself; but, notwithstanding, I do believe it, because I cannot imagine anything else.”
Another Assumption follows as a consequence :
This world, including all living organisms, is based exclusively on matter and materialistic principles.

Another assumption:Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the more complex, from non-life to life, from lower to higher life-forms.

How many more do you want?

How do any of those working assumptions interfere with doing science?

It is, btw, totally unfair and nothing but a direct
accusation of total professional
and intellectual dishonesty (based on an unevidenced assumption on your
part) that researchers are well trained tp
only see what they set out to see.

It is a 100 percent violation of the most
basic concept in science, which is to
make every feasible effort to be objective.
Knowing about confirmation bias, knowing
the easiest person to fool is one's self.
Knowing that only bad science can come from
a failure of objectivity, knowing one's career can be
ruined by such failure.

Religion on the other hand, does the opposite.
FAITH is a highest virtue. Believe, the more
absurd the better, as a recent thread here promoted.

Believe despite all evidence, believe with
no evidence. Never ever give in.

It's weird to falsely attribute to othrrs as a
vice what the religious think is a highest virtue
in themselves.

 

[renniks]

So you believe.

So I observe every time I go outside.

 

[renniks]

It is a 100 percent violation of the most
basic concept in science, which is to
make every feasible effort to be objective.
Knowing about confirmation bias, knowing
the easiest person to fool is one's self.
Knowing that only bad science can come from
a failure of objectivity, knowing one's career can be
ruined by such failure.

Lol, knowing one's career can and will be ruined by not accepting Darwinism, no doubt fuels many to modify their findings.

 

[renniks]

Believe despite all evidence

No, I believe in part, because of all the evidence pointing to God existing. There is no evidence for the absence of a Creator.

 

[VirOptimus]

Lol, knowing one's career can and will be ruined by not accepting Darwinism, no doubt fuels many to modify their findings.

No, thats not how science works. Isnt there some kind of rule about lying in your religion?