What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[renniks]

They agree not to. It's part of the statement of belief they have to agree to before working with the organization. No evidence can be considered nor conclusion drawn which contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis. You cannot impose such a preconceived limitation on your work and still be said to be doing science.

You mean like the other side does with Darwinism? They presuppose that whatever evidence they find fits into the Darwinian worldview. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Speedwell]

Of course it's random. What force is picking one mutation over another? Who is doing the selection? If one of our chickens has some random mutation that give it a tumor or one short leg or some other malfunction, that isn't a gain, that's a loss and the end result is just a shortening of it's lifespan. The Xmen don't exist. Look around you.

And if it has some random mutation which causes it to lay more eggs? That bird's genetic line is more likely to survive.

 

[Speedwell]

You mean like the other side does with Darwinism? They presuppose that whatever evidence they find fits into the Darwinian worldview. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

Oooo! Is it a conspiracy?

But what in the world is the "Darwinian worldview?"

 

[Astrid]

Agnosticism simply means I don't know which does not exclude feelings of awe. That probably makes me an enchanted agnostic.

Feeling awe requires having some idea of what you
are witnessing.

 

[renniks]

Oooo! Is it a conspiracy?

But what in the world is the "Darwinian worldview?"

Again, you think the other view is a conspiracy, don't you? And you know exactly what the Darwinian worldview is.

 

[renniks]

And if it has some random mutation which causes it to lay more eggs? That bird's genetic line is more likely to survive.

Um, no it's more likely that bird will die young from stress.

 

[Frank Robert]

According to you. Because why? Only because they don't accept your hypothesis of origins. Which doesn't mean they can't use the scientific method.

I am not asking anyone to accept or reject the ToE. All I saying is they (DI, AIG and ICR) have not put forth a scientific hypothesis, all their articles are about apologetics. I can imagine some there are ways of phasing apologetics as an hypothesis and subject it to the scientific method, but to my knowledge they have done so. Put it to the test and ask them to give you an example of a creationist scientific hypothesis.

I just remembered that there is a current topic at Peaceful Science "Is Creationism actually science?" It was started by a Progressive Creationist and there are several other creationists involved so if you joined in you won't be alone.

 

[Speedwell]

Again, you think the other view is a conspiracy, don't you? And you know exactly what the Darwinian worldview is.

No, I don't. "Darwinism" is the creationist label for the theory of evolution, but a single scientific theory about biology is hardly a worldview and the theory doesn't apply any place but biology.

 

[Frank Robert]

Feeling awe requires having some idea of what you
are witnessing.

My thinking is more like the Tao and enjoying life regardless of the circumstances.

 

[Frank Robert]

Of course it's random. What force is picking one mutation over another?

I asked you before. What traits would you not select in a mate?

Who is doing the selection?

Who gets to choose you as a mate?

If one of our chickens has some random mutation that give it a tumor or one short leg or some other malfunction, that isn't a gain, that's a loss and the end result is just a shortening of it's lifespan.

You answered your own question. A shorter life span means less opportunity to pass the mutation on to offspring.

The Xmen don't exist. Look around you.

You haven't met my dinosaurs.

 

[Shemjaza]

Funny thing is, atheist will believe that the universe came from nothing based on someone's speculation. They will believe life came from nothing. But they won't believe that a man came back to life even with eyewitness accounts.
They will believe we know what animals were around 64 million years ago. But they won't believe in a book that's the most documented history book of all time.

Lies.

I don't think the universe came from nothing... I have no idea how the universe started. But the evidence demonstrates that the expansion called the big bang occurred about 14 billion years ago and that demonstrates that the Creationist account is false.

I think life cam from chemistry... because it still functions on chemistry and we have evidence that the chemistry that life needs to exist is both common and can increase in complexity in pretense of energy.

What eye witness accounts, Specifically? Records of beliefs about anonymous accounts, that were passed down orally from a generation or more earlier are a far step from eye witness accounts.

On their own they are no more compelling than any other religion or alien abductions.

As to what life existed 64 million years ago, we have evidence. We have fossil remains, we have sedimentary layers demonstrating climate and we have comparative genetics of modern species.

These are not guesses and they aren't just speculation... they are conclusions drawn from evidence.

That's a lie. The creationists use scientific methods also, they just plug their findings into a different model.

I've seen no evidence for this. I've only ever seen the unshakable assumption that a literal reading of the Bible must be correct.

If not can you describe evidence that would disprove that interpretation?

You mean like the other side does with Darwinism? They presuppose that whatever evidence they find fits into the Darwinian worldview. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

Nonsense. Evolution is a conclusion from almost two hundred years of evidence... it's accepted because it's the best explanation not because it's a point of faith.

 

[Astrid]

My thinking is more like the Tao and enjoying life regardless of the circumstances.

Seems tricky to appreciate something if you're no clue what it is.

 

[driewerf]

Okay ... thank you.

Just out of curiosity. Did you thank me for answering your question about "a" or "an, or did you thank me for changing inane for nonsensical?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just out of curiosity. Did you thank me for answering your question about "a" or "an, or did you thank me for changing inane for nonsensical?

"A" vs "an".

 

[Astrid]

Lies.

I don't think the universe came from nothing... I have no idea how the universe started. But the evidence demonstrates that the expansion called the big bang occurred about 14 billion years ago and that demonstrates that the Creationist account is false.

I think life cam from chemistry... because it still functions on chemistry and we have evidence that the chemistry that life needs to exist is both common and can increase in complexity in pretense of energy.

What eye witness accounts, Specifically? Records of beliefs about anonymous accounts, that were passed down orally from a generation or more earlier are a far step from eye witness accounts.

On their own they are no more compelling than any other religion or alien abductions.

As to what life existed 64 million years ago, we have evidence. We have fossil remains, we have sedimentary layers demonstrating climate and we have comparative genetics of modern species.

These are not guesses and they aren't just speculation... they are conclusions drawn from evidence.



I've seen no evidence for this. I've only ever seen the unshakable assumption that a literal reading of the Bible must be correct.

If not can you describe evidence that would disprove that interpretation?



Nonsense. Evolution is a conclusion from almost two hundred years of evidence... it's accepted because it's the best explanation not because it's a point of faith.

Givc a poor creo a break. If they cannot make things up
(Or just let someone else make things up,then parrot
them) they are left with nothing to say.

The claim that every scientist in all the fields related to evolution-physics,
chemistry etc- are dishonorable hacks doing anti science is a bit thick
though. How could any sane person actually believe that?

I wonder if it's an insidious process,
once a few creolies are accepted ,easy
coz the are what them itching ears want to
hear - it gets to where the most outlandish
craziness is quite palatable.

 

[AV1611VET]

Give a poor creo a break. If they cannot make things up (Or just let someone else make things up, then parrot them.) they are left with nothing to say.

What should we do when someone asks questions that aren't in the Bible?

We don't get questions like: "Who built the Ark?"

We get questions like: "How did all those animals fit on the Ark?"

Many times I get the impression that someone has asked me a "gotcha question," only to be met with some speculative assumption on my part that sounds plausible.

In short, I'm not afraid to speculate; and I have even incorporated it into my heuristics:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate

Sure ... I'll take flack for it; but I'm not going to just roll over and let scholarly questions -- (many of them good ones) -- steamroll over me.

 

[renniks]

Nonsense. Evolution is a conclusion from almost two hundred years of evidence... it's accepted because it's the best explanation not because it's a point of faith.

Which is just another way of saying they are taught to accept it as fact.

 

[renniks]

don't think the universe came from nothing... I have no idea how the universe started. But the evidence demonstrates that the expansion called the big bang occurred about 14 billion years ago and that demonstrates that the Creationist account is false.

No it doesn't. The Bible doesn't say when the universe was created.

 

[renniks]

You haven't met my dinosaurs.

Birds are still birds.

 

[Shemjaza]

Which is just another way of saying they are taught to accept it as fact.

False. They are taught what the evidence that was found was and how it demonstrates the conclusion.

That's an advantage of science, the evidence isn't gone, you can review it yourself.

No it doesn't. The Bible doesn't say when the universe was created.

Most literalist Creationists would disagree.

Evidence doesn't demonstrate a primordial ocean splitting into sky and sea or the land existing before the sun and stars.