What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[renniks]

If some sort of god or superbeing wants to mess with any of these things we are studying it will make it impossible for our methods to work. Such changes would be outside the scope of what science can examine.

Backwards thinking. The point is God made the things we are studying. The very laws of nature point to a lawmaker. Order instead of chaos points to a intelligent being designing the universe. This isn't outside science it's why science works. Or at least real observable science, not darwinism.

 

[renniks]

The problem with intelligent design is that it can explain everything.

When ID enthusiasts examines an image of bacteria with flagella, like this one

View attachment 297648

they will usually default to intelligent design because their belief leads them to expect design. For others who have a bit of knowledge of evolution of living organisms understand that the flagella evolved via natural processes.

Because they are pre disposed to accept the darwinistic explanation, they assume some process started itself...

 

[VirOptimus]

Because they are pre disposed to accept the darwinistic explanation, they assume some process started itself...

Thats not how science works.

 

[Astrid]

Thats not how science works.

Creationists think science is intellectually
bankrupt because otherwise they'd have to face that
It is what they are.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists think science is intellectually bankrupt ...

Only where it contradicts the Bible.

... because if not they'd have to face that
that they are.

I'd rather be intellectually bankrupt than spiritually bankrupt.

 

[renniks]

Thats not how science works.

Darwinism isn't science, then.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Darwinism isn't science, then.

"Darwinism" doesn't sound like the name of a science. Probably, because that's not what evolutionary biology is called.

Calling evolution "Darwinism" is inaccurate and only serves to muddy the waters. Clear and accurate terminology is very useful to discussion.

 

[renniks]

"Darwinism" doesn't sound like the name of a science. Probably, because that's not what evolutionary biology is called.

Calling evolution "Darwinism" is inaccurate and only serves to muddy the waters. Clear and accurate terminology is very useful to discussion.

It doesn't matter what it's called. What matters is what ideas influenced the theory.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

It doesn't matter what it's called. What matters is what ideas influenced the theory.

You mean observation of reality and building testable hypotheses.

 

[Mr Laurier]

It doesn't matter what it's called. What matters is what ideas influenced the theory.

And those ideas are...
-Living things reproduce imperfect copies of themselves.
-Those copies that survive may have novel traits that help them reproduce more successfully.
-Environment can exert pressure on a population, to favour a particular set of novel traits.

 

[renniks]

You mean observation of reality and building testable hypotheses.

No I mean Darwins faulty premise of gradual evolution

 

[Mr Laurier]

No I mean Darwins faulty premise of gradual evolution

How was it "faulty"?

 

[Speedwell]

No I mean Darwins faulty premise of gradual evolution

It wasn't a premise. It was a conclusion he drew from less data than we have now. Now we know that evolution is still gradual, but not always slow.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No I mean Darwins faulty premise of gradual evolution

Any of Darwin's ideas that are faulty should be (and are) discarded. That's why evolution is a science and not a dogma, and why we don't call it "Darwinism", but rather use a descriptive label like "evolution".

 

[Bradskii]

Note the date of that post (7 February 2009).It sure is, as you are demonstrating.

Pointing out that you were obviously being called out 12 years ago for the same thing doesn't absolve you from thinking that enough time had passed to give your views another airing.

It's kinda wierd that you want to tell us 'Hey, I did it before as well' as some form of defence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pointing out that you were obviously being called out 12 years ago for the same thing doesn't absolve you from thinking that enough time had passed to give your views another airing.

It's kinda wierd that you want to tell us 'Hey, I did it before as well' as some form of defence.

Like I said, Brad ... keep posting ... you'll say something right about me eventually.

2009
2015
2016

Changed your mind yet?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Backwards thinking. The point is God made the things we are studying. The very laws of nature point to a lawmaker. Order instead of chaos points to a intelligent being designing the universe. This isn't outside science it's why science works. Or at least real observable science, not darwinism.

Whether or not the laws of nature (or rather physics) were set by a god or came about naturally through some unknown mechanism is irrelevant to the practice of science. The only assumption is that the laws are regular and that things that appear to be natural can be tested against that background.

Study of species evolution follows this pattern. So does the study of abiogenesis (though no complete, plausible sequence has been assembled), so does the study of the expansion of the universe from a hot, dense state (the big bang theory, cosmology).

The methods and results of science are compatible with a completely natural universe, they do not require or exclude the god hypothesis, but they don't need it.

 

[Bradskii]

Like I said, Brad ... keep posting ... you'll say something right about me eventually.

2009
2015
2016

Changed your mind yet?

You show me yet more examples over a period of 12 years of what you did just a few days ago. And you take umbrage at the very suggestion that you were completely innocent of any ulterior motives. That it was just 'an author's choice' or whatever term you made up. And heaven forbid that you could by slyly insinuating some connection with social darwinism. Heavens no.

Depite this sparkling gem from years ago: 'Was Hitler building a better species?'

Good grief. You'd bring the rope to your own hanging.

 

[AV1611VET]

You show me yet more examples over a period of 12 years of what you did just a few days ago. And you take umbrage at the very suggestion that you were completely innocent of any ulterior motives.

Brad, I don't know what your problem is, but this conversation is now getting older than the both of us put together, and I'm about ready to end it.

You said:

You were found out. You should have checked the meaning of the phrase before you started. But I guess you had no reason to. You didn't realise what it meant until you were called out. At least you have learned something about the book today.

No.

1. I didn't learn something about the book today. I've known it for over a decade.
2. I'm not sure what you mean by, "You were found out," but don't bother explaining it.
3. Yes, I knew the meaning of the phrase well before I started.
4. I'm "called out" on it every time I use it, but to say I didn't know it before I used it is fallacious.

Now ... if you have something concrete to say, say it.

Otherwise I'm going to stop here before you paint yourself into a tighter corner.

 

[Bradskii]

Otherwise I'm going to stop here....

Definitely a wise choice.