What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Speedwell]

They understand it the same way anyone does. They just disagree that it can account for major changes, like one kind of animal to another kind.

There are no major changes, just a lot of small ones.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can we please stop co-opting third graders into the discussion. Make your own arguments. Third graders as a proxy?
Really?

...no true Third Grader (NTS fallacy)
...all Third Graders agree (appeal to authority???)
...you sound like a Third Grader (argumentum ad hominem)

Sheesh!

I know, I know, he brought it up and I responded in kind. Unfortunately we have another creationist that claims his beliefs are logical but refuses to learn even the basics of science, let alone the basics of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They understand it the same way anyone does. They just disagree that it can account for major changes, like one kind of animal to another kind.

And to add on to the previous post responding to you, there is no "change of kind". Evolution does not have that. You are still an ape, you are merely a different ape from chimpanzees, bonobos etc.. You are still a primate, you are just a different primate from lemurs, monkeys, etc. You are still a mammal, you are just a different mammal than cows and cats. The list goes on with bigger and bigger groups. When you say "change of kind" you lose the debate.

 

[SelfSim]

explain please? I'm generally following you, but?

'Nature' and 'reality' are words .. they convey meaning amongst us humans. The meaning of those words amongst objective thinkers, (ie: scientists), has overlaps and differences from the common language meanings. In science (eg: Physics), the meanings are constantly under review. Those meanings depend on physical models corroborated by empirical testing of them.

Some people throw around words as though the meanings of them are somehow 'intrinsic' and were mysteriously uncovered as though they are some kind of fairy dust floating around in the aether, and then simply put in a book called a dictionary or something. They are anything but intrinsic .. and in science the meanings come following lots of hard work, sometimes, over many years and generations of testing ideas. The meanings of the 'reality' and 'nature' words do not escape that process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have. The discussions with Lawrence specifically are in willessees book. Remember him? Pictures in teserorieros. Several videos.
It even went on Fox News for an hour!
None of you look at the evidence then you say “ there’s no evidence”

As the bible says : “ seek, and ye will find” ;-)

Not recently. You have only made claims. Your Shroud claims were refuted with sources. When it comes to your claims, not so much.

And you do not seem to understand the concept of evidence. Would you care to discuss it?

 

[SelfSim]

Faith as big as a mustard seed can move mountains.

Odd that no mountains have been moved that way.

Cute phrases like: 'Faith as big as a mustard seed can move mountains', are easy to digest for non-thinkers and are the primary reason behind the propagation of pseudoscience, along with the equally nonsense term of: 'alternative facts'. Truisms also fall into that same category.

Metaphors such as 'mustard seed' might be the staple diet for non-thinkers but 'what a mountain is', is no metaphor!

 

[SelfSim]

And you do not seem to understand the concept of evidence.

Its taken me a quite a long time to come around to that view (due to my giving benefit of the doubt to those who throw around the term without stopping to clarify what they mean when they use it).
However, thanks to MM, he's recently made it crystal clear .. via his quest for 'a truth' in the shroud matter.

 

[Astrid]

And to add on to the previous post responding to you, there is no "change of kind". Evolution does not have that. You are still an ape, you are merely a different ape from chimpanzees, bonobos etc.. You are still a primate, you are just a different primate from lemurs, monkeys, etc. You are still a mammal, you are just a different mammal than cows and cats. The list goes on with bigger and bigger groups. When you say "change of kind" you lose the debate.

Of course there is no change of kind.
A katydid or dragonfly is still insect- kind.
An amphibian is still fish- kind, a bird is dinosaur-
kind.
It's what we been trying to tell them for so
long!! They almost get it, "no change of kind"
but, I guess the are just too egotistical for that
final epiphany.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It was. Then quietly forgotten. Like many others.
Atheists don’t want the truth: they want confirmation.

there is nothing woo woo about forensics.
Many qualified pathologists were involved in analysing many phenomena.

[SNIP]

nothing woo woo. Just good forensics.
Like most atheists your faith won’t let you look at it objectively.

This thread is about falsification of scientific theories in the creation/evolution debate, not "atheism".

Quit dragging "atheists" into your argument. None of your arguments are about the existence or believe in a god, ergo, the "atheism" of some of your sparring partners is irrelevant.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I loved his fantasy novels... and they aren't all for teens. Did you even read the space trilogy? And he wrote a lot more than fantasy.
Actually, I think Chesterton, one of the other writers in Lewis' circle of friends, said it best when he said the Materialist,( by which he meant the one believing in only a material universe,) was a very narrow-minded person, much more narrow-minded than the theist.

I only read a chunk of the Lion & the closet one that was part of our 6th grade lit. reader. I thought it was dreadful, but then, i don't care for fantasy.

 

[Astrid]

I only read a chunk of the Lion & the closet one that was part of our 6th grade lit. reader. I thought it was dreadful, but then, i don't care for fantasy.

I was 13 when I tried.
Totally not fot me either.

 

[renniks]

Nope, it is classic God of the Gaps. Your argument amounts to "I do not understand how this could have happened naturally, therefore God did it!"

You do not understand evolution, you do not understand abiogenesis, you do not understand the Big Bang. The problem with the God of the Gaps argument that you use is when others understand something that you do not it makes God look less and less likely as an answer to anything.

Lol, " you just don't understand. " That's all you know how to say. You understand nothing.

 

[renniks]

Odd that no mountains have been moved that way.

And how would you know? Are you omniscient?

 

[renniks]

I only read a chunk of the Lion & the closet one that was part of our 6th grade lit. reader. I thought it was dreadful, but then, i don't care for fantasy.

You should read his "mere Christianity."

 

[Hans Blaster]

You should read his "mere Christianity."

Dull title. What's it about?

 

[Shemjaza]

Pretty sure he has a book or two. I haven't read them.

It's very telling that firstly you don't know the supposed evidence linking physics to evidence for theology; and secondly that the author has published "a book or two" rather than a series of peer reviewed papers that have changed all physics forever.

Rael has published a book or two and he thinks Intelligent Design is proof of an eternal atheist universe and kindly space aliens.

Evidence is what science has and so far its detractors seem to only claim... til they need to present it and then it either doesn't matter or there's a conspiracy.

 

[renniks]

Dull title. What's it about?

I bet you can guess. Hint: It's not about Buddhism.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Dull title. What's it about?

Here. Just watch "An Atheist Reads" chapter by chapter take down of Mere Christianity.

There are some authors that this tuber shows no respect to but he honestly respects Lewis' writing. Nevertheless, one can only consider Lewis convincing if one is already a believer--like any book of apologetics.

 

[AV1611VET]

Odd that no mountains have been moved that way.

Are you sure?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you sure?

Yeah, that would sort of leave a mark.