Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

We can't do controlled fusion in the lab so theists need to come up with a new explanation for the sun being hot.

Fusion is a natural process that we can deal with in the present, therefore it’s dealt with by the empirical sciences, abiogenesis is a theory of origins that is not based upon any known natural process. It never ceases to amaze me just how much blind faith atheists have when it comes to the origins of life.

Call it my morality that sucks me back in every time you make a dim-witted reply, but I just can't help myself. Sadly, its 10:30 at night In VA Beach and I gotta work tomorrow. So if you are so inclined, you will have to wait until tomorrow before my strange addiction to correct ignorance takes over my necessity to sleep.

Well you seem to have quite the addiction for putting your own ignorance on display, correcting the ignorance of others is something that has yet to be observed.

This is a misunderstanding we really need to correct if we are to continue. If you continue to respond with things like this, there's really no reason for me to continue arguing with you...

You’ll run away from the debate a third time?

You seemed to miss my entire point. ALL scientific hypotheses are falsifiable.

Then abiogenesis is not a scientific hypothesis.

There is no point to persuing an understanding of an unfalsifiable claim which by nature, has nothing to understand as it cannot be tested.

Does the claim, “the scientific method has merit” itself have any merit? How do you know?

That's the difference between just chalking things you don't understand up to God, and theories that can be subjected to testing.

We’re going to have to correct your obvious misunderstanding of how Christianity works. We as Christians do not chalk that which we do not understand up to God, we chalk everything up to God, God ordains all that comes to pass.

Such as Relativity and Abiogenesis. They maintain their credibility THROUGH TESTING AND RESULTS. When something new is found that is MORE accruate, then that is accepted. Its the scientific method bro!

You just do not seem to understand how science works, it’s a bit sad. You cannot empirically test whether something happened in the past, therefore abiogenesis is not testable. You can produce all the amino acids you like in the lab but that is merely testing whether we can produce amino acids in the lab, it is in no way testing the claim that life can arise from non-life billions of years ago. I will not apologize for having a stricter definition of what actually qualifies as science than you do.

Because the Toyota Car Company exists, a product made by them, can be confirmed by them. It's not circular logic to have a verifiable object confirmed by its creator.

You’re just taking Toyota’s word for it that they indeed made your car, that’s not verification at all.

Me:Because we can go to the factory and watch them create it and witness the creation personally.

You were at the factory and saw Toyota make the very car you ended up buying later from the dealer? I do not believe you.

Me: Because by definition, if we are at the Toyota factory, and they are creating cars that they sell and own as property and products of Toyota, then the products they create, are in fact Toyotas.

Yup, but the fact that Toyota makes cars does not demonstrate that they made your car. What if Ford claimed they made your car? They do make cars you know, and we could go to the Ford factory and see them making cars.

Me: Because it's their company, and what we are ultimately trying to do is determine what products they are in fact responsible for creating...remember?

And it’s God’s universe, so we can take His word for it that He indeed did create it. Oops! Now you’ve done it.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. That's what you need to understand and accept.

It doesn’t need to be the case; we have an infallible source claiming they created the Universe. No other verification needed.

There is a difference between an unfalsifiable claim, and a verifiable and therein, potentially falsifiable claim.

Yup, but claims that are not falsifiable can still be true and still be meaningful, that’s what you do not seem to understand.

This is why this conversation is so frustrating. You don't seem to recognize the differences in the two types of claims, even though its been clearly explained, and you continue to compare them as if they were equally credible.

They are equally credible! In fact, the method of falsifying claims relies upon the truth of numerous un-falsifiable claims.

Here are a few un-falsifiable claims for you that are quite meaningful…

“Texas Sailer can trust his ability to reason.”
“Texas Sailor can generally trust the reliability of his senses.”
“Texas Sailor can generally trust the reliability of his memory.”
“the laws of logic discern truth.”
“Future trials will yield identical results as past trials under identical conditions.”
“Texas Sailor will continue to be Texas Sailor tomorrow.”
“It is justified to reason from particular experiences to general claims”

Not a single one of these is falsifiable, and yet without them the act of falsifying would be impossible. You’re welcome.