(May 6, 2013 at 7:31 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: So the theory that it took mmillions of years for life to evolve is busted because science cannot yet speed the process up any further beyond showing that nonliving compounds can develop into all that is needed for more complex ones to ultimately evolve?

According to your own postulated standard that we can only believe that which we can experience, then yes. Do not blame me for the fact that you obviously cannot play the game by your own set of absurd rules. I find it amusing that falsifiability is one of your criteria for a valid belief and yet there’s apparently no way in your mind that abiogenesis could ever be falsified.

Quote: You take the position that because they didn't produce a human baby in their pitri dish, that biogenesis is a wasted science?

No, biogenesis attempting to prove abiogenesis is a wasted science. They haven’t even demonstrated that the proper amino acids can be formed, much less that they can self-assemble into self-replicating life. Add that to the fact that they are constantly changing what they believed the early Earth’s atmosphere was even like and you’re little belief has got some mortal wounds.

Quote: That's an absurd statement, but you're certainly allowed to believe anything you want.

Yes, and it’s a statement I never made.

Quote: I'm backing out of the debate because of you're inability to debate and recognize when your arguments fail.

You’re leaving the debate again!?

Quote: I have no interest in giving you lessons in rational thought

…says the person who refutes his own claimed beliefs with his stated criteria for validating claimed beliefs. Priceless.

(May 6, 2013 at 7:31 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: So the theory that it took mmillions of years for life to evolve is busted because science cannot yet speed the process up any further beyond showing that nonliving compounds can develop into all that is needed for more complex ones to ultimately evolve? You take the position that because they didn't produce a human baby in their pitri dish, that biogenesis is a wasted science? That's an absurd statement, but you're certainly allowed to believe anything you want. I'm backing out of the debate because of you're inability to debate and recognize when your arguments fail. I have no interest in giving you lessons in rational thought in order for you to understand rational thoughts. Peace!

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

He he he...what can I say, I'm a sucker for ignorance. 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. Goodnight my friend!

(May 6, 2013 at 8:28 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: According to your own postulated standard that we can only believe that which we can experience, then yes. Do not blame me for the fact that you obviously cannot play the game by your own set of absurd rules. I find it amusing that falsifiability is one of your criteria for a valid belief and yet there’s apparently no way in your mind that abiogenesis could ever be falsified.

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...

(May 2, 2013 at 9:32 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: Look at Newtonian physics compared to Relativity. But, it's a heck of a lot more than anything offered by Christianity, and even the flimsiest of scientific theories are verifiable and falsifiable. That's the point of science!

(May 6, 2013 at 8:28 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Wait, so you are trying to use a source that you openly admit is fallible to try and prove a source is not infallible? How is that any different than trying to use the testimony of a person who openly admits to being a liar to try and prove that another person is also a liar? That’s not possible.

You seemed to miss my entire point. ALL scientific hypotheses are falsifiable. There is no point to persuing an understanding of an unfalsifiable claim which by nature, has nothing to understand as it cannot be tested. That's the difference between just chalking things you don't understand up to God, and theories that can be subjected to testing. 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!

(May 6, 2013 at 8:28 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Me: How do you know your car was made?
You: Because Toyota made my car.
Me: How do you know Toyota made your car?
You: Because it has a sticker on it.
Me: Why does that sticker mean Toyota made your car?
You: Because Toyota said that’s what the sticker means.
Me: Why does it matter what Toyota says?
You: Because Toyota made my car.
Me. How do you know Toyota made your car?

Again, you continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding in the difference between a claim that can be verified, and one that cannot.

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.

The converstation is more accurately this:

You: How do you know Toyota made your car?
Me:Because we can go to the factory and watch them create it and witness the creation personally.
You: Why does that mean Toyota made your car?
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.
You: Why does it matter what Toyota says?
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?
You: How do you know Toyota made your car?
Me: What exactly do you not understand?



The only way you could compare this accurately to God would be more like this...

Me: Who made us?
You: God.
Me: How do you know?
You: He's right there creating more people and universes just like he claimed, you can see him in action and verify the results yourself...
Me: Oh snap! You're right! That's amazing!

Unfortunately, this is not the case. That's what you need to understand and accept. There is a difference between an unfalsifiable claim, and a verifiable and therein, potentially falsifiable claim. 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.


I do enjoy these types of debates, but it would no be productive to continue if you are not at the least able to concede this difference.

(May 6, 2013 at 9:28 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: 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.

(May 6, 2013 at 10:08 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: 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.

(May 7, 2013 at 8:18 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: 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?

(May 2, 2013 at 9:32 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: You seemed to miss my entire point. ALL scientific hypotheses are falsifiable.

Then abiogenesis is not a scientific hypothesis.

Quote: 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?

Quote: 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.

Quote: 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.

Quote:
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.

Quote: 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.

Quote: 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.

Quote: 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.

Quote: 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.

Quote: 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.

Quote: 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.

Lol, you're right. But I won't threaten to leave the debate again. At this point, I don't even think this qualifies as one. At any rate...I'm gonna keep my posts shorter to avoid responding so much, and avoid reading long em responses. Lets try an exchange over one thought at a time. Fair enough?

Abiogenesis is quite an absurd thing to suggest, depending on what you think is being suggested by it. It is a Scientific theory that life began from lifeless matter. Evidence that such a thing could occur is available. This is not absurd and is quite fascinating. The absurd suggestion that is NOT a theory, is that complex life SPONTANIOUSLY came from lifeless matter. There is no evidence that such a thing is even plausible as it would take millions of years to develop from the basic constructs that have been duplicated into anything so complex as even an amoeba. Are you asserting that neither are theories and equally unfounded?

(May 7, 2013 at 4:18 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 6, 2013 at 9:28 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: 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.

How does not understanding one process differ from not understanding the other process? Are you claiming life is an unnatural process?

The origin of life is hardly an issue. It is not covered by any known religion rather claims the world was created as it existed at the time of writing the story. That is not a theory. That is bullshit.



There are living things and non-living things. There is nothing in living things which is not in non-living things. Where else could life come from? Frankly it is an observation of fact not a theory.

Even the great god Amun created the first man and woman out of clay and breathed life into them. Clay is not alive.

Yes. And as a side note. Everything you presented as an unfalsifiable claim, is falsifiable in one way or another and the subject of each claim given is verifiable. That is in no way similar to any God claim.

Have you heard the 2 empty jar model?

I have 2 seemingly empty mason jars...

I tell you that God is in one (unfalsifiable claim)

I tell you the other is empty.

Both jars have the same properties...

There is no test that can be performed to prove that anything more exists in one jar than the other. The claim has no merit and has no measurable contents whatsoever.

Now the same experiement with slightly different claims...

I tell you one Jar is empty.

I tell you the other Jar has methane gas (falsifiable claim).

You can drop a lit match in both jars, and find out which one of the "seemingly empty jars" is in fact not as "empty" as you thought, and contained something that the second jar did not.

Do you really not understand this?

Quote: It never ceases to amaze me just how much blind faith atheists have when it comes to the origins of life.

Says the jackass who thinks his god played in the dirt!

(May 8, 2013 at 11:11 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: It never ceases to amaze me just how much blind faith atheists have when it comes to the origins of life.

Says the jackass who thinks his god played in the dirt!

Personally I'm glad Statlers back.
I like a good laugh me.