Conflicting statements in the bible

[The Reality Salesman01]

I do not think it is scientific at all.

Of course you don't. Its magic, right?

That’s not true at all, producing a racemic mixture does nothing to prove that a set of amino acids exhibiting homochiralty could ever form, and that’s what you need to produce life. Secondly, synthesizing building blocks in the lab does not prove that these building blocks can produce anything in nature.

Oh I see. Simulating the conditions of a nature that no longer is, is cheating? You would need a time machine to go back and actually witness the supposed slow changing process of abiotic synthesis before you would accept it as plausible? Abiotic sysnthesis is plausible. The basics of life can form naturally from non-life. That makes it plausible that more complex life could eventually arrise from it. That's all that is needed to make the argument against your claim that life can't come from non-life. You moving the goal post and adding more complex qualifiers is a moot point. Abiogeneis is possible and weighted by evidence, Your claim is just possible because its merely an unfalsifiable claim. Santa, Tooth Fairy, and Unicorns are all just as likely as your claim.

How else would the amino acids arrange in the proper sequence to produce self-replicating life?

Its a spontanious formation, this formation is a long process. Simple organic molecules are possibly formed through this process and there's any number of hypotheses of how it could occur. Showing that its possible for the foundation to form itself, opens the doors to many other possibilities. Nobody is suggesting that things went from Amino Acids to Human Baby! That's absurd. Kinda like the suggestion that things went from a planet with no people to- Intelligent full grown man! Really dude? Really?

Then tell me how you can falsify each of those claims, do not just assert that they are falsifiable (which they are not).

He he he...coming up in a different post. I cannot believe you have no idea what the hell an unfalsifiable hypothesis is yet!

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

I tell you the other is empty.

How can an omnipresent, immaterial God be in one jar but not in the other? Didn't I just falsify your claim?

Oh I never said he was either of those things. That merely proves that your idea of God could not be in that jar. But, through Jar-God...all things are possible.

He he he...You think its that easy? Welcome to this game, and enjoy your experience on the other team.

Why do you keep assuming that all claims are scientifically testable when I have already given you numerous examples of claims that are not?

Oh you think unfalsifiable means that it's not able to be proven wrong by science!! You're half right...Science only deals with things of substance that correlate to reality, to assert wild postulations that you pull out of your ass, is something quite different. Read the jar question again, and continue trying to nail down the God I say is in there. All the while, thinking about how different it would be if something were supposed to be in the jar such as a bunch of coins. Then you will start to understand the difference in the types of claims.

That’s such a naïve view of epistemology. In a Godless Universe science would be impossible.

Only because you say so, and that you REALLY want it to be true. There's been nothing from you to suggest it's true for any other reasons than those, and those aren't valid ones.

---

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

Let's see! A falsifiable claim correlates with reality, and can be either confirmed or falsified. If it has any substance that can at all be verified, it is a falsifiable claim. An unfalsifiable claim does not correlate with reality, its subjects are ungrounded in any evidence and cannot be verified by any justifiable means. The proponent of such claims usually has to resort to methods such as "just trust me" or "It's true because I know it is" and lastly, "its true ONLY because you can't prove it false"...lets see if you have grasped this yet, and whether or not your examples remotely qualify.

“Texas Sailor can trust his ability to reason.”

NOPE! Texas Sailor is real! Even in the sense that he corresponds with you on this forums and others can verify it. If Texas Sailor makes an argument such as...

1) Lightening is made of electricity
2) Electricity comes from The Power Company
3) Therefore lightning comes from The Power Company!

We can prove that lightening doesn't in fact come from the power company, and therein prove that Texas Sailor (who at least exists) cannot really trust is ability to reason. NEXT!

“Texas Sailor can generally trust the reliability of his senses.”

CAN BE FALSIFIED! First, you may need to nail down "generally" this is never really a word involved in any claim worth investigating, that's a pretty weak hypothesis. But, if it turns out that Texas Sailor (Who exists!) is color blind or partially def (as I am from working around F-18s for so long) this can be proven false with simple hearing and vision tests.

“Texas Sailor can generally trust the reliability of his memory.”

You clearly don't have a clue what this conversation is about...
Texas Sailor (who exists!)...I like how you couch these claims with "generally" which isn't a claim at all. It's merely an opinon that begs the question. But, either way, once we nail down what is is to be meant by "generally", we will have a manageable period to determine whether or not Texas Sailor can in fact trust his memory. Flash cards, and memory tests are available to either confirm or falsify this claim, they are in fact necessary for people that think they have Alzheimer's. You knew how stupid that one was right?

the laws of logic discern truth.”

OOOOhhhh a big one. Once we have an example of something true that cannot be dicerned by logic, we can falsify it. But for the time being, it remains confirmed as no such evidence supports the contrary, and-REALLY WANTING IT TO BE WRONG, doesn't count. Keep in mind, a falsifiable claim, only needs to have substance that correlates to reality, and can be either confirmed or falsified. Ones inability to prove something wrong because it continues to render consistent results is hardly an unfalsifiable claim. It's a falsifiable claim that has yet to be proven wrong because it renders results that are consistently confirmed. Some other examples...

Newton's Physics and theory of Absolute time sent men to the moon, and was the best theory available at the time. It was never "fact".

General Relativity comes along and is more accurate. It is not a fact. It's very much falsifiable, but something being falsifiable doesn't mean it IS WRONG. It just continues to render results and has yet to be proven false. Those guys at CERN have been trying to accelerate particles past the speed of light for years, but all they do is confirm Einstein's theory. Again, a theory that is constantly confirmed is not wrong just because there's the possibility that it could be. You need to prove it.

“Future trials will yield identical results as past trials under identical conditions.”

That seems like a logical statement, but of course, it can be confirmed, so it has the potential to be falsified. If something different were to occur under the same conditions using the same experiments, then you've got something...Such as ooohhh Quantum Physics? Of course, you may find that you thought it was the same conditions, but the smallest difference may not have been accounted for. However,“Future trials will yield identical results as past trials under identical conditions.'' Is true until proven false so long as it does in fact render results.

“Texas Sailor will continue to be Texas Sailor tomorrow.”

Another falsifiable claim!
Unless he dies or something awful! Again, if tomorrow comes and Texas Sailor remains, this can be confirmed. It is not fact, but it has the possibility of being falsified because we understand Texas Sailor, we know of conditions that could render this statement false, but if there is no evidence that it is false, it's more likely that the statement is true than false. It is a good theory under the weight of the evidence that supports Texas Sailor and the liklihood of his future existance.

“It is justified to reason from particular experiences to general claims”

This is a broad and relative statement that begs the question and would need to get clarified. Again...

1) Lightning is made of electricity
2) Electricity comes from the power company
3) Therefore, Lightning comes from the power company.

Not a single one of these is falsifiable

and yet without them the act of falsifying would be impossible.

Hmm...That's a different debate all together, and I would be inclined to agree that some of the things listed are required to falsify things, but, you haven't quite presented reason to believe any of these things are UNfalsifiable.If you would only apply half of that thought to your own personal beliefs. Of course, once you understand that not all claims are equally valid as a possibility, you may have an epiphany.

You’re welcome.

...For?

Let me give you a list of actual unfalsifiable hypotheses..

Unicorns are real

Santa Clause is real

Unicorns are invisible and are real

The flying spaghetti monster is real and is responsible for all the things we don't have answers for.

God is real, he talks to me, and he created everything.