"Only God can judge me!" Religious debates rerun

[Rise]

So you want some evidence for three things.

1. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis
2. Hypothesis is falsifiable.

Am I getting you right?

That's two things, not three.

And to clarify, I only asked you for evidence that abiogenesis if falsifiable.

You were the one who decided to call abiogenesis a hypothesis as your attempt to provide "evidence" for your claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable.
Which was the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Whether or not abiogenesis is a hypothesis depends entirely on how you want to define a hypothesis, as there's not an exact objective definition for it.

So ultimately that by itself doesn't prove anything unless you can also prove that abiogenesis is considered a hypothesis because it can be falsified.

But then that makes calling it a hypothesis as your "proof" irrelevant in the first place. Because you ultimately still have the burden of proving that abiogenesis can be falsified regardless of what you call it.

It doesn't prove your original claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable to merely call it a hypothesis if you can't first prove that abiogenesis can actually be falsified.

1. Read "Rethinking Evolution" by Gene Levinson, page 84.

Haldane coined the term “prebiotic soup” to describe this hypothesis. This hypothesis—that life arose spontaneously from nonliving materials—is called abiogenesis. The philosophical and theoretical significance of the abiogenesis hypothesis—not only for evolutionary theory but also for our collective vision of our own origins—can hardly be overstated. Abiogenesis complemented classical Darwinian theory and provided a more comprehensive and durable naturalistic 20th cen
tury theory for the origin and evolution of life on Earth that lasted for many decades.

Also read "A dictionary of animal behaviour" by Edward Barrows

abiogenesis.
An organism’s hypothetical origination, or evolution, from inanimate matter without the action of living parents (Huxley 1870 in the Oxford English Dictionary 1972; Mayr 1982, 582, 959)

Or read Stephen Meyers "Signature in the cell"

Yet I also knew that there was another major hypothesis about the origin of life that was attracting attention. It too combined chance and necessity, but envisioned a role for natural selection much earlier in the process of abiogenesis. This hypothesis also held out the possibility of explaining the classical “chicken and egg” problem—the origin of the interdependence of DNA and proteins—by starting the process of abiogenesis in a different place—or rather, with a different molecule.

Logical fallacy, "appeal to authority".
Quoting someone who refers to it as a hypothesis doesn't prove it fits the actual definition of a hypothesis, as those individuals could be in error by referring to it as a hypothesis.

Proving your claim true would first require you to define the parameters of what you think makes something a hypothesis (as opposed to mere speculation), and then explain why you think abiogenesis meets that criteria.

And ultimately that's not even relevant to proving your original claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable.
Because proving abiogenesis qualifies as a hypothesis won't justify your original claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable unless you can first prove the definition of hypothesis requires falsifiability - but then you'd have to also prove that abiogenesis is falsifiable in order to even claim it meets that definition of a hypothesis.

If your definition of hypothesis doesn't require falsifiabilty, then calling abiogenesis a hypothesis never even was relevant to trying to prove your original claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable.

But if your definition of hypothesis does require falsifiability, then the onus is still on you to first prove why you think abiogenesis is falsifiable before you can even begin to claim it attains to the category of a hypothesis.

So no amount of defining hypothesis absolves you of the requirement to demonstrate why abiogenesis is supposedly falsifiable.

2. Encyclopedia of Timescience, philosophy, theology, culture, article on Karl Popper.

The conclusion is that scientific knowledge does not improve by positive evidence. Instead, according to the principle of falsification, the point is to prove all the false hypotheses wrong by finding compelling counterexamples. “Verification” is a mistaken notion. Theories that withstand scientific scrutiny are “more valid,” according to Popper, and falsifiability is a much better criterion of demarcation between scientific and nonscientific theories. In the area of social philosophy, he likewise demonstrated the invalid ity of “truth claims” for ideologies, be they socio historical or political theories. Preferring a motif of indeterminism, his political ideas merged into a liberalistic pleading for a pluralistic, liberal, and democratic “open society.”

Cheers.

Logical fallacy, "Irrelevent conclusion".

Talking about why falsifiability works to advance science does absolutely nothing to prove your claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable.

You have not given a single reason why or how abiogenesis would be falsifiable.

You can't.

If you can't then your claim is refuted as you never met the burden of proof that was on you to first justify your claim.

 

[Rise]

Strawman.

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".

Merely asserting that I committed a strawman fallacy doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is true.

The onus is on you as the one making the claim to prove your claim is true by citing any specific thing I said and then explaining why it was not an accurate representation of what you said.

You cannot do that because it didn't happen.

 

[firedragon]

That is the only thing you have ever said in support of your claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable.

that's a lie. Strawman.

 

[firedragon]

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".

Merely asserting that I committed a strawman fallacy doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is true.

The onus is on you as the one making the claim to prove your claim is true by citing any specific thing I said and then explaining why it was not an accurate representation of what you said.

You cannot do that because it didn't happen.

Affirming a Disjunct

 

[firedragon]

That's two things, not three.

And to clarify, I only asked you for evidence that abiogenesis if falsifiable.

You were the one who decided to call abiogenesis a hypothesis as your attempt to provide "evidence" for your claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable.
Which was the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Whether or not abiogenesis is a hypothesis depends entirely on how you want to define a hypothesis, as there's not an exact objective definition for it.

So ultimately that by itself doesn't prove anything unless you can also prove that abiogenesis is considered a hypothesis because it can be falsified.

But then that makes calling it a hypothesis as your "proof" irrelevant in the first place. Because you ultimately still have the burden of proving that abiogenesis can be falsified regardless of what you call it.

It doesn't prove your original claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable to merely call it a hypothesis if you can't first prove that abiogenesis can actually be falsified.




Logical fallacy, "appeal to authority".
Quoting someone who refers to it as a hypothesis doesn't prove it fits the actual definition of a hypothesis, as those individuals could be in error by referring to it as a hypothesis.

Proving your claim true would first require you to define the parameters of what you think makes something a hypothesis (as opposed to mere speculation), and then explain why you think abiogenesis meets that criteria.

And ultimately that's not even relevant to proving your original claim that abiogenesis if falsifiable.
Because proving abiogenesis qualifies as a hypothesis won't justify your original claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable unless you can first prove the definition of hypothesis requires falsifiability and then you'd need to also prove that abiogenesis is falsifiable in order to even claim it meets that definition of falsifiable.

If your definition of hypothesis doesn't require falsifiabilty, then calling abiogenesis a hypothesis never even was relevant to trying to prove your original claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable.

But if your definition of hypothesis does require falsifiability, then the onus is still on you to first prove why you think abiogenesis is falsifiable before you can even begin to claim it attains to the category of a hypothesis.



Logical fallacy, "Irrelevent conclusion".

Talking about why falsifiability works to advance science does absolutely nothing to prove your claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable.

You have not give a single reason why or how abiogenesis would be falsifiable.

You can't.

Therefore your claim is refuted.

Affirming the Consequent

 

[Rise]

that's a lie. Strawman.

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".

Merely asserting that I committed a strawman fallacy doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is true.
The onus is on you as the one making the claim to prove your claim is true by citing any specific thing I said and then explaining why it was not an accurate representation of what you said.

You cannot do that because it didn't happen.

I already gave valid reasons why that is what you were arguing based on what you posted.
And you have given no reasons for us to conclude otherwise.

Therefore, the "burden of rejoinder" is on you to attempt to counter my arguments and show why they were supposedly wrong.

 

[firedragon]

That's two things, not three.

And to clarify, I only asked you for evidence that abiogenesis if falsifiable.

You were the one who decided to call abiogenesis a hypothesis as your attempt to provide "evidence" for your claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable.
Which was the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Whether or not abiogenesis is a hypothesis depends entirely on how you want to define a hypothesis, as there's not an exact objective definition for it.

So ultimately that by itself doesn't prove anything unless you can also prove that abiogenesis is considered a hypothesis because it can be falsified.

But then that makes calling it a hypothesis as your "proof" irrelevant in the first place. Because you ultimately still have the burden of proving that abiogenesis can be falsified regardless of what you call it.

It doesn't prove your original claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable to merely call it a hypothesis if you can't first prove that abiogenesis can actually be falsified.




Logical fallacy, "appeal to authority".
Quoting someone who refers to it as a hypothesis doesn't prove it fits the actual definition of a hypothesis, as those individuals could be in error by referring to it as a hypothesis.

Proving your claim true would first require you to define the parameters of what you think makes something a hypothesis (as opposed to mere speculation), and then explain why you think abiogenesis meets that criteria.

And ultimately that's not even relevant to proving your original claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable.
Because proving abiogenesis qualifies as a hypothesis won't justify your original claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable unless you can first prove the definition of hypothesis requires falsifiability - but then you'd have to also prove that abiogenesis is falsifiable in order to even claim it meets that definition of a hypothesis.

If your definition of hypothesis doesn't require falsifiabilty, then calling abiogenesis a hypothesis never even was relevant to trying to prove your original claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable.

But if your definition of hypothesis does require falsifiability, then the onus is still on you to first prove why you think abiogenesis is falsifiable before you can even begin to claim it attains to the category of a hypothesis.

So no amount of defining hypothesis absolves you of the requirement to demonstrate why abiogenesis is supposedly falsifiable.



Logical fallacy, "Irrelevent conclusion".

Talking about why falsifiability works to advance science does absolutely nothing to prove your claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable.

You have not give a single reason why or how abiogenesis would be falsifiable.

You can't.

If you can't then your claim is refuted as you never met the burden of proof that was on you to first justify your claim.

Argumentum verbosium

 

[Rise]

Affirming a Disjunct

Affirming the Consequent

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely asserting that I committed a logical fallacy doesn't prove your claim is true just by asserting it is.
You would need to provide logical reasons and evidence why your claim is true.

You cannot do that because your claim is not true.

Without valid reasons for your claim, my arguments stand unrefuted by you.

 

[Rise]

Argumentum verbosium

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely asserting that I committed a logical fallacy doesn't prove your claim is true just by asserting it is.
You would need to provide logical reasons and evidence why your claim is true.

You cannot do that because your claim is not true.

Without valid reasons for your claim, my arguments stand unrefuted by you.

 

[firedragon]

Without valid reasons for your claim, my arguments stand unrefuted by you.

Patta Pacha. Amu Boru.

 

[Rise]

Patta Pacha. Amu Boru.

You have failed to meet the "burden of rejoinder", which requires that you respond to an argument refuting your claim with a counter argument to defend your claim.
Your response, which appears to be nonsense, is not an attempt to provide a counter argument.

As a result, you tacitly concede that your claim has been refuted and that you cannot defend your claim.

 

[firedragon]

You have failed to meet the "burden of rejoinder", which requires that you respond to an argument refuting your claim with a counter argument to defend your claim.
Your response, which appears to be nonsense, is not an attempt to provide a counter argument.

As a result, you tacitly concede that your claim has been refuted and that you cannot defend your claim.

Ad Hominem.

 

[Rise]

Ad Hominem.

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely asserting that I committed a logical fallacy doesn't prove your claim is true just by asserting it is.
You would need to provide logical reasons and evidence why your claim is true.

You cannot do that because your claim is not true.

Without valid reasons for your claim, my arguments stand unrefuted by you.

 

[firedragon]

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely asserting that I committed a logical fallacy doesn't prove your claim is true just by asserting it is.
You would need to provide logical reasons and evidence why your claim is true.

You cannot do that because your claim is not true.

Without valid reasons for your claim, my arguments stand unrefuted by you.

Lie.

 

[Rise]

Lie.

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely asserting that anything I said is a lie doesn't prove your claim is true just by asserting it is.
You would need to provide logical reasons and evidence why your claim is true.

You cannot do that because your claim is not true.

Without valid reasons for your claim, my arguments stand unrefuted by you.