What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[BilliardsBall]

You addressed nothing I said here.
All you did was double down on the post I was responding to.


And as noted, when you are asked for evidence, you say you have faith. And 'round and 'round we go.


Um no. Not even close.
Maybe you could try addressing what I said about it.

And besides that, you and I have had numerous discussions about morality, so it's a tad disingenuous of you to suggest that I am not interested in "moral accountability," dont'cha think?

You are right. EVERYONE believes in moral accountability, now atheists do, too, these days. So God must therefore exist.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Um, it was a direct response to your post that said:
The math on how biological mechanisms would evolve people from other apes is not in any way convincing--because besides the odds of genes passed by birth, countless biological and environmental factors have to be overcome.

Agreed. I've not seen anyone at RF try even something simple like overcoming chirality in abiogenesis.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It isn't a goal post shift. You made claims. I'm asking you to show me.

If you can't do it, just say so. No need for games. It isn't going to make me consider you any less credible than I do.

I have been presented with--including by you--you may have forgotten--some of the math regarding overcoming chirality, the right proteins coming together, etc. What's frustrating is God of the Gaps needed for things like abiogenesis, "all we need is simple, self-replicating RNA for life to have happened on its own", yet there is no known self-replicating RNA now in existence. "Math".

 

[SkepticThinker]

And yet I often refer you to Google, fruitlessly: The Credentials Fallacy: What It Is and How to Respond to It – Effectiviology.

The credentials fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone dismisses an argument by stating that whoever made it doesn’t have proper credentials, so their argument must be wrong or unimportant.

That's not what the poster did.

Saying this:

That may be true. Yet you fail at it when it comes to applying them to the sciences.

... Isn't the same thing as saying that your argument is invalid because you don't have proper credentials.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are right. EVERYONE believes in moral accountability, now atheists do, too, these days. So God must therefore exist.

Um nope. You'd need to actually demonstrate that the god you believe in exists.

Noticing that human beings care about morality isn't evidence of any God(s) existing any more than noticing that some human beings (e.g. sociopaths) don't care about morality is evidence that there are no god(s).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Agreed. I've not seen anyone at RF try even something simple like overcoming chirality in abiogenesis.

You accused another poster of moving the goal post, when you're the one who actually moved it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have been presented with--including by you--you may have forgotten--some of the math regarding overcoming chirality, the right proteins coming together, etc. What's frustrating is God of the Gaps needed for things like abiogenesis, "all we need is simple, self-replicating RNA for life to have happened on its own", yet there is no known self-replicating RNA now in existence. "Math".

Self-Replicating RNA
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b10796
Self-Replicating RNA Molecules Show How Life May Have Arose | Cell And Molecular Biology
How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time
https://experiments.springernature.com/articles/10.1007/978-1-4939-6481-9_2

 

[Heyo]

The biblical quotation cites trust based on evidence. The term you are looking for is "blind faith" as opposed to "reasonable faith".

I have reasonable faith that you are unable to read the Bible--since as quoted, it says "Faith/trust is the EVIDENCE of something hoped for..."

I have reasonable doubt you have the necessary reading comprehension to understand @Subduction Zone's point.
The Bible quote doesn't give evidence, it defines evidence.
"Faith [...] is [...] evidence [...]"
That definition contradicts the definition used in philosophy (epistemology) and science. There wishful thinking is not evidence of anything.

 

[Heyo]

Agreed. I've not seen anyone at RF try even something simple like overcoming chirality in abiogenesis.

Homochirality - Wikipedia

There is one additional hypothesis but I can't find the source at the moment. It postulates the forming of chiral molecules through polarized light in the primordial soup.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet I often refer you to Google, fruitlessly: The Credentials Fallacy: What It Is and How to Respond to It – Effectiviology.

Okay, there is such an argument. But I am not guilty of making that error. You are conflating the fact that some sources are worthless with them being wrong. There is a very very small chance that some wacko would be right. That still does not mean that using bogus sources helps someone. The reason one uses sources is to demonstrate that one's reasoning is sound. Linking to a nutburger only tells us that you may be using the same reasoning that the poor source is.

As to being unreliable and being right I have one real life example. Many many years ago when I was a lad I had a chemistry final where I got marked wrong even though I had the right answer. I went to talk about the professor and he showed me where I made an error that due to the circumstances still gave me the right answer. I immediately saw what I did wrong and he could see that I understood. When I admitted that I was wrong he gave me the credit back since his job was done. I knew better what I did wrong at that point better than most people that got it right. Knowing how one screwed up is often more important than just knowing how.

At any rate there is a small chance that bad sources could be right. But since the odds are against it it means that those sources do not help an argument at all. They do not "prove me wrong" but it does prove that the person does show that the person using those sources has no clue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The biblical quotation cites trust based on evidence. The term you are looking for is "blind faith" as opposed to "reasonable faith".

I have reasonable faith that you are unable to read the Bible--since as quoted, it says "Faith/trust is the EVIDENCE of something hoped for..."

If you were talking about Hebrews 11 1, not the use of "evidence" in older translations is just an error. That is not evidence. Which is probably why it is changed in more modern translations.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed. I've not seen anyone at RF try even something simple like overcoming chirality in abiogenesis.

But now you are guilty of moving the goalposts. Yes, abiogenesis is the most likely correct answer. But evolution does not depend upon abiogenesis. It is just the only idea that has any evidentiary support. And as @Heyo pointed out there is more than one possible route to homochirality. It is simply unknown which path was taken for sure assuming that the evidence is correct and that life is the product of abiogenesis.

And moving the goalposts is a logical fallacy. It is a desperation move that one does when one knows that one is wrong. It is not a wise debating tactic to use.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have been presented with--including by you--you may have forgotten--some of the math regarding overcoming chirality, the right proteins coming together, etc. What's frustrating is God of the Gaps needed for things like abiogenesis, "all we need is simple, self-replicating RNA for life to have happened on its own", yet there is no known self-replicating RNA now in existence. "Math".

I don't know that I have presented math regarding chirality to anyone on here. But that isn't the point. Your confusing response has nothing to do with the post I responded to. You said in post 633, "The math on how biological mechanisms would evolve people from other apes is not in any way convincing--because besides the odds of genes passed by birth, countless biological and environmental factors have to be overcome".

Nothing to do with abiogenesis.

You didn't move the goal posts. You went from a football field to a baseball field and started a chess match.

I can't get much sense out of the post I'm responding to here. I guess you didn't review the math and really don't have any valid reason to reject human/chimpanzee common decent.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Self-Replicating RNA
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b10796
Self-Replicating RNA Molecules Show How Life May Have Arose | Cell And Molecular Biology
How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time
https://experiments.springernature.com/articles/10.1007/978-1-4939-6481-9_2

I saw you had supplied this. I guess this fact has escaped a number of creationists despite the claims they have studied...stuff.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are right. EVERYONE believes in moral accountability, now atheists do, too, these days

"these days"? When didn't they?

. So God must therefore exist.

Doesn't follow.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Agreed. I've not seen anyone at RF try even something simple like overcoming chirality in abiogenesis.

Right. It makes much more sense and it is a lot simpler to just believe that some unsupportable, unfalsifiable god said "be" and it was.

Yep, that explains it. Why are abiogenesis researchers even wasting all that grant money for ey?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You didn't move the goal posts. You went from a football field to a baseball field and started a chess match.

Haha, that was funny.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I saw you had supplied this. I guess this fact has escaped a number of creationists despite the claims they have studied...stuff.

Their scientific knowledge always seems to be off by a few decades or so. I guess Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute can't be bothered to cite any newer information since it doesn't support their case (neither does the older stuff, but whatever). Not that I'm super well-versed on self-replicating RNA or anything but like, do a quick search before you go on about it, maybe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Their scientific knowledge always seems to be off by a few decades or so. I guess Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute can't be bothered to cite any newer information since it doesn't support their case (neither does the older stuff, but whatever). Not that I'm super well-versed on self-replicating RNA or anything but like, do a quick search before you go on about it, maybe.

It could be that the source they use to search things keeps them in a bubble of their "interests".

A creationist who isn't concerned with privacy in his browser, and with a browsing history filled with creationist propaganda, will be receiving VERY VERY different results when searching for "the chirality problem" as opposed to one that does, or somebody that isn't a creationist with a browser history filled with more academic sources.

Just to play devil's advocate for a second.....

As an IT'er myself (who loaths such practices), I know that this can be a real issue online.

People who spend a lot of time online reading BS, will automatically be fed more BS due to all those nasty algorithms in play by major tech.

I advice everyone to use duck duck go instead of google for that reason.

I just thought I'ld point it out... It's a real possibility, a priori.
Off course, it's also a bit naive on my part, perhaps.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It could be that the source they use to search things keeps them in a bubble of their "interests".

A creationist who isn't concerned with privacy in his browser, and with a browsing history filled with creationist propaganda, will be receiving VERY VERY different results when searching for "the chirality problem" as opposed to one that does, or somebody that isn't a creationist with a browser history filled with more academic sources.

Just to play devil's advocate for a second.....

As an IT'er myself (who loaths such practices), I know that this can be a real issue online.

People who spend a lot of time online reading BS, will automatically be fed more BS due to all those nasty algorithms in play by major tech.

I advice everyone to use duck duck go instead of google for that reason.

I just thought I'ld point it out... It's a real possibility, a priori.
Off course, it's also a bit naive on my part, perhaps.

Sounds about right to me. These algorithms don't seem to be doing us any favours.
I've noticed even my mother saying some weird things to me lately, like stuff that makes you go "huh??" and I'm starting to fear she's been sucked into the algorithm rabbit hole. I'll have to get a hold of her phone and do a few quick academic searches.