“The problem is that by the very concept it is impossible to falsify theological explanations, and science depends on the concept of falsification. Falsification is how science rids itself of theories that cannot support themselves.”
Please explain to me how the idea of random origin of the first living cell can be falsified.
When I try to explain to you the staggering odds involved, you simply dismiss the idea of probabilities with a wave of the hand.
Well, if probabilities are not allowed, then how can the random origin of life be falsified?
It would be like trying to “falsify” the claim that the entire text of the Gettysburg address once appeared on the Sahara desert due to random winds. How can that be “falsified” without recourse to probabilities? It can’t.
I realize that you are more than a bit dense, so let me try to spoonfeed this to you. The purely naturalistic version of the origin of the first living cell cannot be falsified, so it is not scientific — according to the very criterion you just parroted.
Let’s see what kind of crap you can come up with on this one. I’m sure it will be entertaining.
This statement was posted earlier, but it really,really
does seem a stretch doesn't it? But the larger problem
for me are the following: gravity, strong force, elec-
tromagnetism, quarks, etc. Because without those how
does one get life?
How many googles (ten raised to 100th power) of tons
must be used to represent the mass of the known
universe, including 'dark matter'? And all that
started out smaller than pin head! WOW! I thought we
only count how many angels fit on a pin.
You do realize that this is not contained within the theory of evolution, right? Technically, God could have sparked the first life and it wouldn't change the theory of evolution one bit.
When I try to explain to you the staggering odds involved
I'm still waiting for someone to explain the supposed staggering odds. All I've seen are wild guesses.