If evolution is false...

[Split Rock]

Tyrannosaurus Rex would have died out under the earth's new climatology, which went from [pre-flood] tropical to [post-flood] polar.

1. Where in the Bible does it say the climate changed from tropical to polar?

2. Why didn't all the other tropical species/ kinds die out with the new polar climate?

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Where in the Bible does it say the climate changed from tropical to polar?

It doesn't -- and doesn't have to.

We assume a tropical climatology based on the water canopy theory.

2. Why didn't all the other tropical species/ kinds die out with the new polar climate?

Some gravitated to the equatorial regions in time to keep from dying out.

The animals that got off the Ark thrived for awhile, but then began to go extinct; some because their allotted times were up, and some because they made bad choices.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

It doesn't -- and doesn't have to.

We assume a tropical climatology based on the water canopy theory.

Some gravitated to the equatorial regions in time to keep from dying out.

The animals that got off the Ark thrived for awhile, but then began to go extinct; some because their allotted times were up, and some because they made bad choices.

Your silly fairytale raises more questions than it answers.

 

[Split Rock]

It doesn't -- and doesn't have to.

I thought The KJV1611 Bible was The Authoritative documentation for the history of the earth and life on it???

We assume a tropical climatology based on the water canopy theory.

Hmmmm... Do you also assume it was followed by a polar climate??

Some gravitated to the equatorial regions in time to keep from dying out.

Why didn't any of the non-avian dinosaurs do this? There were an awful lot of different species.

The animals that got off the Ark thrived for awhile, but then began to go extinct; some because their allotted times were up, and some because they made bad choices.

Why did God bother to save them, if their "alloted times" were up?

 

[MoonLancer]

I think the question however, at least how I read the post, the question was, how can the theory be falsified...which is a great question. If creation is not scientific because it "cannot be falsified" what could falsify the theory of evilution when it cannot be observed for thousands and even millions of years...?

Did I get the question wrong?

heck just finding a bunny skeleton in the wrong order of rock layers might be enough. Its really easy to falsify evolution. It just hasn't bean done yet.

 

[AV1611VET]

heck just finding a bunny skeleton in the wrong order of rock layers might be enough.

Nope.

Rabbits are mammals. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, although, if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process.

SOURCE

 

[Assyrian]

No kidding.

How do you think I came to the conclusion this earth is 4.57 billion years old?

I really have no idea, nor do I understand how you can say, almost in the same breath, that the universe has only been in existence 6015 years. But that's not my problem. If the earth is 4.57 billion years old then there has been more than enough time for evolution, and your self contradictory interpretation of Genesis is simply not an issue for evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

I really have no idea, nor do I understand how you can say, almost in the same breath, that the universe has only been in existence 6015 years. But that's not my problem. If the earth is 4.57 billion years old then there has been more than enough time for evolution, and your self contradictory interpretation of Genesis is simply not an issue for evolution.

You 'really have no idea', yet my interpretation of Genesis is 'self contradictory'?

And you guys wonder why I ignore a lot of your points?

Oh well, you guys claim even Genesis contradicts itself -- why should I be any different?

 

[Skaloop]

I am a skeptic. because there are huge holes they can't answer.

What sort of "holes"?

 

[Assyrian]

You 'really have no idea', yet my interpretation of Genesis is 'self contradictory'?

I have no idea how you can come to such a conclusion because it is self contradictory.

And you guys wonder why I ignore a lot of your points?

No.

Oh well, you guys claim even Genesis contradicts itself -- why should I be any different?

I don't think Genesis is self contradictory. That is why I interpret it figuratively. But even if people think the bible contradicts itself, that is nothing compared to thinking reality is self contradictory.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no idea how you can come to such a conclusion because it is self contradictory.

You've never heard of my Boolean Standards -- or did you giggle through them like some of the others did?

 

[Split Rock]

Nope.

SOURCE

If fossils were consistantly found in the geological column out of any order, as creationism would predict, then yes this would have falsified evolution. Look at the time period following the publication of On the Origin of Species, for example. The fossil record was poorly investigated at that point, and could have resulted in falsification of Darwin's theory, if fossils were then found to be in random (though ecologically logical... e.g. marine organisms together) order. If a bunny were found in Precambrian rocks today, it would be considered an anomaly, rather than a refutation. If, on the other hand, bunnies were consistantly found in Precambrian rocks, it would indeed be a big problem for common descent.

 

[AV1611VET]

heck just finding a bunny skeleton in the wrong order of rock layers might be enough.

Nope.

If fossils were consistantly found in the geological column out of any order, as creationism would predict, then yes this would have falsified evolution. Look at the time period following the publication of On the Origin of Species, for example. The fossil record was poorly investigated at that point, and could have resulted in falsification of Darwin's theory, if fossils were then found to be in random (though ecologically logical... e.g. marine organisms together) order. If a bunny were found in Precambrian rocks today, it would be considered an anomaly, rather than a refutation. If, on the other hand, bunnies were consistantly found in Precambrian rocks, it would indeed be a big problem for common descent.

Tell MoonLancer, don't tell me.

I'm not interested.

 

[Assyrian]

You've never heard of my Boolean Standards -- or did you giggle through them like some of the others did?

Sorry I must have missed out on the fun. Do you have any sort of scriptural basis for them?

 

[MoonLancer]

Tell MoonLancer, don't tell me.

I'm not interested.

regardless there are ways to falsify evolution which IS the point. If your not even interested, why are you here?

 

[greenery]

It seems to me that the last thing creationists want is answers, they are quite content to just sit back and fool themselves into believing they are right.

Don't you all realise you are on your own out there? idiots got to where you are and idiots are keeping you there,
wake up it's never too late to stop being a fool.

 

[Doveaman]

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?" --- Ecclesiates 3:19-22

And like I said, you won't either, you'll shut your eyes and put your fingers in your ears.

It's always amusing when people quote from a book they don't believe in, and one they obviously don't understand.

 

[kenblaster5000]

You are only insulting yourself by being a Creationist and believing as you do, that's the dream you're trying to live.

The world knows evolution to be a fact, go against it and you go against the world and make Americans look like ignorant fools, it's one thing to have a religion it's quite another to take it literally.

If you are a lover of the world, you are at enmity with God. We choose to stand on God's word. If we look like fools for the words sake, then so be it. It is foolishness to be religious and not follow that religions teaching. It is also hypocritical. It is foolish also to believe the word and not do it. Evolution is a theory and I do not even think you know enough to realize that. Some of evolution I agree with, especially that which can be observed in the natural world. I do not agree with things evolving from simple organisms to complex organisms. It takes quite a humble person to believe that God always tells the truth and that His word does not lie. On the other hand if you look into evolution, you may eventually see the untruths in it. It is not wise to abandon the word of God though. You should know this being a Christian. We abide in Him and without Him we can do nothing.

 

[Doveaman]

The first is empirical fact.

Man evolving from an ape ancestor is not a fact, it's a theory.

 

[Skaloop]

Man evolving from an ape ancestor is not a fact, it's a theory.

Only if you use incorrect definitions of "fact" and "theory".