What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Job 33:6]

And what is laying down the layers? You can not just lay a bone on the ground and let it be covered with leaves and produce fossils. It's obvious that's the layers are not laid down gradually over millions of years.

And remember that everywhere there is erosion, somewhere else there is deposition of new layers.

So for example, if you've ever gone to a beach and have seen sand wash out to sea, somewhere else, that sand is sinking and forming a new layer.

Anywhere you have seen a creek or stream erode an embankment, or anywhere you have seen a storm wash away land, know that this same land goes somewhere else and is deposited.

Anywhere there is an avalanche or a rock slide, land "creep" etc. Anywhere wind erodes a mountain, or ice scrapes away the earth (such as in the case of glacial striations), we have to understand that this eroded material goes somewhere else and begins to form a new layer of sediment.

In the green river formation, there are over 5 million independent varves, deposited by the melting of ice.

Ever wonder how old long it might take to lay down 5 million repeating layers?

And what if I went further to point out that this green river formation were oval shaped in the shape of what appeared to be a prehistoric lake? And what if I went further and described how the base of this formation was anoxic and radiated to an oxidated state as we went outward from the center of the lake shaped formation? And what if I went further and mentioned that only lacustrine animals were found in this formation (never any salt water animals), and what if I went further and what if I mentioned that in some portions of this formation there were hundreds of bird tracks, that had no particular direction, as if birds were aimlessly wandering around in shallow water (I wonder what such birds might have been up to if not casually hunting fish and bugs for hours on end?) And what if I went further and mentioned about how these 5 million repeating layers only made up a small fraction, perhaps just 5-10% of an overall much deeper succession of rocks that otherwise also held their own unique qualities and history?


How could it all be if not as a product of an old earth?

 

[Speedwell]

Since it has never been proven, according to everyone who believes it in this thread, what is there to falsify? I'm just here to confirm that it is indeed just a rather shakey theory.

Technical language again. A scientific theory is the conclusion of a discourse of inductive logic, thus it is never "proven" only confirmed. Conclusions of inductive logic (such as scientific theories--including the theory of evolution) can be falsified. Consider the following: all the swans I have ever seen are white. On the basis of that observation, I can conclude, inductively, that swans are white. But I can't prove it. Subsequent observations of white swans confirm my hypothesis, but they don't ever prove it, because the possibility of observing a black swan cannot be ruled out, and at any time the detection of a black swan will falsify it. The same is true of evolution. Contradictory evidence (evolution's "black swan") may turn up at any time. Evolution has so far been confirmed (not "proven") by the evidence, but it is possible that contradictory evidence may turn up at at any time, thus falsifying the theory.

 

[Speedwell]

Since it has never been proven, according to everyone who believes it in this thread, what is there to falsify? I'm just here to confirm that it is indeed just a rather shakey theory.

You can think it "shakey" if you want to, but right now it is the only theory which fits the evidence.

 

[Frank Robert]

Since it has never been proven, according to everyone who believes it in this thread, what is there to falsify? I'm just here to confirm that it is indeed just a rather shakey theory.

Once again you display a misunderstanding of a basic principle of science. You need to either falsify the ToE or produce a competitive theory that is better supported by evidence.

Here is your challenge: the theory of evolution is supported by a convergence of evidence from genetics, molecular biology, paleontology, geology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, and many other fields. Come up with a competing better supported theory, that better explains the data and makes better predictions that the ToE. To make it a bit easier for you the theory you come up does not have to be proven it only has to be better than the existing one in the ways I outlined. Good luck, but you don't have to worry no one will be holding their breath.

 

[renniks]

How could it all be if not as a product of an old earth?

Strahler (1987, 233) questioned the number and regularity of the Green River “varves,” a good question given the proposed fluctuations in the lake level:

The Green River couplets are indeed a remarkable accumulation; their regularity and vast numbers are mind-boggling. How could such uniform deposition continue for 5 to 8 million years?

Varves formed in lakes today or claimed to have formed in lakes associated with the Ice Age are often chaotic (Oard 2009a).

Many creation geologists think the Green River Formation is sediment deposited in a post-Flood lake (Austin 2003; Brand 1997, 2007a; Whitmore 2006a, b, c; Whitmore and Garner 2008; Whitmore and Wise 2008; Wise 2002). The Wasatch Formation, which lies below and intertongues with the Green River Formation, is therefore considered postdiluvial (after the Genesis Flood); it is a mostly coarse-grained formation generally located closer to the mountains. The Bridger and Washakie Formations lie above the Green River Formation and are also considered by many to be post-Flood; they are mostly volcaniclastic sediments (Brand 2007b).


The volume of sediment making up the Green River Formation that must be eroded, transported, and deposited is huge—over 100,000 km3. This enormous scale fits other formations deposited in the year-long Deluge, such as the Coconino Sandstone and its equivalent formations to the east with an estimated volume of 40,000 km3 (Austin 1994a, 36).

Second, the amount of oil in the oil shale is huge (Bartis et al. 2005).

Third, massive erosion has resulted in at least 600 m of erosion over large areas (fig. 2). Such erosion, including at the continental divide in the Greater Green River Basin, fits in with the Retreating Stage of the biblical Flood (Walker 1994),
If you wish to argue with the creationist view, I suggest you go do so here:
Green River Formation Likely Didn't Form in a Postdiluvial Lake

 

[renniks]

Once again you display a misunderstanding of a basic principle of science. You need to either falsify the ToE or produce a competitive theory that is better supported by evidence.

Here is your challenge: the theory of evolution is supported by a convergence of evidence from genetics, molecular biology, paleontology, geology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, and many other fields. Come up with a competing better supported theory, that better explains the data and makes better predictions that the ToE. To make it a bit easier for you the theory you come up does not have to be proven it only has to be better than the existing one in the ways I outlined. Good luck, but you don't have to worry no one will be holding their breath.

I don't " need" to do any such thing. Casting doubt on the current model is enough.
People will believe what they want to regardless, but there's always the " swing voters".

 

[renniks]

You can think it "shakey" if you want to, but right now it is the only theory which fits the evidence.

No, it's the only accepted theory.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't " need" to do any such thing. Casting doubt on the current model is enough.
People will believe what they want to regardless, but there's always the " swing voters".

What's the point of that? You won't cause any doubt amongst evolutionary biologists, and scientific theories aren't accepted by popular vote.

 

[Speedwell]

No, it's the only accepted theory.

It's the only theory. Lamarckianism is long gone, ID never reached the status of a theory and YECs don't have one at all.

 

[renniks]

What's the point of that? You won't cause any doubt amongst evolutionary biologists, and scientific theories aren't accepted by popular vote.

Who said I'm trying to influence evolutionary biologists? It's a forum, for Pete's sake. There's always lurkers.

 

[renniks]

It's the only theory. Lamarckianism is long gone, ID never reached the status of a theory and YECs don't have one at all.

Of course they do. It's just not widely accepted.

 

[Speedwell]

Who said I'm trying to influence evolutionary biologists? It's a forum, for Pete's sake. There's always lurkers.

Why would you want to influence anyone else? If you want to discredit a theory you have to deal with the scientists who accept it. It doesn't do you any good to influence lurkers in a chatroom.

 

[Speedwell]

Of course they do. It's just not widely accepted.

Haven't heard of it. YECs have a series of beliefs about our origins, but they are not developed epistemologically in such a way as to call it a theory. YECism is not science. Even if the YECs were right about our origins and science wrong, YECism still wouldn't be science.

 

[renniks]

Why would you want to influence anyone else? If you want to discredit a theory you have to deal with the scientists who accept it. It doesn't do you any good to influence lurkers in a chatroom.

How do you know what does me good?

 

[Bradskii]

It won't tell you what DNA the animal had. It won't tell you what kind of fur if any, or it's organs and on and on.

And it won't tell you what colour eyes it had or whether it was a late riser or if it could swim. Your ankle bone won't tell us about you in that detail either. Why bring that up?

 

[Shemjaza]

So? Do you have it's organs? It's feathers? Long boned tail, or long tail bone? Having a long tail bone doesn't make it a dino.

We have it's tail, it's teeth and it's feathers... we have it's partially flight adapted structure that's not quite as specialised as other families of birds.

The willingness of creationists to believe in evolution when it's convenient is preposterous.

You guys can have have whole entire structures not found in any bird in recorded history, (ie the mouth and tail structure) being variation in a kind... but the massively more similar human and chimp must be completely separate.

 

[Speedwell]

How do you know what does me good?

I don't see how it would do anybody good to influence lurkers who have no influence on science if what he wanted was to discredit a scientific theory.

 

[Shemjaza]

That is correct.

Thus he is making my point that finding rabbits in the preCambrian would not pwn evolution down the drain, as some may think.

That's not really sensible.

It's like saying that DNA tests for paternity are unreliable because someone could have swapped the lab tests.

The point is that a rabbit cannot have naturally evolved 600 million years ago. It's possible that evolution could still be true in general and some other weird mechanism could be responsible for the bunny.

 

[Mr Laurier]

And what is laying down the layers?

Wind, a river, waves on a beach, a landslide, a volcano, etc etc...

You can not just lay a bone on the ground and let it be covered with leaves and produce fossils.

BINGO!.
You got something right.
And you will notice that nobody has ever suggested that you CAN just lay a bone on the ground and let it be covered with leaves and produce fossils. NOBODY!

It's obvious that's the layers are not laid down gradually over millions of years.

Except that its not. Given that they are.

 

[Job 33:6]

Strahler (1987, 233) questioned the number and regularity of the Green River “varves,” a good question given the proposed fluctuations in the lake level:

The Green River couplets are indeed a remarkable accumulation; their regularity and vast numbers are mind-boggling. How could such uniform deposition continue for 5 to 8 million years?

Varves formed in lakes today or claimed to have formed in lakes associated with the Ice Age are often chaotic (Oard 2009a).

Many creation geologists think the Green River Formation is sediment deposited in a post-Flood lake (Austin 2003; Brand 1997, 2007a; Whitmore 2006a, b, c; Whitmore and Garner 2008; Whitmore and Wise 2008; Wise 2002). The Wasatch Formation, which lies below and intertongues with the Green River Formation, is therefore considered postdiluvial (after the Genesis Flood); it is a mostly coarse-grained formation generally located closer to the mountains. The Bridger and Washakie Formations lie above the Green River Formation and are also considered by many to be post-Flood; they are mostly volcaniclastic sediments (Brand 2007b).


The volume of sediment making up the Green River Formation that must be eroded, transported, and deposited is huge—over 100,000 km3. This enormous scale fits other formations deposited in the year-long Deluge, such as the Coconino Sandstone and its equivalent formations to the east with an estimated volume of 40,000 km3 (Austin 1994a, 36).

Second, the amount of oil in the oil shale is huge (Bartis et al. 2005).

Third, massive erosion has resulted in at least 600 m of erosion over large areas (fig. 2). Such erosion, including at the continental divide in the Greater Green River Basin, fits in with the Retreating Stage of the biblical Flood (Walker 1994),
If you wish to argue with the creationist view, I suggest you go do so here:
Green River Formation Likely Didn't Form in a Postdiluvial Lake

Uniform deposition is easy when continents only move at the rate in which our fingernails grow. Everything occurs over vast expanses of time, including seasonal deposition of varves.

I didn't see anything in the above post that explains how such features formed in 6,000 years. For example, a mass erosion event wouldn't differentiate 5 million repeating layers. That doesn't make any sense. And how chaotic could these layers really be with delicate bird tracks in them? Who knows.

Also, massive floods aren't known for producing lake shaped deposits, nor do they have stratigraphy that is anoxic toward the center while radiating outward to an oxidated state.

Anyway, just food for thought!

I wonder what the young earth Creationists take is on propagating faults? Or cataclastic deformation? Or how about ophiolites of the himalayas? Or sheared fossils (those are the worst).

They'd have us believe that continents bounced around like ping pong balls, blastic mountains into the atmosphere in some chaotic crazy flood, all the while we have fossilized animal foot tracks, burrows, feeding traces marks, complex burrow networks, nests with eggs and more, that all suggest a completely normal life without catastrophic mountain building collisions.

There is an angular unconformity near me, it is of silurian and ordovician rock and there is fault gouge between the two with fossil burrows in the silurian layer. If all of these layers were laid down in a chaotic flood, at what point did such an angular unconformity form?

It would have to hypothetically be "post flood", and yet, if he flood were hypothetically over, then what would have propelled these rocks around eachother?

Some questions will never be answered by young earthers. The laymen assume that the "experts" have answers. While the experts just keep writing books, making cash, and hiding behind misused scientific jargon that make them appear intelligent, all the while their ideas are filled with more holes than swiss cheese. But their followers will likely never know either way.