What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Astrid]

I'd expect to see something like these giant current ripples from the Ice Age floods that ran through western Washington.

View attachment 297762

Eastern

 

[Speedwell]

No ID doesn't claim a pencil should hit the floor differently if God designed science.

ID does not just claim that "God designed science." ID claims that "God designed science" but that the "science" which God "designed" is not always adequate to explain the results which we observe.

Intervention? That's like saying that the quarterback throwing the ball is interfering with the game.

No, ID claims that that the quarterback can't always throw the ball accurately by himself.

 

[Astrid]

ID proposes that there will be a difference. Just like evolution: ID proposes that natural laws as science describes them cannot explain the emergence of certain biological structures thus they require the intervention of a designer. What you persist in calling "ID" is actually theistic evolution--the idea that evolution proceeds according to natural laws because that's the way God "designed" it to happen.

Lots of things have so far not been explained through
application of known laws.

ID proposes there are things impossible via natural law.

 

[renniks]

I'd expect to see something like these giant current ripples from the Ice Age floods that ran through western Washington.

View attachment 297762

Yes the post flood ice age.
Maybe something like deep canyons that could not have formed gradually?
Like how the Grand Canyon developed through a major uplift. The river should have flowed around it, but it didn’t.

 

[renniks]

No, ID claims that that the quarterback can't always throw the ball accurately by himself

No it doesn't. You just don't understand ID at all.

 

[Frank Robert]

What you persist in calling "ID" is actually theistic evolution--the idea that evolution proceeds according to natural laws because that's the way God "designed" it to happen.

My understanding of ID is different. I sometimes refer to it as a belief that God is constantly fiddling with evolution and that ID can be detected if it looks designed.

Check what BioLogos proposes: Intelligent Design: History and Beliefs

 

[Speedwell]

No it doesn't. You just don't understand ID at all.

I only understand ID as floated by the Discovery Institute. What you are proposing in the name of ID is what I believe myself and which I have always understood to be called theistic evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actions like what exactly?

Massive erosion. And not long term erosion, short term erosion. It is possible to tell the difference between the two. Then there is the fact that ice floats. There are quite a few other lines of evidence that refute that tale.

Oh! And then there is my favorite. You have heard about the urban myth of a person waking up in a seedy hotel bathtub filled with ice and missing a kidney. Do you now why that does not happen in real life?

And also the evidence exists that tells us that the Earth is old. Creationists have no answer against that evidence except for falsehoods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes the post flood ice age.
Maybe something like deep canyons that could not have formed gradually?
Like how the Grand Canyon developed through a major uplift. The river should have flowed around it, but it didn’t.

No, the rate of uplift is not rapid. The river only needed to cut down as fast as the land rose.

And there is a tributary of the Grand Canyon that clearly demonstrates millions of years of erosion. It has a feature that cannot be formed rapidly.

 

[Mountainmike]

Your link says that human blood cells were collected but that
they contained no DNA.

Did you ever think to question how they could identify them
as human?

There are several tests for blood and human blood which are used at crime scenes. The blood was identified as human.

The lack of pcr amplification is part of the mystery , but also part of the validation. If it was a fraud , it would amplify as the DNA of the person it was taken from . There is only one person cited in history presumed to have no paternal DNA. Guess who, That has surprised all the pathologists: samples as good as this normally yield a sequence.

Read the reports and interviews also of such as so called Eucharistic miracle analysis. Impossible to explain or fake. Many pathologists involved not just one. All come to similar conclusion on the pathology. None can explain it or indeed how there are white cells in vitro.

 

[Astrid]

Massive erosion. And not long term erosion, short term erosion. It is possible to tell the difference between the two. Then there is the fact that ice floats. There are quite a few other lines of evidence that refute that tale.

Oh! And then there is my favorite. You have heard about the urban myth of a person waking up in a seedy hotel bathtub filled with ice and missing a kidney. Do you now why that does not happen in real life?

And also the evidence exists that tells us that the Earth is old. Creationists have no answer against that evidence except for falsehoods.

For every yard of material eroded here, there's a yard of deposition
there.
There would be a distinct flood layer in the strata.

The " flood" is a igger event than the asteroid that
ended the cretaceous. We can find that boundary 60
some million years later.
I don't think even a creationist believes they found the flood layer.

 

[Astrid]

There are several tests for blood and human blood which are used at crime scenes. The blood was identified as human.

The lack of pcr amplification is part of the mystery , but also part of the validation. If it was a fraud , it would amplify as the DNA of the person it was taken from . There is only one person cited in history without paternal DNA. That has surprised all the pathologists.

Read the reports and interviews also of such as so called Eucharistic miracle analysis. Impossible to explain or fake. Many pathologists involved not just one. All come to similar conclusion.

"Several".
What tests were actually performed?
Are you saying there was DNA?


"Impossible" might apply, but certain ifs are involved.
A lot of ifs. Could you identify any?

A related " if" being that if this is valid, it is a scientific
marvel of the first order.
Why do you suppose no researchers seem to be all over
it, competing for the Nobel, potentially the greatest
scientific demonstration of all time?

 

[dlamberth]

Eastern

Thanks for the correction. Having been on several field trips exploring the floods in Eastern Washington and here in Oregon with the Ice Age Institute, I don't know how that popped in. Where I live it's been estimated that my house would have been under 250 feet of water.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For every yard of material eroded here, there's a yard of deposition
there.
There would be a distinct flood layer in the strata.

The " flood" is a igger event than the asteroid that
ended the cretaceous. We can find that boundary 60
some million years later.
I don't think even a creationist believes they found the flood layer.

Some of them will try to claim that sedimentary rocks are from the flood when it can be shown easily that they could not be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are several tests for blood and human blood which are used at crime scenes. The blood was identified as human.

The lack of pcr amplification is part of the mystery , but also part of the validation. If it was a fraud , it would amplify as the DNA of the person it was taken from . There is only one person cited in history presumed to have no paternal DNA. Guess who, That has surprised all the pathologists: samples as good as this normally yield a sequence.

Read the reports and interviews also of such as so called Eucharistic miracle analysis. Impossible to explain or fake. Many pathologists involved not just one. All come to similar conclusion on the pathology. None can explain it or indeed how there are white cells in vitro.

You try to claim that this is "science" an important part of science is peer review. Why didn't he publish his findings in a well respected professional peer reviewed journal? I can think of one very good reason not to.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think even a creationist believes they found the flood layer.

And what if it was found tomorrow? what then?

In my opinion, it would just widen the gap between science and the Bible; making things worse, not better.

There are some things I don't think were meant to be found, else Satan would use it to his advantage.

Moses' body is a prime example:

Deuteronomy 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

So why did God bury Moses, and not Joshua or Caleb? guess who went looking for it?

Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

 

[Astrid]

You try to claim that this is "science" an important part of science is peer review. Why didn't he publish his findings in a well respected professional peer reviewed journal? I can think of one very good reason not to.

One can find all sorts of Amazing Science
in the woo woo press, complete with
experts with degrees, for Bigfoot, Bermuda
Triangle, homeopathy, etc.

A source other than one like "reasons to
believe" or "flying saucer news" is needed
for any emhanced credibility.

That no credible journal, Lancet, say,
will touch this statue- blood thing is a tell.

A conspiracy theory advanced as the
reason is probable as an explanation
for this oddity.

 

[Speedwell]

And what if it was found tomorrow? what then?

In my opinion, it would just widen the gap between science and the Bible; making things worse, not better.

How so? If there was real evidence of a flood then science would acknowledge it. Why would that be a problem?

 

[Frank Robert]

How so? If there was real evidence of a flood then science would acknowledge it. Why would that be a problem?

Because atheist scientists are evil people and what to deceive you. /sarc

 

[Astrid]

Because atheist scientists are evil people and what to deceive you. /sarc

WWCOSSTDC. The world wide conspiracy of satanic
scientists to deceive Christians.