What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Job 33:6]

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.

Why would a river flow around land as it was uplifted, versus eroding into it?

It's pretty common that we observe rivers eroding gorges. I'm not sure why the grand canyon ought to be different from any other gorge.

 

[Mountainmike]

Hahaha

Yours doesn't.

You think good forensic science is funny?
I don’t.
Blood. Human A/B
Tissue. Human, thin epithelium, eg face.

Nuclear DNA , couldn’t get it to PCR, despite quantity.
Mitochondrial DNA , present. Was not the same as statue owner.
That is what should surprise you. I doubt if it does because i doubt you understand why it is surprising.

Some vegetative matter: corresponds to thorns.
Wept and bled live on continuous film. No possibility of fraud.
Statue CT scan. No possibility of vents or passages

Tested by expert witness pathologists,
One day atheists might look at forensics.
I won’t hold my breath.


end of conversation - you refuse it study enough to make it worthwhile.

 

[renniks]

Why would a river flow around land as it was uplifted, versus eroding into it?

Because water follows the easiest course. Water doesn’t flow uphill.
Geologists do not agree on when or how the canyon was formed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Geologists do not agree on when or how the canyon was formed.

Interesting that the Grand Canyon was allegedly forged by the Colorado River 70 million years ago, but the Mississippi River, allegedly forged 40 million years ago, doesn't have a canyon.

 

[Speedwell]

Interesting that the Grand Canyon was allegedly forged by the Colorado River 70 million years ago, but the Mississippi River, allegedly forged 40 million years ago, doesn't have a canyon.

The land under it didn't rise.

 

[Frank Robert]

Interesting that the Grand Canyon was allegedly forged by the Colorado River 70 million years ago, but the Mississippi River, allegedly forged 40 million years ago, doesn't have a canyon.

It's a tiny bit more complicated
The Grand Canyon is the result of a distinct and ordered combination of geologic events

The story begins almost two billion years ago with the formation of the igneous and metamorphic
rocks of the inner gorge. Above these old rocks lie layer upon layer of sedimentary rock, each telling
a unique part of the environmental history of the Grand Canyon region. Learn more...​

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

The difference is that it matters if it's designed. If not, nothing matters.

When God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, it was a reaction to the creation of gravity.
The Earth formed around a gravitational singularity.
Gravitational time dilation (GTD) means that the remote regions of the cosmos may be 13.8 billion years old or more, but the earth only 6000 or so years old, at the same time.

Most Christians (all stripes) accept earth older than 6000 years. There are multiple independent lines of evidence from science. Written history itself goes back before this.

 

[Frank Robert]

Because water follows the easiest course. Water doesn’t flow uphill.
Geologists do not agree on when or how the canyon was formed.

I imagine that a few scientists have suggested differently. Do you have any particular scientists in mind?

 

[Subduction Zone]

4/ so the RC date was garbage in, garbage out ignoring all agreed test protocols. The custody of sudarium shows the shroud is way older. Other physiochemical tests suggest 1st century.

Nope, the RC dates is the strongest evidence. There is no valid explanation of why they are wrong.

They all appear to be as one article stated "pious fakes".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only to a point.

I believe if they found evidence of Noah's flood, they would claim it occurred n-million years ago.

Thus heaping more coals on the fire for YECs and Embedded Agers.

You clearly do not understand scientists. Man did not exist millions of years ago. Though I have run across some Christians that are even more extreme than you that make that claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, that leads us in a circle. If it can't be verified by the scientific method and the scientific method and is all we have... it can't be verified, even if it happens to be reality.

The flood claim would leave massive evidence. Geological evidence is only part of it. Biology tells us that it did not happen, history tells us that it did not happen, even mythology refutes it.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

White blood cells, tissue and scabs are not living. They are parts of living things, but in and of themselves not life, or defined as being alive.



The quotation isn't correct

“If any life can be shown to have come from other than progressive small change my theory would be disproved”

The quote from the 1860 second edition is:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

This sentence doesn't change in any of the six editions of On The Origin of Species. I know, I just checked. You can compare editions online.

Now, what I want to know is: are your sources lying, or are you lying? And, why tell such a stupid and easily checked lie?

And, if it was from another source, why wouldn't you check yourself?

And, if you're this bad at source criticism, what does this say about your ability to assess the reliability of Eucharist miracle claims.

Darwin's theory didn't break down but it was significantly extended (modified) with the new synthesis and punctuated equilibrium. I suspect he is constantly referred back to because his original theory is relatively easy to explain, and was the first (with Wallace) biological theory of evolution

 

[dlamberth]

Interesting that the Grand Canyon was allegedly forged by the Colorado River 70 million years ago, but the Mississippi River, allegedly forged 40 million years ago, doesn't have a canyon.

The land that the Colorado River flows through gained elevation over time allowing the river to cut the canyon. The Mississippi River on the other hand meandered, cutting new channels that look like this:

 

[Subduction Zone]

You think good forensic science is funny?
I don’t.
Blood. Human A/B
Tissue. Human, thin epithelium, eg face.

Nuclear DNA , couldn’t get it to PCR, despite quantity.
Mitochondrial DNA , present. Was not the same as statue owner.
That is what should surprise you. I doubt if it does because i doubt you understand why it is surprising.

Some vegetative matter: corresponds to thorns.
Wept and bled live on continuous film. No possibility of fraud.
Statue CT scan. No possibility of vents or passages

Tested by expert witness pathologists,
One day atheists might look at forensics.
I won’t hold my breath.


end of conversation - you refuse it study enough to make it worthwhile.

Where is the peer reviewed paper on this?

Do you know why your good doctor most likely did not publish such a paper? Other experts in the field would almost certainly refute it. In case you did not know proper publication is part of the scientific method. One has to provide enough information so that others can check out one's results. Your doctor does not appear to have done so.

When you provide valid sources we will study it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting that the Grand Canyon was allegedly forged by the Colorado River 70 million years ago, but the Mississippi River, allegedly forged 40 million years ago, doesn't have a canyon.

Do you realize that there is this thing called "sea level"?

EDIT: And that age of 40 million years is an upper limit for age. It could be much younger:

How Old is the Mississippi River? - The Nature Institute.

The energy that a river has for erosion is directly tied to its change in elevation. Most of the Mississippi is very very flat. It can erode back and forth, but down . . . not so much.

 

[Speedwell]

Most Christians (all stripes) accept earth older than 6000 years. There are multiple independent lines of evidence from science. Written history itself goes back before this.

About 40% of Americans believe in a young Earth. Not necessarily 6000 year old--the way pollsters like Pew and Gallup generally ask the question is "...within the last 10,000 years."

 

[Subduction Zone]

One of my favorite pictures. This image alone refutes the Noah's Ark story:

 

[Estrid]

Darwin's theory didn't break down but it was significantly extended (modified) with the new synthesis and punctuated equilibrium. I suspect he is constantly referred back to because his original theory is relatively easy to explain, and was the first (with Wallace) biological theory of evolution

Why don't you take on the Bleeding Statue with Real Blood,
and wake the rest of us when it's over.

 

[Estrid]

One of my favorite pictures. This image alone refutes the Noah's Ark story:

Only to someone with the capacity to understand it.

 

[Estrid]

Where is the peer reviewed paper on this?

Do you know why your good doctor most likely did not publish such a paper? Other experts in the field would almost certainly refute it. In case you did not know proper publication is part of the scientific method. One has to provide enough information so that others can check out one's results. Your doctor does not appear to have done so.

When you provide valid sources we will study it.

Like that will happen. If there were one there would be a
Nobel along with it.