What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Astrid]

Isn't this all a silly game?

Suture self how low ya wanna go.

 

[Bradskii]

Catch up, chief.

Someone here (can't remember who it is) wants to know how the Earth would be different if God didn't exist and nature ran the show.

Not quite true. I asked for any practical differences. On the assumption that Jesus did exist, today's date would be today's date even if He was the son of God or not. It would be exactly the same.

Which was kinda my point.

 

[Astrid]

Why so set on it taking millions of years? The uplifting is just one idea. Fact is, they are still guessing.

I was pointing out your binary thinking
so you come back with something you
made up about me being set on one idea?
Sheesh. Not fair.

I did show how your bulge in a kiddie pool
was kinda lame.

There is nothing novel about uplift,
the places you can see uplift and subsidence
are all over the country, whichever one you
live in.

Geologists don't, btw, just "guess".

 

[renniks]

I was pointing out your binary thinking
so you come back with something you
made up about me being set on one idea?
I did show how your bulge in a kiddie pool
was kinda lame.
There is nothing novel about uplift,
the places you can see uplift and subsidence
are all over the country, whichever one you
live in.

Geologists don't, btw, just "guess".

They sure do not know. So many competing ideas, what else would you call it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why so set on it taking millions of years? The uplifting is just one idea. Fact is, they are still guessing.

No. You are guessing. They form hypotheses and test them. Did you know that the picture that I provided was evidence of uplift?

 

[Subduction Zone]

They sure do not know. So many competing ideas, what else would you call it?

There are very few competing ideas. You cannot count creationist claims. They were refuted over 200 ago when it comes to geology.

 

[Astrid]

They sure do not know. So many competing ideas, what else would you call it?

Don't know what?
IF there were many competing ideas about something all of which are equally supported by data , what would I call the process of choosing?

Given that such a scenario is very improbable, but may exist for
things for which data is all but nonexistent-

I dont know. Guessing, probably.

Geology is not guesswork.
What point do you want to make?

Did you notice how I answered your
"only possibilities"
Oh, and please don't make things up.
Takes the interest out of conversation.

 

[dlamberth]

Why so set on it taking millions of years? The uplifting is just one idea. Fact is, they are still guessing.

The uplift happened and the why is known. What are they still guessing about?

One interesting point that might be targeted as guessing is that the geologist are trying to figure out why the flow of water through the Grand Canyon ran in the opposite direction than it does today. They have named that now a non-existent river the California River because it's looking like it originated in the Mojave region. But that was 50 million years ago, so where it originated is an educated guess at this point as is the why it changed direction.

 

[Job 33:6]

Why so set on it taking millions of years? The uplifting is just one idea. Fact is, they are still guessing.

It's based on observation, general physics and chemistry.

It really isn't guessing.

Unless of course someone rejects physics and chemistry.

I'm not sure who it was I had asked this before, but what do you think of the concept of regional metamorphosis?

Do you think that maybe physics in the past was different?

Rocks form under certain temperatures and pressures. They break at certain angles. They will change from brittle fracturing to ductile deformation under specific conditions.

The rocks themselves, they are records of their own history. Rocks have scars just like people, that tell us what they've been through.

People who believe in things like hydro hyper tectonics or whatever they call it these days, they basically just throw all physics out the window and they assume that rocks underwent radical orogenesis (mountains blasting I to the sky as tectonic plates ram eachother like bumper cars), while simultaneously the rocks are not deformed in a way which suggests that such a chaotic event ever happened at all.

Maybe you're the person I was talking about the green river formation with. 5+ million independent repeating varves, which themselves are couplets, a dense layer and less dense layer. So this alleged global flood lays down 5 million couples, or 10 million individual bands of rock, in a single year by a flood? That's something like 13,000 varves per day or 26,000 layers per day. Meanwhile animal tracks and feeding trace marks are found in between layers. As if birds were casually walking around grazing right in the middle of the deposition of 26,000 layers in a single day.

Or we could look at unconformities, what does it mean to a young earther when they see an angular unconformity right in the middle of the paleozoic? It's just strange trying to rationalize these things.

Physics and chemistry suggests an old earth. And simple logic suggests an old earth as well.

Distinguishing between whether the earth is young or old is no more guesswork than it is distinguishing between whether a tree is young or old. If you see a sapling, then it is a. If you see a giant sequoia with a 30 foot diameter trunk, then it's old. The earth being the biggest sequoia anyone could ever see.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Suture self how low ya wanna go.

Or perhaps word games - Wittgenstein

 

[Mr Laurier]

Oh if Jesus had not been born? Who knows. Perhaps we would be on the Muslim calendar.

Doubtful. Islam is based on a fusion of Christianity and Judaism. There would be no Muslim calendar. Mithras, Odin, Cernunus/Lugh, and the Isis and Oriris cult would most likely dominate Europe. With some variant of Quetzalcoatl worshiped here, alongside ancestors and local deities.

 

[renniks]

The uplift happened and the why is known. What are they still guessing about?

One interesting point that might be targeted as guessing is that the geologist are trying to figure out why the flow of water through the Grand Canyon ran in the opposite direction than it does today. They have named that now a non-existent river the California River because it's looking like it originated in the Mojave region. But that was 50 million years ago, so where it originated is an educated guess at this point as is the why it changed direction.

Go read some of the theories. They have it set from anywhere from 6 million to 17 million years.

"The Grand Canyon may seem to be a simple case of "river carves rock," but to geologists, its formation is still puzzling. Ira Flatow and guests discuss the canyon's mysteries, and the scientific sleuthing being done to solve them—millions of years after the Colorado River carried off the evidence."

"So as you go farther back into the history of this iconic landscape, I think the evidence becomes more fragmentary, and there's much more room for discussion and debate about how we got to where we are now."
(Karl Karlstrom, professor, structural geology and tectonics, University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, N.M.)

 

[Astrid]

Go read some of the theories. They have it set from anywhere from 6 million to 17 million years.

"The Grand Canyon may seem to be a simple case of "river carves rock," but to geologists, its formation is still puzzling. Ira Flatow and guests discuss the canyon's mysteries, and the scientific sleuthing being done to solve them—millions of years after the Colorado River carried off the evidence."

"So as you go farther back into the history of this iconic landscape, I think the evidence becomes more fragmentary, and there's much more room for discussion and debate about how we got to where we are now."
(Karl Karlstrom, professor, structural geology and tectonics, University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, N.M.)

The same can be said for the history of Rome.
Fragmentary, lots of room for debate.
Mysteries, things that likely will never be known
esp as one gets into smaller and smaller details.

So, exactly, what? Rome just might have been built
in a day? The grand canyon could have been carved
In a matter of weeks through mud?

 

[Speedwell]

Go read some of the theories. They have it set from anywhere from 6 million to 17 million years.

"The Grand Canyon may seem to be a simple case of "river carves rock," but to geologists, its formation is still puzzling. Ira Flatow and guests discuss the canyon's mysteries, and the scientific sleuthing being done to solve them—millions of years after the Colorado River carried off the evidence."

"So as you go farther back into the history of this iconic landscape, I think the evidence becomes more fragmentary, and there's much more room for discussion and debate about how we got to where we are now."
(Karl Karlstrom, professor, structural geology and tectonics, University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, N.M.)

And because of that uncertainty we may therefore conclude that it must have happened in a few weeks 4500 years ago. QED.

 

[renniks]

And because of that uncertainty we may therefore conclude that it must have happened in a few weeks 4500 years ago. QED.

Well I would just like to see some honesty... Instead of everyone claiming that it was all proven facts.

 

[Speedwell]

Well I would just like to see some honesty... Instead of everyone claiming that it was all proven facts.

Scientific theories are never considered "proven facts." Scientific theories are the conclusions of inductive logic. They can never be "proven facts": because it is always possible that new evidence may falsify them. Once falsified, however, they stay falsified. For example, I have seen many swans and all of them have been white. Therefore, I formulate a theory that all swans are white. It is not a "proven fact" that all swans are white because I have not and cannot see all swans now or in future. If, at some future date I see a black swan, even just one, my theory is falsified and I can never again conclude that all swans are white, no matter how many more white swans I see.

With regard to the theory that the Grand Canyon was formed in a few weeks 4500 years ago, we have already seen the "black swan." That does not allow me to to say that any other theory of the canyon's formation is a "proven fact." And "everyone" doesn't say so.

 

[Astrid]

Well I would just like to see some honesty... Instead of everyone claiming that it was all proven facts.

You already have the honesty from this side.

Science never does "proven facts",

"Everyone"?

NOBODY here makes such a claim for
science.nor does anyone anywhere who
has a clue about science.

However, resesrch does a terrif job of
disproving notions such as are put
forward by yecs about the canyon.

The lack of honesty you speak of certainly
exists, in any yec - site where the only
honesty is admitting that they disregard
data in favour of dogma.

 

[Frank Robert]

Well I would just like to see some honesty... Instead of everyone claiming that it was all proven facts.

Wow!!! How about some honesty from creationists?

How many times have you been corrected and instructed that "science is provisional and not proven" and that "science does not claim to have all the answers?"

 

[AV1611VET]

Well I would just like to see some honesty...

From GIGOists?

Any honesty you get will come from their belief in what is contained in their data bases.

They may be honest, but honestly wrong.

 

[renniks]

Ranney, in his 2005 book Carving Grand Canyon: Evidence, Theories, and Mystery, said:

"Oddly enough, the Grand Canyon is located in a place where it seemingly shouldn’t be. Some twenty miles east of Grand Canyon Village, the Colorado River turned sharply ninety degrees, from a southern course to a western one and into the heart of the uplifted Kaibab Plateau. . . . It appears to cut right through this uplifted wall of rock, which lies three thousand feet above the adjacent Marble Platform to the east.5

Most geologists believe the uplift occurred before erosion of the canyon into and through the plateau. But that leaves the headwaters of the Colorado River at a lower elevation than the top of that plateau, which indicates the Colorado River could not have carved the Grand Canyon...

If the canyon was eroded by the Colorado River, an enormous delta should be found at the mouth of the river where it empties into the Gulf of California. But the delta contains only a small fraction of this eroded material...
Then there's the fact that the cliffs are not worn like they should be if they had have been there millions of years...