What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

If some think the Grand Canyon is 70 million years old, I won't dispute that.

But what I will dispute is anyone who says that the Grand Canyon existed prior to around 2345 BC.

Give or take a few years.

Oh we know that it is millions of years older than that. And your upper limit is a bit high. It would be wise to try to learn the difference between mere belief and knowledge.

 

[Astrid]

You forgot about plate tectonics. The Gulf of California did not exist always in its present form. Many of the sediments are in California's Central Valley. The opening of the Gulf of California is a recent event, geologically. It did not exist when the Grand Canyon first began to form:

The California River and its role in carving Grand Canyon | GSA Bulletin | GeoScienceWorld

"Cliffs not worn as they should be" is an odd thing to say.
Wonder what the basis is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh we know that it is millions of years older than that.

As I said, I can live with that.

They can even say it's a quintrillion years old if they want to believe that.

Just don't tell me it existed prior to circa 2350 BC and expect me to believe it.

 

[VirOptimus]

As I said, I can live with that.

They can even say it's a quintrillion years old if they want to believe that.

Just don't tell me it existed prior to circa 2350 BC and expect me to believe it.

Yeah, you are a YEC.

 

[Speedwell]

Yeah, you are a YEC.

Actually, he's a "last Thursdayist."

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually, he's a "last Thursdayist."

That too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Cliffs not worn as they should be" is an odd thing to say.
Wonder what the basis is.

I often ignore strange creationese.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, I can live with that.

They can even say it's a quintrillion years old if they want to believe that.

Just don't tell me it existed prior to circa 2350 BC and expect me to believe it.

People that can reason rationally will believe it. There is no way to predict what people that refuse to reason rationally will believe. Who knows, they might even believe in a lying God. Creationists far to often claim that atheists try to refute Genesis, when it was Christian scientists that first refuted those stories.

 

[Mountainmike]

You are welcome to whatever it is. I do find an contradiction between your declarations of non”ist” and humanist. Also the idea that science itself is the basis of morality to me misunderstands science & consciousness.

To The difference between many of us here. Im happy to accept tested evidence wherever it points, unless it can be shown possible to fabricate it.


Eg ( I raise as example to show what I mean, not to divert discussion) the shroud chemistry and image point at body centric radiation as the only explanation consistent with the mark.

Since science can only investigate patterns in what repeats naturally or can be repeated ,a one off inexplicable doesn’t contradict science. Maybe only one body has ever done it or will ever do it. If that’s what the evidence points at , the assumption must be it happened Till someone finds an alternative that stacks up, or a way that it could be faked.

Denying evidence isn’t scientific even if it is unexplainable.

Beliefs come and go .. some are testable some aren't. Science grabs the useful ones whenever they appear. The questions you pose, which drive your fascination with these topics, aren't useful questions in science.

My personal quest in life, is to distinguish any and all beliefs (be they theistic, atheistic etc). I do not support indulgence in untestable beliefs and opinions ..
Now: whaddya need ta call that, again, (ie: purely for your own benefit .. because I, myself, couldn't care less what its called)?
No interest .. (as I've informed you before).
So you already knew the answer to your question before you demanded my explanation?

 

[Astrid]

I often ignore strange creationese.

You did not see that comes from someone who wrote a book
against yec- interpretation of the canyon.

 

[renniks]

An so it is with the theory that the Grand Canyon was formed by a recent global flood. That theory has been falsified long since and no uncertainty about how the canyon was actually formed will revive it.

Lol, so you say.

 

[renniks]

That is what you believe because it is what you expect because it is what you believe. Ad infinitum!
In other words a self-fulfilling prophecy.
View attachment 297791

No, this is what I've seen. Half a dozen people on here saying emphatically. "It happened this way!" Never mind that other theories have already been thought to be correct and dismissed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You did not see that comes from someone who wrote a book
against yec- interpretation of the canyon.

It is hard to say, the quote has all of the hallmarks of being a quote mine. When a creationist does not supply a link to the original source one could make a fortune by consistently betting that it is an example of quote mining.

 

[renniks]

They called hypothesis. Doesn't it follow that if there are recognized competing hypothesis then scientists in effect are not claiming to know everything?

That's why I say there is guessing involved. There can't be competing theories otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, so you say.

No "lol" about it. I provided an image earlier, perhaps in another thread, so I will post it again. This image alone shows that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form:

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's why I say there is guessing involved. There can't be competing theories otherwise.

Sorry, that is a false dichotomy. There may be some unanswered questions. That does not mean that they are guessing. Guessing is what creationists do. Real scientist form testable hypotheses.

 

[renniks]

Sorry, that is a false dichotomy. There may be some unanswered questions. That does not mean that they are guessing. Guessing is what creationists do. Real scientist form testable hypotheses.

You just contradicted yourself. Again.

 

[Speedwell]

No, this is what I've seen. Half a dozen people on here saying emphatically. "It happened this way!" Never mind that other theories have already been thought to be correct and dismissed.

Can you list or quote them? I am not aware that any of us have said any such thing. What I have seen are people saying that it didn't happen your way, which is not the same thing at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just contradicted yourself. Again.

Nope. You live and die by the false dichotomy. No one is "guessing". Well, except for creationists of course.

I think that this is merely a case of rampant projection on your part mixed with a bit of a Tu Quoque fallacy. You know that your side has no clue so you try to accuse others of that. There is no scientific evidence for creationist beliefs. In fact the scientific evidence refutes it. There is scientific evidence for the various hypotheses of canyon formation.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, this is what I've seen. Half a dozen people on here saying emphatically. "It happened this way!" Never mind that other theories have already been thought to be correct and dismissed.

Whatever you do, don't ask how we got our moon!

There are some seven or eight different theories out there in academia.