What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

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

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

No, there were different theories. Past tense. Most have been eliminated. I see that you are still applying literalistic standards to the sciences. Scientists do not make that error.

 

[Speedwell]

Lol, so you say.

Not me, I'm not a geologist. Those who are saying it are geologists, all the way back to the 18th century ago when the study of geology was begun by scientists, most of them Christians, who began searching for evidence of Noah's flood and found something else entirely.

 

[renniks]

Nope. You live and die by the false dichotomy. No one is "guessing"

I suspect I could look at any old dry lake and come up with a whole slew of hypotheses of how it formed, and none of them could be proven to be impossible. That's a far cry from knowing they are correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, there were different theories. Past tense.

I take it you lump the Synestia Theory in with that "past tense"?

 

[Speedwell]

I suspect I could look at any old dry lake and come up with a whole slew of hypotheses of how it formed, and none of them could be proven to be impossible. That's a far cry from knowing they are correct.

You would then have to test them, and some of them could be shown to be impossible. That is implicit in any properly formed scientific hypothesis--it must include a statement of what evidence would falsify it.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I don't believe the Grand Canyon was formed by the Flood either.

But just to make a good point you probably won't understand, let me ask you this:

What specific equipment was used to falsify the idea that the Grand Canyon was not formed by the Flood?

(And I'm asking for specific equipment, like thumper trucks and such; not a screen and a half of vague rhetoric.)

A magnifying glass. A microscope. A mass spectrometer. A rock drill.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Fake history.

Else they wouldn't be able to make it dovetail in other historical accounts, and there would go their consilience out the door.

I would love to see how you could fake so many people arriving at the same conclusion based on independent assessment of the physical evidence.

 

[Mr Laurier]

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.

The fact that the Grand Canyon has existed for as long as it is as old as, is kinda basic reality. The two concepts do overlap.

 

[dlamberth]

I don't believe the Grand Canyon was formed by the Flood either.

How than was the Grand Canyon formed?

 

[Mr Laurier]

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.

Given that the whole universe is only 14 billion years old...
The fact that the Grand Canyon did in fact exist LONG before 2350 bce, is self evident.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would love to see how you could fake so many people arriving at the same conclusion based on independent assessment of the physical evidence.

Why wouldn't they?

They all have a formulary of what is acceptable ways to employ.
The have computers to help them along.
They have a make-it-fit goal.

If I held a bolt in my hand and told ten people to come up with a nut that fits that bolt, do you think they could do it?

 

[AV1611VET]

How than was the Grand Canyon formed?

It wasn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Given that the whole universe is only 14 billion years old...

Where did you hear that at?

The fact that the Grand Canyon did in fact exist LONG before 2350 bce, is self evident.

I don't doubt there's a LOT of stuff "evident" to evolutionists.

They may be evident, but they are evidently wrong.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Why wouldn't they?

Let me see.... Rivalry, Honesty, Grasp of how geology leads to profitable discovery of minerals... etc etc etc....

They all have a formulary of what is acceptable ways to employ.
The have computers to help them along.
They have a make-it-fit goal.

They all have a desire to better understand the facts.
Alas, your fantasy is more applicable to creationists than to geologists.

If I held a bolt in my hand and told ten people to come up with a nut that fits that bolt, do you think they could do it?

Probably. But the Grand Canyon is not a bolt. And the evidence is not a nut that fits.

 

[Astrid]

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.

I've seen it said that the relatively steep sides of the canyon
"Prove" it is young.

The way it is phrased in the quote" worn, should be"
is not geologist talk.
Our creos do not read books, take notes then
go back to original sources so of course the quotes
are chosen by a creosote.
A non scientists givingan opinion with no
evident basis for it, in a book for lay
readersc is not much of a basis for showing
yec / flood is or is not true.

Still, it made me curious about the rate at which the
canyon widens. It's five miles across now.
The dynamics involved in the slope of an eroding/
weathering rock face is probably pretty complicated.

A geologist who presented a research paper
analyzing these factors could probably show whether
there is some unaccountable anomaly.

 

[dlamberth]

It wasn't.

Can you give a bit more information? How did it get there?

Also. how did Hells Canyon on the Oregon/Idaho border get there?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Where did you hear that at?

Hmmmm My parents TV room. The science classroom at the highschool I attended. My home. Etc, etc, etc.... Its rather common knowledge
As to where I read it. Libraries, coffee shops, pubs, my own balcony, etc etc etc....

I don't doubt there's a LOT of stuff "evident" to evolutionists.

Given the non-existence of your "evolutionists"...

They may be evident, but they are evidently wrong.

Facts are never wrong.

 

[Astrid]

A magnifying glass. A microscope. A mass spectrometer. A rock drill.

An ice drill is also useful, look at antarctic
ice to see that there was no flood.

 

[Mr Laurier]

An ice drill is also useful, look at antarctic
ice to see that there was no flood.

Indeed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you give a bit more information? How did it get there?

I believe it appeared when God broke Pangaea up into five separate continents.

When Europe was pulled apart from America, it appeared as "collateral damage."