What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Astrid]

Indeed.

There are a number of really silly ways that creos
try to explain away that inconvenient detail.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Antarctica didn't exist prior to the Flood.

The entire Earth was one tropical paradise.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

 

[renniks]

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.

Go back and read the posts.

 

[renniks]

Funny thing is, I never said the Grand canyon was formed by the flood either, but everyone assumed I thought that.

 

[Speedwell]

Go back and read the posts.

I have.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are a number of really silly ways that creos
try to explain away that inconvenient detail.

Then let's see how you explain away that "inconvenient detail."

 

[Speedwell]

Funny thing is, I never said the Grand canyon was formed by the flood either, but everyone assumed I thought that.

So what do you think? What is your hypothesis about when and how the canyon was formed?

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny thing is, I never said the Grand canyon was formed by the flood either, but everyone assumed I thought that.

Don't worry.

They'll have you saying things you'd never believe you actually said; and they'll have you believing things you never believed before.

I've been called everything but what's in my profile.

 

[AV1611VET]

So what do you think? What is your hypothesis about when and how the canyon was formed?

Why? you going to call her a "last Thursdayist" too?

Like you did me in Post 2145?

 

[Frank Robert]

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

When you suggest that scientific hypotheses are guesses you are not changing or reducing their scientific significance all you are doing is displaying your contempt for science. Hypotheses do not need to be correct to be scientific. Perhaps one of the reasons creationists display so much contempt for science is that creationists are unable to develop hypotheses from their guesses and speculation which can be tested with the scientific method. Thus the need to show denigrate science. I do admit that some of us on here display contempt for "creationist science" and perhaps something we can all work on is to find a better way to disagree.

 

[Speedwell]

Why? you going to call her a "last Thursdayist" too?

Like you did me in Post 2145?

I thought you were proud of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought you were proud of it.

Wow -- just wow.

 

[Speedwell]

Wow -- just wow.

Then why do you hold the position? Are you ashamed of your imbedded age thing?

 

[renniks]

Hypotheses do not need to be correct to be scientific.

Thank you... that's exactly what I'm trying to say. And yet multiple people on here are treating them as proven correct.

 

[renniks]

Perhaps one of the reasons creationists display so much contempt for science is that creationists are unable to develop hypotheses from their guesses and speculation which can be tested with the scientific method.

Not true. There have been creation scientists who have come up with hypothesis' for the Grand canyon formation, for example

 

[Speedwell]

Thank you... that's exactly what I'm trying to say. And yet multiple people on here are treating them as proven correct.

You keep saying that. Since it is manifestly untrue, I wonder what your point is.

 

[Frank Robert]

Not true. There have been creation scientists who have come up with hypothesis' for the Grand canyon formation, for example

When there are competing hypothesis the ones with the best evidence and or predictions are the ones that win out. I know one of the complaints of creationists are that they are not given a chance and in some situations that may be true. The situations that I am aware all have to do with intelligent design which so far hasn't been able to present a testable hypothesis. I have not observed any scientific hypotheses on the major creationists organizations: AIG, ICR and DI only things I've is seen from them are criticisms of scientists and science research.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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 are nitpicking. Let's forget about how it began, rather we should be concentrating on how we know that it was not a slow process. Are you game?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

That just tells us that creationists do not understand erosion and cliff formation. One could claim that the faces of cliffs are always rather "young". At least geologically. Cliffs from when there is a less well indurated (cemented) layer underneath one that is well indurated. It is relatively "soft". That will erode away before the rocks above it do. The constant undercutting results in sharp slopes as the rock above.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Yep, in the real world ice floats.