What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

AV1611VET said:

And what if it was found tomorrow? what then?

Click to expand...

With all of the world wide drilling into the Earth for oil, water, gas and what not, "IF" such a layer were to be found it would have been found by now. There's no way a Biblical flood layer could be hidden. There simply is not any evidence for a Biblical world wide flood.

dlamberth said:

With all of the world wide drilling into the Earth for oil, water, gas and what not, "IF" such a layer were to be found it would have been found by now. There's no way a Biblical flood layer could be hidden. There simply is not any evidence for a Biblical world wide flood.

Click to expand...

I gave what I think is two concrete evidences of the Flood, and both were either dismissed immediately on principle, or micro-ridicule-questioned into oblivion.

As far as a Flood layer is concerned though, I don't know.

I like to think that God so "cleaned up after Himself" that, like when He removed one of Adam's ribs, He left no trace of an operation.

AV1611VET said:

I gave what I think is two concrete evidences of the Flood, and both were either dismissed immediately on principle, or micro-ridicule-questioned into oblivion.

As far as a Flood layer is concerned though, I don't know.

I like to think that God so "cleaned up after Himself" that, like when He removed one of Adam's ribs, He left no trace of an operation.

Click to expand...

Yes, He cleaned up after the flood so well that the only trace remaining is a dubious interpretation of an ancient religious text.

dlamberth said:

With all of the world wide drilling into the Earth for oil, water, gas and what not, "IF" such a layer were to be found it would have been found by now. There's no way a Biblical flood layer could be hidden. There simply is not any evidence for a Biblical world wide flood.

Click to expand...

It would appear at the surface too like what you have in Washington state.
But your pal is advancing a false hypothetical , not least
because of belief that God hid the evidence, followed by a
scenario for what happens if what all agree is impossible
did happen.

Next we could talk about what will happen to fundamentalism
v science if the law of averages spins seemingly out of
control, followed by the law of diminishing returns.

What garbage.

AV1611VET said:

I like to think that God so "cleaned up after Himself" that, like when He removed one of Adam's ribs, He left no trace of an operation.

Click to expand...

Understood. But which I tend to understand then as God lying to us. Which God is unable to do.

Subduction Zone said:

You try to claim that this is "science" an important part of science is peer review. Why didn't he publish his findings in a well respected professional peer reviewed journal? I can think of one very good reason not to.

Click to expand...

Probably because he knew his peers would reject it, as they would anything unexplainable by thier scientific method.

dlamberth said:

Understood. But which I tend to understand then as God lying to us. Which God is unable to do.

Click to expand...

Yes ... I realize that, in academy-think, cleaning up after oneself is tantamount to lying.

Nevermind that God documented what He did, when He did it, what order He did it in, why He did it, where He did it, and who the eyewitnesses were,* He lied when He cleaned it up, didn't He?

* Just like during the Creation Week.

Estrid said:

But your pal is advancing a false hypothetical , not least because of belief that God hid the evidence,

Click to expand...

Last night my wife asked me:

Wife: Did you take a shower yesterday?
Me: Yup.
Wife: Why?
Me: I was dirty from changing the oil in our car.
Wife: What did you do with all the evidence that you were dirty?
Me: It went down the drain.
Wife: But you still look dirty.
Me: Ya, I've been outside working in the garden today.
Wife: So how are people to know you were dirty yesterday?
Me: Don't worry. I documented it.
Wife: You better hope they find that oily mess in the drainpipe.
Me: Why???
Wife: They'll accuse you of lying!

Estrid said:

"Several".
What tests were actually performed?
Are you saying there was DNA?


"Impossible" might apply, but certain ifs are involved.
A lot of ifs. Could you identify any?

A related " if" being that if this is valid, it is a scientific
marvel of the first order.
Why do you suppose no researchers seem to be all over
it, competing for the Nobel, potentially the greatest
scientific demonstration of all time?

Click to expand...

When you study it you will find out - the answer will surprise even you.

AV1611VET said:

Yes ... I realize that, in academy-think, cleaning up after oneself is tantamount to lying.

Click to expand...

It's not academy-think. It's a spiritual knowing that God does not lie. And what God does/or not to this Earth is not hidden and can not be hidden. There is absolutely no reason for God to clean up anything, unless He's hiding something, or lying. Which God can not do. Or, perhaps a person's need to work around/spin the obvious to make it work.

Mountainmike said:

When you study it you will find out - the answer will surprise even you.

Click to expand...

Hahaha

Yours doesn't.

AV1611VET said:

And what if it was found tomorrow? what then?

In my opinion, it would just widen the gap between science and the Bible; making things worse, not better.

There are some things I don't think were meant to be found, else Satan would use it to his advantage.

Moses' body is a prime example:

Deuteronomy 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

So why did God bury Moses, and not Joshua or Caleb? guess who went looking for it?

Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Click to expand...

Scientists do not have the flaws of creationists. If evidence was found for the flood they would change their minds. You see most scientists are honest. They have to be. In the sciences being wrong is bad, but it is expected. No one is going to be right all of the time. Being dishonest is not acceptable, being dishonest will cost someone their career. I can name examples of creation "scientist" that openly lied and nothing was done to them because they lied for the Bible. With creation "scientist" the opposite appears to be the case. Being honest hurts your career. Lying for the stories of Genesis is perfectly okay.

Estrid said:

One can find all sorts of Amazing Science
in the woo woo press, complete with
experts with degrees, for Bigfoot, Bermuda
Triangle, homeopathy, etc.

A source other than one like "reasons to
believe" or "flying saucer news" is needed
for any emhanced credibility.

That no credible journal, Lancet, say,
will touch this statue- blood thing is a tell.

A conspiracy theory advanced as the
reason is probable as an explanation
for this oddity.

Click to expand...

When he had a cow when how the Shroud was shown to be fraud is also a tell. @Mountainmike is not looking for the "truth" he is only looking for reasons to believe.

How strong can one's faith be if one has to rely on known fakes for one's belief? In the sciences when fakes are found the person that discovered them gets more credit than the faker ever did. Creationists are merely looking for excuses to believe something that they appear to know is false.

renniks said:

Probably because he knew his peers would reject it, as they would anything unexplainable by thier scientific method.

Click to expand...

There is only one reason to reject articles in peer review. That is if the evidence does not hold up. Are you old enough to remember Cold Fusion? That was not put through peer review. It was hyped by the press because they do not understand the sciences. So scientists worldwide checked it out. If true it would have led to new energy sources and a lot of money. It was found to be a pipe dream. It was not rejected because no one like it. It was rejected because it was wrong.

dlamberth said:

There is absolutely no reason for God to clean up anything, unless He's hiding something, or lying.

Click to expand...

Or for sanitary and safety reasons.

You're implying that God wouldn't do anything that would need cleaned up afterward; and that's keeping you from understanding what I'm saying.

Subduction Zone said:

If evidence was found for the flood they would change their minds.

Click to expand...

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.

renniks said:

Probably because he knew his peers would reject it, as they would anything unexplainable by thier scientific method.

Click to expand...

If the work being done isn't explainable by the scientific method, then why should anyone accept it as scientifically verified?

Not everything fits with in the scientific method, but the things that don't fit aren't called science.

Hans Blaster said:

If the work being done isn't explainable by the scientific method, then why should anyone accept it as scientifically verified?

Not everything fits with in the scientific method, but the things that don't fit aren't called science.

Click to expand...

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.

renniks said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's not what he said.

Facts for atheists
1/ the sudarium of Oviedo forensic analysis shows pathology and odema , nose bleeds etc only explicable by crucifixion, including the positions of rest as it was taken down from the cross. Forensics unknown in Middle Ages so it cannot be forged.

2/ the blood and serum pattern has so many correspondences with the shroud there is no reasonable doubt about it being the same victim, whose pathology is explicable by the documented torture.

3/ ditto tunic of argentuille

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.

5/ the mark itself is a shallow thin layer oxidation/ caramelisation consistent with short burst radiation, which must be post mortem. It is not under the blood, the 3D distortion, intensity profile confirms body Centric.

6/ pollens minerals and flowers suggest march, holy land near Jerusalem


subduction has never looked at any shroud science ever.

There are many volumes of it.

Subduction Zone said:

When he had a cow when how the Shroud was shown to be fraud is also a tell. @Mountainmike is not looking for the "truth" he is only looking for reasons to believe.

How strong can one's faith be if one has to rely on known fakes for one's belief? In the sciences when fakes are found the person that discovered them gets more credit than the faker ever did. Creationists are merely looking for excuses to believe something that they appear to know is false.

Click to expand...