What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

Shemjaza said:

You repeating the same misleading descriptors after others point out the issues with it. The whole "Scientists dispute Homo habilis" you were using to imply that there was scientific dispute that it was in fact a transitional fossil, rather than exactly what kind and where it fit into classifications.

Click to expand...

Imply? It's truth!

renniks said:

Imply? It's truth!

Click to expand...

It really isn't.

You yourself said that it was in fact an Australopithecus boisei... a transitional species.

Shemjaza said:

You repeating the same misleading descriptors after others point out the issues with it.

Click to expand...

Actually I haven't heard anyone refuting what I wrote, just saying that it's wrong with no evidence.

Shemjaza said:

It really isn't.

You yourself said that it was in fact an Australopithecus boisei... a transitional species.

Click to expand...

Not a human ancestor. An extinct primate. At best, claiming it's a human ancestor is totally guessing.

Mr Laurier said:

For a long time it was China, Then it was Germany, Then Russia, Then Germany again, or Japan. And then Russia and/or China, Then Viet Nam or Cuba, Then Iran, or maybe Nicaragua, Then Iraq, Then switching between Iran and North Korea.

Click to expand...

Well, as far as what country he comes from, I'll admit, it could be anywhere.

But his roots will be rooted in a ten-nation European confederacy.

Some think he will come from the tribe of Dan, because of Jacob's prophecy in Genesis 49.

Genesis 49:17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Neither is Dan (along with Ephraim) mentioned in the sealing of the 144,000 in Revelation 7.

renniks said:

Actually I haven't heard anyone refuting what I wrote, just saying that it's wrong with no evidence.

Click to expand...

You don't present evidence, you make allusions to evidence. You are still failing to reveal your sources...

You started with saying a Homo habilis was a human...
Then that a Homo habilis was just a mix of human bones and ape bones...
Then that a Homo habilis should instead be classified as a different kind of transitional fossil...

renniks said:

Not a human ancestor. An extinct primate. At best, claiming it's a human ancestor is totally guessing.

Click to expand...

No one said it was... because it almost certainly isn't.

Transitional species does not imply direct ancestry. If your assessment about how knowledgeable you are about science in general and evolution in particular was true you would have known this years ago.

Australopithecus boisei is unlike any modern creature you would call an ape. It had an upright gait and larger brain.

So, if your preferred version of reality was correct and there were no Homo habilis, but it was an Australopithecus boisei... then you'd still have to deal with no clear border between "apes" and "humans".

The other issue, is that your characterisation of the state of scientific study of Homo habilis is also total nonsense... much more comprehensive remains than a few finger bones and a deformed jaw have been discovered.



That is not a human... that is not a Australopithecus boisei.... and that is definitely not a modern "ape"...

AV1611VET said:

Well, as far as what country he comes from, I'll admit, it could be anywhere.

But his roots will be rooted in a ten-nation European confederacy.

Some think he will come from the tribe of Dan, because of Jacob's prophecy in Genesis 49.

Genesis 49:17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Neither is Dan (along with Ephraim) mentioned in the sealing of the 144,000 in Revelation 7.

Click to expand...

There is no european ten-nation confederacy.

VirOptimus said:

There is no european ten-nation confederacy.

Click to expand...

Neat.

AV1611VET said:

Neat.

Click to expand...

?

Shemjaza said:

You started with saying a Homo habilis was a human...

Click to expand...

Wrong.

Then it's irrelevant.

Shemjaza said:

So, if your preferred version of reality was correct and there were no Homo habilis, but it was an Australopithecus

Click to expand...

No, I didn't say that either. It's closer to A than it is to a homo sapian. If it's not a human ancestor it's irrelevant. Who care about various extinct primates existing?

Shemjaza said:

That is not a human... that is not a Australopithecus boisei.... and that is definitely not a modern "ape"...

Click to expand...

So it's a shattered skull of an extinct primate. Big deal.

AV1611VET said:

I fully expect YECs to disagree with me.

Click to expand...

That's something like AL-Qaida complaining that ISIS was too extreme.
ISIS: An Islamist Group Too Extreme Even For Al-Qaida

AV1611VET said:

Not as much as the unbelievers.

But for the record:

30 October 1991: The Halloween Monster, a.k.a. The Perfect Storm, strikes the U.S. amid the "land-for-peace" Madrid peace talks; President Bush's ocean-side home destroyed.
23 August 1992: President Bush moves Madrid talks to U.S. soil; that very day, Hurricane Andrew devastates southern Florida.
16 January 1994: President Clinton meets with Syrian President Hafez Assad to discuss more "land for peace" arrangements; less than 24 hours later, a 6.9 earthquake pulverized southern California.
1 September 1993: President Clinton announces a meeting with Arafat for the Oslo peace accords, to be held on 13 September; after a week of meandering in the Atlantic Ocean, Hurricane Emily hits North Carolina on that very day.
21 January 1998: while waiting to meet with Arafat at the White House, President Clinton's sex scandal breaks out.
27 September 1998: Arafat is meeting with the president in Washington; Hurricane Georges hits Alabama and stalls. The hurricane stalls until Arafat leaves and then it dissipates. Parts of Alabama declared a disaster area.
17 October 1998: Arafat comes to the Wye Plantation meeting; incredible rains fall on Texas, which cause record flooding. Parts of Texas declared a disaster area.
3 September 1999: Secretary of State Albright meets with Arafat in Israel; Hurricane Dennis comes ashore on this very day after weeks of changing course in the Atlantic Ocean.
12-26 July 2000: Arafat at the Camp David meetings. Powerful droughts throughout the country. Forest fires explode in West into uncontrollable fires. By the end of August, 7 million acres are burnt.
9 November 2000, two days after the presidential election: Arafat meets with President Clinton at the White House to try and salvage the peace process; worst election crisis in over 100 years occurs.

Psalm 83:15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.

Click to expand...

??? Not sure the point of all this. There are bad weather conditions all the time (especially with the worsening effects of global warming) that can be chosen to correlate with political events but are nonetheless not statistically significant. Mathematics can easily show this.

Picking and choosing a Bible verse is also not relevant. It is neither predictive, relevant or prophetic. I can pick Bible verses out of the air and apply them to specific events - However, this process is meaningless.

Something truly prophetic (from the time of Isaiah) would be something as follows:

"Therefore the LORD Jehovah himself will give you signs and make clear the coming of the Messiah: The 15 year old virgin will conceive by the Holy Spirit in the last year of King Herod's reign and 10 years before Quirinius is governor of Syria. At this time, the first Emperor of Rome will rule over Israel, and his parents Mary and Joseph, being descended from King David, will come down to Bethlehem. The virgin will give birth to her son in a cattle feeding trough celebrated by shepherds and then be taken into a house where wise men of the east will present gifts, and he will be called the Christ. He and his parents will flee from the wrath of King Herod who has heard of the Messiah's birth from astrologers/wise men from the east and who may plan to kill him. They journey to their home in Nazareth. Rumors will spread that he has left Israel for Egypt and Herod will only kill several boys under 2 years of age."

Notice:

1. Many predictions are specific - 15 year old, last year of Herod, 10 years before Quirinius is governor, first Roman Emperor will reign and names of people involved
2. No contradictions as in the Luke and Matthew accounts
3. Prophesy will be 100's of years before the actual events, wording is non-controversial (virgin or young woman of marriageable age etc.)

There are ZERO so called Biblical prophesies that have this level of detail and specificity. I challenge any Christian to show me EVEN ONE prophesy that is universally agreed to have been made 100's of years before the events that it involves which is as specific and detailed as my fictional one above.

Bertrand Russell White said:

There are ZERO so called Biblical prophesies that have this level of detail and specificity. I challenge any Christian to show me EVEN ONE prophesy that is universally agreed to have been made 100's of years before the events that it involves which is as specific and detailed as my fictional one above.

Click to expand...

I've use this one here quite often:

1 Kings 13:2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.

From Adam Clarke's Commentary:

This is one of the most remarkable and most singular prophecies in the Old Testament. It here most circumstantially foretells a fact which took place three hundred and forty years after the prediction; a fact which was attested by the two nations. The Jews, in whose behalf this prophecy was delivered, would guard it most sacredly; and it was the interest of the Israelites, against whom it was levelled, to impugn its authenticity and expose its falsehood, had this been possible. This prediction not only showed the knowledge of God, but his power. He gave, as it were, this warning to idolatry, that it might be on its guard, and defend itself against this Josiah whenever a person of that name should be found sitting on the throne of David; and no doubt it was on the alert, and took all prudent measures for its own defence; but all in vain, for Josiah, in the eighteenth year of his reign, literally accomplished this prophecy, as we may read, 2Ki 23:15-20.

AV1611VET said:

I've use this one here quite often:

1 Kings 13:2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.

From Adam Clarke's Commentary:

This is one of the most remarkable and most singular prophecies in the Old Testament. It here most circumstantially foretells a fact which took place three hundred and forty years after the prediction; a fact which was attested by the two nations. The Jews, in whose behalf this prophecy was delivered, would guard it most sacredly; and it was the interest of the Israelites, against whom it was levelled, to impugn its authenticity and expose its falsehood, had this been possible. This prediction not only showed the knowledge of God, but his power. He gave, as it were, this warning to idolatry, that it might be on its guard, and defend itself against this Josiah whenever a person of that name should be found sitting on the throne of David; and no doubt it was on the alert, and took all prudent measures for its own defence; but all in vain, for Josiah, in the eighteenth year of his reign, literally accomplished this prophecy, as we may read, 2Ki 23:15-20.

Click to expand...

Adam Clarke is hardly an up to date scholar to cite. His commentary is two hundred years old, he is only one scholar and much has happened in scholarship since his time. I would refer you to the following link for more up to date scholarship and discussion on this.

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/75520/3/Yoon_Manhee_201611_PhD_thesis.pdf

As the pdf indicates, the majority of people and scholars would not accept a date of over three hundred years prior to the event (or probably any date prior to the event - Josiah's birth). Clark was prior to the modernization of Biblical and literary studies later in the 1800's (Clarke died in 1832) - so he can't be entirely blamed for his comments. Even if this were not the case, there just isn't copies of the OT from before the date of Josiah that show this verse as having ever existed before his birth, even as a possibility. Evidence necessary to make a case would include (at minimum):

1. OT copies definitely dated by experts on dating, style, archeology etc. that could establish a date 300+ years before Josiah for the text - no evidence currently exists
2. References from earlier documents in other literature of this passage, discussing this passage regarding Josiah - no evidence currently exists
3. Other evidence that indicates Josiah was referenced in this passage prior to him actually being born - no evidence currently exists

The burden of proof for such evidence in making such a sensational claim of foreknowledge of Josiah before his birth rests squarely on those claiming this verse did actually come from 300+ years before, than the more likely scenario that it was inserted much later.

I await further evidence, to establish that this verse was created 300+ years before Josiah's birth.

Bertrand Russell White said:

I await further evidence, to establish that this verse was created 300+ years before Josiah's birth.

Click to expand...

Here's something else you can deny too:



A fascinating account of how each tribe literally fulfilled Jacob's deathbed prophecies, as given to them in Genesis 49.

Well worth denying, if you're a modern scholar looking to please ... well ... you know who.

renniks said:

Not a human ancestor. An extinct primate. At best, claiming it's a human ancestor is totally guessing.

Click to expand...

I think it is definitely true that there isn't anything like an abundant amount of evidence of a continuous progression from common ancestor of human and ape to modern human and modern ape. However, in a broad sense, there is a definite progression evident. This is at least what would be expected with how unlikely such intermediate forms would exist today that are readily available to discover from the past. Also, evolution is now known to be discontinuous. There can be long periods of stasis followed by very rapid change in species and organisms. If this period of rapid change is not well represented from fossil evidence for a given period, than we can easily be missing many possible transitions - if in this period, many transitions happened to happen. On the other hand, perhaps we haven't yet come across fossil deposits during these rapid change periods (if they happened). This could happen tomorrow or in a thousand years or perhaps never.

AV1611VET said:

Here's something else you can deny too:

A fascinating account of how each tribe literally fulfilled Jacob's deathbed prophecies, as given to them in Genesis 49.

Well worth denying, if you're a modern scholar looking to please ... well ... you know who.

Click to expand...

This is not evidence in response to my last post!!

Seems like your trying to distract and divert, a common technique when one can't provide sufficient evidence for one's argument. My same arguments would hold for this book without even having to read it:

1. OT copies definitely dated by experts on dating, style, archeology etc. that could establish that Genesis was written before the fulfillment of the prophesies - no evidence currently exists
2. References from earlier documents in other literature of these Genesis passages, discussing this passage regarding these prophesies - no evidence currently exists
3. Other evidence that indicates Genesis was referenced in this passage prior to them actually being fulfilled - no evidence currently exists

The reason I know that no evidence currently exists, is because if it did, it would have been presented long ago and would have settled the issue.

As I said before, the burden of proof for such evidence in making such a sensational claim of foreknowledge in Genesis must be clearly established. Did Genesis actually make such claims many centuries before they were fulfilled? (that is, was it actually written down many centuries before). Or rather, the more likely scenario that it was written about past events to the composition of Genesis (Genesis was probably written in the 5th - 6th century BC).

AV1611VET said:

Look again.

Early Earth was covered in a global ocean and had no mountains | New Scientist

Click to expand...

Even if this is true, it applies only to the first 700 million years of the Earth's history, that is, between about 4500 million and about 3800 million years ago. This was more than a billion years before the first multi-cellular life-forms evolved, and more than three billion years before the first vertebrates.