Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
JohnR7 said:Creationists have the truth, so why would they need a theory? Science is the one that has to keep coming up with different theorys to explain the various things we keep finding in the world of nature.
Asimov said:What truth is that? That the Earth is 6,000 years old? That there are separately created kinds? That there was a global flood?
Can you provide facts to back these up, John, or are you just going to keep providing meaningless posts?
JohnR7 said:First we have to define the facts. Just what do you mean by "earth". There is some common ground between science and the Bible. The earth as we now know it is indeed about 6000 years old. The scientific evidence indicates that there was a old earth here before and the seeds of the new were contained in the old. You know I am GAP, so why would you ask me a question that you would address to a YEC?
notto said:4. lay eggs
5. don't 't milk their young
Is it your claim that we could classify things that don't lay eggs and that milk their young as fish?
Why not simply remove the classifcation that they are Aquatic? By the standards you are using, that is as arbitrary as anything else.
rambot said:I'm not sure why you are arguing that ALL traits are equal in the classification structure:
When classifying things, certain attributes are MORE IMPORTANT than others.
When classifying a tree, we wouldn't put a decidious tree with a coniferious tree JUST BECAUSE they had axial branches. No. They have much LARGER differences:
Now correct me if i'm wrong here but i'm pretty sure that classification is done SOLELY with physiological features AND habitat plays NO role in defining a species (that is "Fishes are aquatic" is true but it is NOT a defining feature of the PHYSIOLOGY).
And dolphins are as like fish, as you are like an ostrich. You should NOT be saying dolphins are fish...
Oncedeceived said:What evidence could there be that would show they did not exist back then?
I understand what you mean and I have said that it is at this time unfalsifiable. But you must admit that it does not mean that it could not be possible just the same.
True, my mistake using the term prove. Regardless, you can not provide evidence for a negative either.
As Science has shown repeatedly, one piece of evidence can change the whole spectrum of knowledge. It can change the whole outlook of something as standard as the formation of the moon.
Okay, why would it make the other orders unfalsifiable?
I didn't say that Genesis is not unfalsifiable. I said that precambrian plant life was at this time.
Should they be found then it would support Genesis. That is what I am saying. Do you understand?
caravelair said:well, i for one, think that the evidence we have now quite strongly indicates that they did not exist back then. if you think we can't show that they did not exist back then, this renders the prediction unfalsifiable.
but if we can't show that grasses didn't exist back then, well we can't show that anything else did not exist in the past either. this is why it renders all of genesis unfalsifiable.
you see, genesis makes predictions about order in the fossil record, correct? these predictions are of the form species X (or genus X, or family X) existed at time A. the only way to falsify such a prediction is to show that X did not exist at time A.
if we cannot do this, as you claim, then we cannot possibly falsify any such claim, thus making all such claims unfalsifiable, thus rendering genesis itself unfalsifiable. thus making it irrelevant that it does not conflict with science. do you understand?
i never said it wasn't possible, but that's not really the point. it's possible the universe was created last thursday, but that's not a falsifiable claim, so i can't test it with science.
yes you can. are you saying it's impossible to have evidence that santa claus doesn't exist? it's impossible to prove it, of course, but we certainly have enough evidence to establish his non-existence beyond any reasonable doubt.
regardless, for the sake of argument, let's say you can't have evidence that something doesn't exist. then how on earth do you expect to falsify any part of the order in genesis?
because if you can't show that X did not exist at time A, then there is no way to show that any part of the order is wrong. do you understand that? if you disagree, how could we possibly prove the order to be wrong?
what do you mean "at this time"? if it is unfalsifiable now, how would that change in the future?
Oncedeceived said:That is completely false. We can show that water covered the earth when it was first formed.
That is true of the ToE as well. ToE makes predictions that have in fact been falsified.
Baggins said:Not it didn't. You can't show that at all. The earth when it first formed was far to hot for liquid water to exist for millions of years.
People now believe that oceans formed on the earth when the earth was cool enough for water to exist, but water didn't cover the earth. There is evidence of oceans at 3.8 billion years ago, but that is nearly a billion years after the formation of the earth
examples please
Not a billion but only 200 million years after formation.
Oncedeceived said:That is completely false.
We can show that water covered the earth when it was first formed.
WE can show that all living creatures first were in the oceans.
We can show that mankind was the last in line of creation.
Those things are falsifiable and are supported by evidence.
That is true of the ToE as well. ToE makes predictions that have in fact been falsified.
That does nothing to falsify the entire model, which is what you are trying to do with Genesis.
The plants in the precambrian scenerio is unfalsifible. That does not mean that the entire Creation model presented in Genesis is.
I understand what you are saying, I just totally disagree.
Yes it is. But I assume that you meant that it was created last Thursday but looks old...right?
I can support that the earth was covered with water after it was formed. I can support that the moon was formed after the earth. I can support that life first formed in the oceans. I can support that birds for instance came before cattle and other livestock.
I have shown it on this thread as well as the one I provided you.
Oncedeceived said:That is true of the ToE as well. ToE makes predictions that have in fact been falsified.
examples please
Water being present at 200 million years rather than much later as early predicted. Water now covers two-thirds of the earth and it has been determined that it was at least probable that it was that way maybe as early as 10 million years after formation.
Oncedeceived said:Here is an article that supports what I claim.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica].[/FONT]
caravelair said:um, how on earth is that a prediction of ToE? ToE is about biological organisms, it says nothing whatsoever about the way the earth formed, or how much water was on it, etc.
Baggins said:This is evidence that there was water on the earths surface 3.3 billion years ago. I gave ( admitedly unsupported ) evidence that there were oceans 3.8 billion years ago.
My evidence is better support for your position than yours is
My evidence is based on 3.8 billion year old lavas in Greenland that show pillow structures, that are interpreted to have been erupted under water.
The earth is 4.6 billion years old. 4.6-3.8 = 0.8
That leaves 800 million years between the formation of the earth and evidence of water.
You said water covered the earth at its formation, that is obviously eroneous.
And as is pointed out above ( which I hadn't noticed ) how is any of this a falsification of the Theory of Evolution.
Oncedeceived said:Actually, it is more like 4.3 billion years ago. The article I was citing was my support for the water covering the earth part.
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?