Oncedeceived said:
First of all, I have given some scenerios where the possibility is there that they happened.
huh? what does that mean? i asked you what evidence would falsify the claim that grasses existed in the precambrian. what you said above does not answer that question, and does not appear to make any sense either.
I have already stated that they are not supported by the evidence.
not only does the evidence not support the claim that grasses existed in the precambrian, but it clearly implies that they did not. do you agree or disagree? the evidence that grasses did not exist in the precambrian seems to me to be as strong as it possibly could be. i can't imagine what evidence would more strongly imply this, can you?
how can you claim that science supports your hypothesis, when you selectively ignore any evidence which suggests you are wrong? that's not how science works.
I have given a reasonable explanation for my hypothesis, but that is all.
what do you mean by this?
That being said, it is not unusual at all for fossil evidence to be absent and then find a fossil that substanciates a claim.
perhaps, but nothing like finding a cow or grasses in the precambrian has EVER happened. that is quite a different matter. grasses were previously thought to have arrived 55mil years ago, and now we have records over 65mil years. that is the type of find we might expect. it is unreasonable to expect to find them 3 billion years earlier.
One fossil can be all it takes, yet you are claiming that if grasses did exist that there should be grasses in subsequent time periods.
well if they existed in the precambrian, they must have existed since then, right? unless of course they existed, went extinct, and then got re-created again 70 million years ago. is that what you're claiming?
Grasses could have been present but due to the rarity of the fossil record and the fact that plants and grasses are not easily fossilised we may not have found them.
and yet we find many earlier fossils of other plants, as you freely admit. grasses are no less likely to fossilize than many of the other earlier plants we have found. so why are those plants preserved, and not grass? not only is grass not found, but grass pollen, which has also been found fossilized, has never been found more than 70mil years ago. furthermore, our modern species that are adapted to living in grasslands, like horses, arrived in the fossil record around the same time. and then all of a sudden we find many fossilized grasses, pollens, horses, etc after this time period. why were they fossilized with such freqency afterwards, but almost not at all before hand? not even once over the period of more than 3 billion years?
it's also worth noting that we see the same type of pattern with many other species, not just grasses. for example, we do not see land plants at all until 450mil years ago.
come on now, you have to realize that this very strongly suggests grasses did not exist until then. do you admit this? if not, i would suspect you of lying.
furthermore, i cannot think of evidenc we could possibly find that would suggest this more strongly. can you? what would it be?
if you can't think of anything stronger, and you still say this claim has not been falsified, then obviously it would not be possible to falsify it, correct?
In fact, it was once considered that plants didn't exist until 100 million years ago
source, please.
Which has been my point and you continue to argue against it.
i have never argued against the fact that evolution is not falsified by anything in the precambrian.
how is that a strawman? you claim grasses existed in the precambrian. so they must have existed in every time period since then, right? so how on earth is that a misrepresentation of your position?
It is perfectly possible that they could have existed in the earlier time period, been destroyed or even still existed and due to rarity of fossilization remain unkown.
it is extremely unlikely that they would have existed for 3.5 billion years, and not ever get fossilized once until 70mil years ago, and then suddenly get frequently fossilized afterwards.
Again, you use the "staggeringly incomplete" fossil record to support your opinion but claim I can't when explaining mine.
you can claim that, but if the fossil record is too incomplete for us to evaluate your predictions, then they can't be falsifiable predictions, can they? evolution, on the other hand, makes prediction about what we should find in the present too, so we don't need the fossil record at all for evolution to be falsifiable.
First of all, I gave examples of possibility.
not in your exchange with me, you didn't. otherwise please show me where you gave examples.
A specific example of evidence to falsifiy my claim would be to find fossil evidence of a cow prior to life beginning in the sea.
first of all, this isn't what i was asking for. if you look at the text you were responding to, i said this:
caravelair said:
i asked you for a specific example of evidence that would falsify your claim that grasses have existed since the precambrian.
your example does not answer this question.
secondly, and more importantly, finding a cow so earlier than sea life would NOT falsify your hypothesis, because you could always claim that sea life existed earlier, and we simply haven't found the fossils to prove it yet, EXACTLY as you are doing with the grasses example. if you can do that with grasses, you can do the same thing with your cow example.
Or to find a human fossil prior to life in the seas or birds.
same as above.
True, which is what I stated over and over. I am saying only that there is possibility of them existing. Which there is.
there is also a possibility that leprechauns exist, but i have no reason to believe that it is so. likewise, i have no reason to believe that grasses existed before 70mil years ago.
nope.
yes you did, you said this:
Oncedeceived said:
The order is predicted in Genesis and the fossil record supports that.
part of the order is that grasses would have existed in the precambrian. you say the fossil record supports the order, how does it support this claim?
i'll admit, you did give it a good shot, and your example was quite specific, which is what i asked for. on the other hand, i have shown above how this example would not falsify your hypothesis. you can always play the same game you are playing with our grass example.
My hypothesis does not rest entirely on this verse. Other verses are supported by evidence.
any prediction of a hypothesis will falsify the entire hypothesis if the prediction is wrong. so either this prediction about grasses falsifies your hypothesis, or it is not a falsifiable prediction, would you agree?
Could be falsified just as ToE is later on as well.
but you claimed that the order of life in genesis was one of it's falsifiable predictions.
probably only for a whort while though.
