Cambrian Explosion

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

IF like so many skeptics on this forum claim, "Creation has been falsified many years ago", then how can it then be twisted around in your argument that it is not subject to scientific method.

Creation has not been falsified and can not be. However, the hypotheses of young earth creationISM , including the global flood, have been falsifed as scientific hypotheses long ago.

The Omphalos hypothesis (last Tuesdayism or whatever) is not a scientific hypothesis and can not be falsified by science. If the universe were created last Tuesday by an all powerfull deceptive God who for some reason wanted us to think that billions of years of earth history complete with the evolution of life and our personal histories had occured, he could do this and we would never be able to figure it out, since as an all powerful God he would have left no trace of his deception.

 

[caravelair]

You do know don't you that you are sounding somewhat illogical?

how is it illogical to say that something not subject to the scientific method cannot be tested by science?

I gave examples of Genesis that could indeed be falsified by Scientific data. If it can be falsified then it must also on the other hand be able to support it.

depending on your interpretation of genesis. of course, if something seems to contradict your interpretation, you can always reinterpret it.

likewise, i gave you an example that would falsify my claim. if we do not see evidence of great age, then obviously my hypothesis is wrong. if my example can be falsified in this way, then surely it is supported by the evidence that the earth is of great age! oh, wait...

IF like so many skeptics on this forum claim, "Creation has been falsified many years ago", then how can it then be twisted around in your argument that it is not subject to scientific method.

YEC is falsifiable, because it makes specific strong claims about what evidence we should find. for example, the earth must be less than 10,000 years old. creationism as a general topic does not make such strong predictions, but rather vague ones, and often things we already know about.

The universe yes, but what of man made articles that show that mankind had to be present prior to Thursday?

they were all created thursday as well, but they were planted there to enhance the appearance of age! everything that seems to imply that the world existed before thursday is just there to make the world look older than that.

Ignoratio elenchi

uh... how is what i said a red herring? that makes no sense.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Everything is fully formed and fully functioning . Just like they had been around for millions of years (if one were to consider the thinking of evolutionists). There is seemingly no start ----- everything just was. This is something evolutionists fail to explain.

If Everything was created "fully formed and fully functioning" and if Humans were an Example of this, How would you explain the Function of my appendix?

In Fact, For those who wish to see Evolution as a Conceptial Process overtime, Just watch the Outcome of the Appendix in Man. If tomorrow a Baby is born without an Appendix, you'll have your "evidence" that Evolution Selected that Particular Organ to be "Weeded-out" of the Human Body. Or, if the Appendix is accually a developing Organ, like some have speculated, then the same holds true and only time will tell.

Another Possible evidence would be if a Primitive Human would be found with an Under/Over-Developed Appendix Organ that that too would clear up the Whole Mess. That is, unless the YECs will just excuse it as more of God's Misdirection.



A Lot of "If's", That's true but that's were Most of our Answers come from; We first ask the Absurd Questions, Then we Speculate, then we Prove or Disprove that Speculation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Creation has not been falsified and can not be. However, the hypotheses of young earth creationISM , including the global flood, have been falsifed as scientific hypotheses long ago.

Okay, so you tell me why YEC can be tested Scientifically and OEC can not.

The Omphalos hypothesis (last Tuesdayism or whatever) is not a scientific hypothesis and can not be falsified by science. If the universe were created last Tuesday by an all powerfull deceptive God who for some reason wanted us to think that billions of years of earth history complete with the evolution of life and our personal histories had occured, he could do this and we would never be able to figure it out, since as an all powerful God he would have left no trace of his deception.

Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion) is the logical fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of the issue; "elenchi" is from the Greek έλεγχος, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.
Aristotle believed that an ignoratio elenchi is a mistake made by a questioner while attempting to refute a respondent's argument. He called it an ignorance of what makes for a refutation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

how is it illogical to say that something not subject to the scientific method cannot be tested by science?

You say that, but then turn around and claim that YEC can be falsified.

depending on your interpretation of genesis. of course, if something seems to contradict your interpretation, you can always reinterpret it.

Would you say that someone who does not understand quantum physics and who makes unfounded claims proves that Science is wrong or that the person who holds unfounded beliefs is wrong. That holds true with Genesis as well. The fact that some people hold an unfounded belief in their interpretation does not mean that the Bible or Genesis is wrong.

likewise, i gave you an example that would falsify my claim. if we do not see evidence of great age, then obviously my hypothesis is wrong. if my example can be falsified in this way, then surely it is supported by the evidence that the earth is of great age! oh, wait...

That was not my hypothesis.

YEC is falsifiable, because it makes specific strong claims about what evidence we should find. for example, the earth must be less than 10,000 years old. creationism as a general topic does not make such strong predictions, but rather vague ones, and often things we already know about.

What is so vague about Genesis? It claims that the universe had a beginning, that life first appears in the seas, that there is a certain order in which life forms came first. All of these can be tested.

they were all created thursday as well, but they were planted there to enhance the appearance of age! everything that seems to imply that the world existed before thursday is just there to make the world look older than that.

Again:

Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion) is the logical fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of the issue; "elenchi" is from the Greek έλεγχος, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.
Aristotle believed that an ignoratio elenchi is a mistake made by a questioner while attempting to refute a respondent's argument. He called it an ignorance of what makes for a refutation.

uh... how is what i said a red herring? that makes no sense.

See above.

 

[h2whoa]

You say that, but then turn around and claim that YEC can be falsified.

The claims put forward by proponents of YEC can be and are falsified. This is because the specific claims put forward cross the line from the untestable metaphysical "Does God Exist?" do the the very physical and the very testable "What does the geological/molecular biological/genetic/biochemical/astrophysical/biophyscial/etc. actually suggest?". Once YEC makes claims that encroach on this territory it becomes falsifiable.

 

[caravelair]

You say that, but then turn around and claim that YEC can be falsified.

if something makes falsifiable claims (the universe is 6000 years old) then it is falsifiable. if something can be reinterpreted until the cows come home, then any predictions can be reinterpreted too.

Would you say that someone who does not understand quantum physics and who makes unfounded claims proves that Science is wrong or that the person who holds unfounded beliefs is wrong. That holds true with Genesis as well.

but with science, we have an objective way of determining what is right and wrong. with genesis, it is subjective. it's a matter of personal interpretation.

The fact that some people hold an unfounded belief in their interpretation does not mean that the Bible or Genesis is wrong.

no, but the fact that there is no one single way to interpret it, and that you can change your interpretation, means that we can make no strong predictions from it.

That was not my hypothesis.

no, it was MY hypothesis. which i gave as an example to show how an unscientific theory cannot be supported by science.

What is so vague about Genesis? It claims that the universe had a beginning,

but it says nothing about when that beginning was, or how that beginning occurred, or any other details which might give us some idea of what data to look for. of course, some YECs would claim that the bible implies the beginning was 6,000 years ago, which would be falsified by data. but since you know of this data, you can easily change your interpretation to be more vague until there is no conflicting data.

that life first appears in the seas,

doesn't genesis 2 imply that man was created first, and then animals as a companion to man? what if i interpreted genesis this way?

that there is a certain order in which life forms came first.

unless you just take it as allegory or metaphor, in which case the given order doesn't necessarily have to correspond to reality. and it doesn't seem to anyways, given that plants evolved much later than genesis seems to imply (depending on your interpretation of course!)

also, your interpretation of genesis has the earth forming before the sun. everything we know about star formation suggests that planets form at the same time as the stars they orbit. of course it would be impossible to have absolute proof that this is how it happened with our solar system, but everything we do know about it suggests it happened this way. what good are your "predictions" if you are just going to ignore whatever conflicting data you can?

Again:

Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion) is the logical fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of the issue; "elenchi" is from the Greek έλεγχος, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.
Aristotle believed that an ignoratio elenchi is a mistake made by a questioner while attempting to refute a respondent's argument. He called it an ignorance of what makes for a refutation.

See above.

again, i don't see how this applies to what i said. why don't you spell it out for me. my example was to show how it is useless to try to apply scientific data to a non-scientific theory. i don't see how you think this fallacy applies. be more specific.

 

[Oncedeceived]

if something makes falsifiable claims (the universe is 6000 years old) then it is falsifiable. if something can be reinterpreted until the cows come home, then any predictions can be reinterpreted too.

How can you reinterprete a specific order? IF Genesis claimed that the mammals came first I assure you that you would argue that that falsified Genesis. Correct?

but with science, we have an objective way of determining what is right and wrong. with genesis, it is subjective. it's a matter of personal interpretation.

Not always. Many times Science has no answer and the best that can be done is interpreting the lack of evidence with what is known. Abiogenesis is not in evidence yet many subjectively consider it likely.

no, but the fact that there is no one single way to interpret it, and that you can change your interpretation, means that we can make no strong predictions from it.

Again, you are claiming that if someone claims something that is not even in the Scripture itself it is still an interpretation. That is false in itself. No where for instance does the Bible claim that the earth is 6,000 years old. This "interpretation" is not based on Genesis or the Bible. Anyone can add their own veiwpoint but if it doesn't say it in the Bible it is really a non-argument rather than an interpretation.

The order in Genesis is falsifible.

no, it was MY hypothesis. which i gave as an example to show how an unscientific theory cannot be supported by science.

But it is not related to mine. You are saying that my hypothesis is the same and it is not.

but it says nothing about when that beginning was, or how that beginning occurred, or any other details which might give us some idea of what data to look for.

I have conceded in posts in earlier years that in the creation of the universe there was no evidence for a liquid state. Many skeptics had used this as an argument against Gensis. They claimed it falsified Genesis and I conceded that it was indeed a gap that was not in evidence. Just as I have done with the fruit bearing trees now. It is information that can be used to falsify or at least show unsupported or falsifible claims. I have stated that I am using interpretation as my only basis for my hypothesis in this regard. I can not prove that my interpretation is correct and you can not prove that it is wrong. Thus, it can not be falsified. I concede that. It is an example of what you are saying here. Regardless, there is falsifible data within Genesis. Sea life comes before mammals. Birds before mammals. Earth before the sun and moon. Now if it can be found that the sun and moon were not formed prior to the earth conclusively that would falsify Genesis.

of course, some YECs would claim that the bible implies the beginning was 6,000 years ago, which would be falsified by data. but since you know of this data, you can easily change your interpretation to be more vague until there is no conflicting data.

This is a strawman. Genesis says nothing of the beginning being 6,000 years ago. I am not reinterpreting the wording. It is simply not there.

doesn't genesis 2 imply that man was created first, and then animals as a companion to man? what if i interpreted genesis this way?

You could indeed. Genesis 2 I have no problem with because I am a Christian and feel that this is the spiritual explanation of mankind becoming a spiritual being determined by God to take care of all living things. It is based solely on my interpretation of Gensis 2. It is separated from Genesis 1 for a purpose. It is different from Genesis 1 for that reason.

unless you just take it as allegory or metaphor, in which case the given order doesn't necessarily have to correspond to reality. and it doesn't seem to anyways, given that plants evolved much later than genesis seems to imply (depending on your interpretation of course!)

Which I conceded.

also, your interpretation of genesis has the earth forming before the sun. everything we know about star formation suggests that planets form at the same time as the stars they orbit. of course it would be impossible to have absolute proof that this is how it happened with our solar system, but everything we do know about it suggests it happened this way. what good are your "predictions" if you are just going to ignore whatever conflicting data you can?

If there was conclusive data that falsified this it would falsify Genesis. There is new data that is shedding new light on the formation of planets and stars. We shall see. I am not ignoring any data. If you have any data that actually gives evidence of the solor system beginning this way then please do provide it.

again, i don't see how this applies to what i said. why don't you spell it out for me. my example was to show how it is useless to try to apply scientific data to a non-scientific theory. i don't see how you think this fallacy applies. be more specific.

Because you are equating my hypothesis with yours and mine can be falsified.

 

[SLP]

I for one (a Creationist) feel that the Cambrian theory fits perfectly with Genesis.




20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'
This is stating what God wants done and the next verse says that is what he did.
21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
The Cambrian era was the time period which consisted of all phyla alive today and some that have gone extinct. The waters literally swarmed with life. This period which is called the Paleozoic period includes the Silurian era in which there were centipedes and millipedes, the Devonian with its sharks and amphibians. This also includes the next period which is the Mesozoic period which then includes dino's and of course within this period comes the first appearance of birds. This is a general overview of what was created during this period. So an overview of this is that the day includes first the Paleozoic and next the Mesozoic.

Are you a young earth creationist or an old earther?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you a young earth creationist or an old earther?

OEC

 

[caravelair]

How can you reinterprete a specific order?

perhaps by claiming that the order given was not literal, but more metaphorical. the same way you reinterpret genesis 2.

IF Genesis claimed that the mammals came first I assure you that you would argue that that falsified Genesis. Correct?

doesn't genesis 2 say man was created first? and doesn't genesis 1 get the order of plants wrong? so that should falsify genesis, right? but i'm sure you are about to claim that it doesn't. and you could probably do the same with any other claim, either by choosing a different interpretation of the text, or by ignoring whatever evidence you can, like that which suggests the earth was not formed before the sun. how then can i see your hypothesis as falsifiable?

Not always. Many times Science has no answer and the best that can be done is interpreting the lack of evidence with what is known. Abiogenesis is not in evidence yet many subjectively consider it likely.

they consider it the most likely explanation we have so far. but certainly they acknowledge that we don't have much evidence. the point is, it is still not subjective, it is tested using the same method. interpretation of genesis is subjective.

Again, you are claiming that if someone claims something that is not even in the Scripture itself it is still an interpretation. That is false in itself. No where for instance does the Bible claim that the earth is 6,000 years old.

many people would disagree with you on that point, which proves how easy it is to have varied interpretations of the same text. lots of people think the geneologies calculated by usher, show that the bible implies a 6,000 year old earth.

This "interpretation" is not based on Genesis or the Bible. Anyone can add their own veiwpoint but if it doesn't say it in the Bible it is really a non-argument rather than an interpretation.

but the geneologies ARE listed in the bible, and you can probably add them up yourself for a similar result. people disagree with you, that this age is not based on the bible. they have a different interpretation of the text than you!

The order in Genesis is falsifible.

so what about the plant issue then? what about the earth being created before the sun?

But it is not related to mine. You are saying that my hypothesis is the same and it is not.

i am not saying they are the same. i am saying they are both unscientific, and my example was to show how an unscientific hypothesis cannot be supported by science. you yourself claimed that your hypothesis was unscientific, did you not? well is it or isn't it?

I have conceded in posts in earlier years that in the creation of the universe there was no evidence for a liquid state. Many skeptics had used this as an argument against Gensis. They claimed it falsified Genesis and I conceded that it was indeed a gap that was not in evidence. Just as I have done with the fruit bearing trees now. It is information that can be used to falsify or at least show unsupported or falsifible claims. I have stated that I am using interpretation as my only basis for my hypothesis in this regard. I can not prove that my interpretation is correct and you can not prove that it is wrong. Thus, it can not be falsified. I concede that. It is an example of what you are saying here. Regardless, there is falsifible data within Genesis.

so you can pick and choose which lines you wish to be falsifiable? if a line appears to be falsified, you just claim a different interpretation of it, and then point to the ones you think haven't been falsified yet?

Sea life comes before mammals. Birds before mammals.

it says that? but if i remember correctly, the oldest mammal fossil is from 195 million years ago, wheras birds do not come in until millions of years later. does this falsify genesis? hmmm, i have a feeling you'll think it doesn't...

Earth before the sun and moon. Now if it can be found that the sun and moon were not formed prior to the earth conclusively that would falsify Genesis.

so ALL the data we have right now suggests that the earth did not form before the sun, yet you still think this doesn't falsify genesis. in fact, no matter what data i could possibly come up with, you could just claim "well you weren't there! you didn't see it yourself!". what you are asking for is proof, which is something science doesn't give. what makes it okay to ignore all the evidence we have at hand about this?

This is a strawman. Genesis says nothing of the beginning being 6,000 years ago. I am not reinterpreting the wording. It is simply not there.

no, but it is implied by other parts of the bible. do you not interpret genesis based on the context of what is said in the rest of the bible?

You could indeed. Genesis 2 I have no problem with because I am a Christian and feel that this is the spiritual explanation of mankind becoming a spiritual being determined by God to take care of all living things. It is based solely on my interpretation of Gensis 2. It is separated from Genesis 1 for a purpose. It is different from Genesis 1 for that reason.

so in other words, one could easily interpret genesis 2 in a way such that genesis would be falsified by the data, but you choose a different interpretation of this passage. hmm, i see. how convenient that you can do that!

Which I conceded.

and yet you still claim genesis is not falsified by this.

If there was conclusive data that falsified this it would falsify Genesis.

ALL of the data we do have suggests that the earth and sun formed at the same time. this is not conclusive to you? what type of data are you expecting, exactly?

There is new data that is shedding new light on the formation of planets and stars.

what data is this?

I am not ignoring any data.

except whichever data suggests you are wrong.

 

[dad]

I hear creationist using this as evidence that discredits the current evolution theory. How do they fit it into their own theory?

All life on earth was created creation week. Most of it I believe in Eden itself, including plants. Some were made for the earth outside eden, likely to help prepare the world for our spread. Those types you would call cambrian, as they died and were fossilized. The showing up of 'Eden's creatures' in the recordcame over the centuries as we spread out. Not all the earth at first was habitable, that is why we needed Eden. The sea near Eden also is where I believe in the same manner, most sea life dwelled, and was created. That is how I explain it. Not a lot of evolution needed there, if some occred it was just an adapting of already existing created creatures.

 

[dad]

...ALL of the data we do have suggests that the earth and sun formed at the same time. .

No, not at all, the suggestion from the data is derived from a belief based set of assumptions, concerning age. The big bang never happened.

 

[Oncedeceived]

caravelair, I have seen your post but I don't have time to respond right now. Sorry.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, not at all, the suggestion from the data is derived from a belief based set of assumptions, concerning age. The big bang never happened.

Have you researched this yourself?

 

[Oncedeceived]

perhaps by claiming that the order given was not literal, but more metaphorical. the same way you reinterpret genesis 2.

Some consider it metaphorical or symbolic, I was giving my viewpoint. My hypothesis.

doesn't genesis 2 say man was created first? and doesn't genesis 1 get the order of plants wrong?

In my viewpoint, no.
Genesis 1 states:

12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
I said:
There are two points to consider in interpreting this verse. The first is that there is no evidence to support this verse. The second has two possible meanings which could be valid. The first of the two is that there is no evidence of this due to plate tectonics, it is a well known fact that the earliest surface of the earth is probably lost for all time due to movement. The second is that all plants and trees have their beginings from green algae which is the first life form on earth.

I concede that "evidence" to support my viewpoint on this is interpretive at best and so I will consider this verse somewhat of a gap in the conclusions I hold.

so that should falsify genesis, right? but i'm sure you are about to claim that it doesn't.

Let me ask you something, do you think that not having fossil evidence for some aspects of the ToE means that ToE is falsified?

and you could probably do the same with any other claim, either by choosing a different interpretation of the text, or by ignoring whatever evidence you can, like that which suggests the earth was not formed before the sun. how then can i see your hypothesis as falsifiable?

You said yourself there is no evidence to falsify the belief that the earth was not formed before the sun.

they consider it the most likely explanation we have so far. but certainly they acknowledge that we don't have much evidence. the point is, it is still not subjective, it is tested using the same method.

What method?

interpretation of genesis is subjective.

No more so.

many people would disagree with you on that point, which proves how easy it is to have varied interpretations of the same text. lots of people think the geneologies calculated by usher, show that the bible implies a 6,000 year old earth.

Not without putting their own convictions in first. All the geneologies show are the generations they don't necessarily represent earth age at all.

but the geneologies ARE listed in the bible, and you can probably add them up yourself for a similar result. people disagree with you, that this age is not based on the bible. they have a different interpretation of the text than you!

so what about the plant issue then? what about the earth being created before the sun?

Neither can be falsified. Plants could have evolved twice. The earth could have been formed before the sun. They can not be falsified by Science...does that mean Science is not Scientific?

i am not saying they are the same. i am saying they are both unscientific, and my example was to show how an unscientific hypothesis cannot be supported by science. you yourself claimed that your hypothesis was unscientific, did you not? well is it or isn't it?

Above.

so you can pick and choose which lines you wish to be falsifiable? if a line appears to be falsified, you just claim a different interpretation of it, and then point to the ones you think haven't been falsified yet?

Science makes claims that are based on interpretation of data, such as: blood clotting, bacterial flagellum, gaps in the fossil record, and when and how the sun and planets formed. Do Scientists pick and choose what has been falsified?

it says that? but if i remember correctly, the oldest mammal fossil is from 195 million years ago, wheras birds do not come in until millions of years later. does this falsify genesis? hmmm, i have a feeling you'll think it doesn't..

.
21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
The Cambrian era was the time period which consisted of all phyla alive today and some that have gone extinct. The waters literally swarmed with life. This period which is called the Paleozoic period includes the Silurian era in which there were centipedes and millipedes, the Devonian with its sharks and amphibians. This also includes the next period which is the Mesozoic period which then includes dino's and of course within this period comes the first appearance of birds. This is a general overview of what was created during this period. So an overview of this is that the day includes first the Paleozoic and next the Mesozoic.

so ALL the data we have right now suggests that the earth did not form before the sun, yet you still think this doesn't falsify genesis. in fact, no matter what data i could possibly come up with, you could just claim "well you weren't there! you didn't see it yourself!". what you are asking for is proof, which is something science doesn't give. what makes it okay to ignore all the evidence we have at hand about this?

What data do we have that suggests the earth did not form before the sun, please provide it.

no, but it is implied by other parts of the bible. do you not interpret genesis based on the context of what is said in the rest of the bible?

I don't believe it is implied by other parts of the Bible. Please provide evidence of this too.

so in other words, one could easily interpret genesis 2 in a way such that genesis would be falsified by the data, but you choose a different interpretation of this passage. hmm, i see. how convenient that you can do that!

My hypothesis is on Genesis 1. I have no problem with Genesis 2 being a spiritual aspect to the Genesis 1 account. It makes much more sense considering a fool would find it contridictory if not. Do you think that the authors of the past were so ignorant?

ALL of the data we do have suggests that the earth and sun formed at the same time. this is not conclusive to you? what type of data are you expecting, exactly?

What data?

except whichever data suggests you are wrong.

I have shown what is not in evidence.

 

[caravelair]

There are two points to consider in interpreting this verse. The first is that there is no evidence to support this verse.

not only that, but there is evidence which contradicts it. yet you claim this does not falsify the statement, and at the same time you are claiming that it is a falsifiable prediction of genesis.

The second has two possible meanings which could be valid.

which is probably true for every part of genesis, which is why you can't really falsify it. there's always some alternate meaning you could consider.

The first of the two is that there is no evidence of this due to plate tectonics, it is a well known fact that the earliest surface of the earth is probably lost for all time due to movement.

so if we can't know about the past, then how is this a testable prediction?

The second is that all plants and trees have their beginings from green algae which is the first life form on earth.

first of all, green algae would not have been the first life form, prokaryotes would have come first. secondly, the verse does not just mention plants in general, it mentions grass, fruit bearing trees... these things did not come until much later.

I concede that "evidence" to support my viewpoint on this is interpretive at best and so I will consider this verse somewhat of a gap in the conclusions I hold.

so... you claim that the order of creation listed in genesis is a falsifiable prediction of genesis... we find something that appears to be out of order... you claim that the verse could be interpreted differently, or that the evidence of it's correctness has been destroyed and lost in the past... so if you are allowed to do that, then how on earth is this a falsifiable prediction? either our data from the past falsifies this prediction, or we can't possibly have data from the past that could falsify it, because there's no way to have evidence about the distant past that's more conclusive than this. either way, it doesn't do too much for your "hypothesis". and it's not just this verse, you could do the same for any other verse in genesis.

contrast this with a prediction from evolution: that all living organisms must fit into a twin nested hierarchy of relatedness. this is a very specific prediction, and there's no way to reinterpret it, and no way to claim we just haven't found the evidence yet or anything like that. either the evidence fits the prediction, or it does not. if we ever found a horse with wings, or a centaur, or anything like that, it would falsify common descent.

so let's go back to the plant thing. you say the order in genesis is falsifiable. the fact that grasses and fruit bearing trees are only found much later in fossil record than genesis indicates, but you claim this does not falsify the order. if this doesn't falsify it, then what evidence could we possibly ever find that would? be specific.

 

[dad]

Have you researched this yourself?

To some small extent. Enough to see what is going on. There was no big bang.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To some small extent. Enough to see what is going on. There was no big bang.

So what do you see that has left you with the opinion that there was no big bang.

 

[Oncedeceived]

not only that, but there is evidence which contradicts it. yet you claim this does not falsify the statement, and at the same time you are claiming that it is a falsifiable prediction of genesis.

There is evidence in the pre-Cambrian that contradicts this?

which is probably true for every part of genesis, which is why you can't really falsify it. there's always some alternate meaning you could consider.

I think truthfully that can be said of many things. What of abiogenesis for example. If one theory is falsified is it not probable that another will take it place rather than consider the entire theory falsified?

so if we can't know about the past, then how is this a testable prediction?

This is also true in Science. If it is in the past and we can't know it, then is it a testable predicition?

first of all, green algae would not have been the first life form, prokaryotes would have come first. secondly, the verse does not just mention plants in general, it mentions grass, fruit bearing trees... these things did not come until much later.

We have evidence of them coming much later, but in truth we have nothing in evidence of the pre-Cambrian period. This period of time was pre-cambrian.

so... you claim that the order of creation listed in genesis is a falsifiable prediction of genesis... we find something that appears to be out of order... you claim that the verse could be interpreted differently, or that the evidence of it's correctness has been destroyed and lost in the past... so if you are allowed to do that, then how on earth is this a falsifiable prediction?

In the same way Scientists do. It has been argued on this very forum that although there is little evidence of transitionals in the pre-cambrian due to the soft bodies....etc.. Science is always claiming that evidence is lost in the past. Paleontology is faced with this all the time. We allow that, so you are using a double standard.

either our data from the past falsifies this prediction, or we can't possibly have data from the past that could falsify it, because there's no way to have evidence about the distant past that's more conclusive than this. either way, it doesn't do too much for your "hypothesis". and it's not just this verse, you could do the same for any other verse in genesis.

Which could be said for ToE as well then.

contrast this with a prediction from evolution: that all living organisms must fit into a twin nested hierarchy of relatedness. this is a very specific prediction, and there's no way to reinterpret it, and no way to claim we just haven't found the evidence yet or anything like that. either the evidence fits the prediction, or it does not. if we ever found a horse with wings, or a centaur, or anything like that, it would falsify common descent.

I think I might come back later for this.

so let's go back to the plant thing. you say the order in genesis is falsifiable. the fact that grasses and fruit bearing trees are only found much later in fossil record than genesis indicates, but you claim this does not falsify the order. if this doesn't falsify it, then what evidence could we possibly ever find that would? be specific.

See above