How can Creationism be falsified?

[Queller]

You're the one presuming it took billions of years and there was no flood.

I'm not presuming anything. I am simply acknowledging what the vast preponderance of evidence demonstrates.

The Bible says that the world was essentially destroyed and rebuilt. It was designed to that all the resources we need could be found including energy sources not known to man at the time of Christ. This required placing pockets of oil , gas and coal where they may be found.

Given that we know how these things form under normal conditions, God placing them there without the necessary time having passed makes God a deceiver. Are you OK with that?

Could you please tell me the reason God placed an impact crater in northern Arizona that appears to show that a meteor impacted the area 50,000 years ago when, according to the YEC timeline, no such event ever happened?

 

[USincognito]

You're the one presuming it took billions of years and there was no flood.

That's not a "presumption". That's what the actual observations tell us.

The Bible says that the world was essentially destroyed and rebuilt.

The actual evidence tells us something different, but that's not surprising because Genesis is a theology lesson, not a science lesson.

 

[USincognito]

Could you please tell me the reason God placed an impact crater in northern Arizona that appears to show that a meteor impacted the area 50,000 years ago when, according to the YEC timeline, no such event ever happened?

Impact craters are one of those things they usually dance around or come up with crazy, ad hoc stuff to explain. Leaving aside for a moment how catastrophic Chicxulub alone was, but toss in Vredefort and Sudbury during a 2,000 to 1.5 year time frame (depending on when they claim the impacts happened) and the worldwide destruction would be unimaginable - how do they explain that Sudbury is almost eroded away, Chicxulub is half covered by the Yucatan peninsula and Berringer is "fresh".

 

[xianghua]

I do not have answers, I am looking for books with proof that can be examined.

i think it easy: prove that a creature without a vision system (or any other complex trait) can evolve a vision system and you will falsified creationism.

 

[Loudmouth]

i think it easy: prove that a creature without a vision system (or any other complex trait) can evolve a vision system and you will falsified creationism.

What evidence would you accept for the evolution of a vision system?

 

[xianghua]

What evidence would you accept for the evolution of a vision system?

show me in the lab that a creature wihout a vision system evolve a vision system and it will by a good proof for evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

show me in the lab that a creature wihout a vision system evolve a vision system and it will by a good proof for evolution.

Show me a lab that has been following a population for millions of years.

 

[The Barbarian]

i think it easy: prove that a creature without a vision system (or any other complex trait) can evolve a vision system and you will falsified creationism.

That's pretty easy. In fact, most creationists now admit that vision can evolve, but it only goes so far, maybe to new genera or families.

Let's take a look at the idea.
A lot of organisms exist that can detect sunlight on their surfaces. If you walk out into the sun on a hot summer day, you can do that.

So what's the next step? With poster paint, put a large dark spot on your skin and see if that increases the acuity of your light-detection system.

Now, suppose an organism with a dark spot can orient slightly toward the sun. A very primitive, but useful form of vision.

What then?

if the pigmented skin is slightly sunken, the acuity will increase, as it must be more precisely oriented toward the light.

If the existing sensory nerves become more numerous, so much the better. If they become more sensitive to the particular wavelength, better also.

If the top of the surrounding skin narrows, then even better acuity, and if it becomes a very small opening, then an image can be formed.

If a thin layer of clear tissue forms over the pit, then the organ becomes protected.

If the layer thickens a bit in the middle, then a better image is formed.

And now we have a vertebrate or cephalopod eye.

Which of those steps could not happen by mutation and natural selection?

 

[PsychoSarah]

i think it easy: prove that a creature without a vision system (or any other complex trait) can evolve a vision system and you will falsified creationism.

There are single celled organisms, such as elodea, which have spots on them called "eye spots". Elodea have no organs, but thanks to these eye spots, these simple, single celled organisms can detect light and the direction it is coming from, and react to it. In the presence of light, elodea photosynthesize. In the absence of light, they begin to move around and actively hunt down food.

Most of the intermediates of eye formation exist in living organisms, because it is such a beneficial trait that it has evolved independently in thousands upon thousands of organisms at different times.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Either that, or your interpretation of Genesis is wrong.

There are many layers of understanding and different interpretations for Genesis. From their own perspective they are all right.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Your're familiar with the history and archaeology of the region? Good.

I have studied the history and archaeology of the region for 50 years.

 

[xianghua]

That's pretty easy. In fact, most creationists now admit that vision can evolve, but it only goes so far, maybe to new genera or families.

Let's take a look at the idea.
A lot of organisms exist that can detect sunlight on their surfaces. If you walk out into the sun on a hot summer day, you can do that.

So what's the next step? With poster paint, put a large dark spot on your skin and see if that increases the acuity of your light-detection system.

Now, suppose an organism with a dark spot can orient slightly toward the sun. A very primitive, but useful form of vision.

What then?

if the pigmented skin is slightly sunken, the acuity will increase, as it must be more precisely oriented toward the light.

If the existing sensory nerves become more numerous, so much the better. If they become more sensitive to the particular wavelength, better also.

If the top of the surrounding skin narrows, then even better acuity, and if it becomes a very small opening, then an image can be formed.

If a thin layer of clear tissue forms over the pit, then the organ becomes protected.

If the layer thickens a bit in the middle, then a better image is formed.

And now we have a vertebrate or cephalopod eye.

Which of those steps could not happen by mutation and natural selection?

even the starting point (an eyespot) need several parts to function. so even the first step is impossible by evolution. think about a minimal light detector made by human. do you think we can make such a detector by one or two parts?

 

[Astrophile]

Affirming the 2nd law of thermal dynamics.

It's thermodynamics, not thermal dynamics.

 

[The Barbarian]

even the starting point (an eyespot) need several parts to function.

You don't need an eyespot to detect light. Organisms lacking them can do so. You can do so with your skin. And so you need no parts at all. You can use existing stuff, which has other uses, to do it. This is called "preadaption", and it demonstrably works. Does that suggest to you where you're missing things?

so even the first step is impossible by evolution.

Bad assumption, faulty conclusion.

think about a minimal light detector made by human.

Automobile. Preadapted to detect sunlight. Just leave it in the open with the windows rolled up. So no parts are required.

do you think we can make such a detector by one or two parts?

A bimetallic strip would make it more accurate. A dial could make it even more so.

 

[xianghua]

You don't need an eyespot to detect light. Organisms lacking them can do so. You can do so with your skin. And so you need no parts at all. You can use existing stuff, which has other uses, to do it. This is called "preadaption", and it demonstrably works. Does that suggest to you where you're missing things?



Bad assumption, faulty conclusion.



Automobile. Preadapted to detect sunlight. Just leave it in the open with the windows rolled up. So no parts are required.



A bimetallic strip would make it more accurate. A dial could make it even more so.

so if you need to make a minimal light detector, what components you will need?

 

[The Barbarian]

so if you need to make a minimal light detector, what components you will need?

In many cases, no components at all. As you see, we needed exactly 0 components to make a light detector on a simple organism or an automobile. It turns out that in each case, the structure is pre-adapted for light detection, even if there was no intent to make it so.

 

[xianghua]

In many cases, no components at all. As you see, we needed exactly 0 components to make a light detector on a simple organism or an automobile. It turns out that in each case, the structure is pre-adapted for light detection, even if there was no intent to make it so.

a car can detect and response to light? how?

 

[The Barbarian]

a car can detect and response to light? how?

Roll up the windows and leave it in sunny spot. It will respond to visual light by emitting infrared rays.

 

[xianghua]

Roll up the windows and leave it in sunny spot. It will respond to visual light by emitting infrared rays.

so if i will add a part of glass to a robot- it will response to the light? ok. lets assume its possible. how it will evolve into somehintg more complex like a video camera? step by step?

 

[The Barbarian]

so if i will add a part of glass to a robot- it will response to the light? ok. lets assume its possible. how it will evolve into somehintg more complex like a video camera? step by step?

Human artifacts don't evolve, except when we make copies of living systems.

But as you know, a population of organisms can evolve to adapt to new conditions, or to become better fitted to the existing environment. So if it's beneficial for an organism to better orient to light, a dark spot would be an advantage. A simple mutation does that.

likewise, a slightly sunken spot or more nerves under the spot would again be beneficial.

And so on. There's no point in the process where simple mutations couldn't produce the gradual changes that would result in a complex eye. And each of those changes would be favorable, which means they would tend to accumulate in the next generation.