Rabbits in the Precambrian

[AV1611VET]

You know AV, I'm just about sick of guys like you dissing on Fairies! I'm so tempted to get a few of my little friends here to come to your house and steal all of your Left socks!

They're all in the washer somewhere ---

Besides, I'm known for being somewhat ... shall we say ... eccentric.

I don't mind wearing two different socks at all.

 

[Wedjat]

Well blast. I come back for a quick check in (still dangerously close to my internet cap) only to see that a shiny new creationist (at least one that I haven't seen before) has been in and out of my thread without answering my question.
MarkT, if you get back here, please read the OP and answer, I would appreciate it.

 

[Jazmyn]

J.B.S Haldane once famously said that rabbit fossils found in the Precambrian would falsify evolution.

Can we be sure that it won't just be re-incorporated into evolution?

 

[Baggins]

It is difficult to see how it could be.

If the rock was dataed accurately there would be no vertebrate fossils in the PreCambrian so it would falsify evolution as it currently stands.

Considering the amount of evidence that there is for evolution I doubt it would mean that the theory was dropped wholesale but there would have to be major revision of th etime lines of vertebrate evolution.

But this is all idle speculation it isn't going to happen it was just an example of something that would falsify evolution to show people who say that it isn't a theory because it can't be flasified are wrong.

There are loads of things that would mean our modern synthesis is incorrect - DNA analysis showing birds are more closely related to bananas than reptiles - but I doubt anyone them would lead to the complete rejection of descent with modification leading to speciation through natural selection, and none of them would mean that creationism is de facto correct.

If the theory of evolution was wrong a new scientific theory that explains the observed evidence better is the only thing that would replace it.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Fossils are a testament to death

True, but fossils are also a testament to birth, renewal and regeneration. Moreover, they allow countless billions of individual organisms to enjoy life, rather than a tiny minority of the selfish and greedy who want to hog eternal life for themselves alone, in a world without death, denying life for others.

...and death is a testament to sin.

I suppose you mean human sin. So why is it, in God's created world, that the millions of other non-human species have to bear the sins of man? Of course the world's ecology is affected by man today, but that has nothing to do with scripture or fossils.

Evolutionists like to daisy-chain these fossils into one long story of natural selection, fights for survival, mutations, and who-knows-what-all;

So after the Fall, life itself has became a terrible and intolerable punishment? Rubbish! For those that can appreciate it, life is mostly enjoyable - that's why we don't want to die! Certainly there is a struggle for existence, but creationists seem to think there's only one form of life on this planet - animal. Actually microorganisms are the dominant life form, but do you ever hear a creationist bemoaning 'survival of the fittest' amongst this group? No, because they don't care! Man is the pinnacle of God's creation.

but the Bible clearly paints a different picture.

There are creatures mentioned in the Bible that only an evolutionist can deny, and they deny them with passion; changing, as the Bible says, the glory of our uncorruptible God into all manner of birds, four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

What do you mean "the Bible clearly paints a different picture"? The verse you quote is about bringing God down to man's level - idols and image they carved or drew. Paul is talking about objects like the odd creatures dug up today and which represented ancient deities. I don't understand how this quote supports your contention that 'evolutionists' deny the existence of certain creatures mentioned in the Bible.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Can we be sure that it won't just be re-incorporated into evolution?

It'll Redefine Evolution as we know it, is a better way to put it.

To state it more accurately, the most sure-fire way to falsify evolution completely would be if a Horse gave birth to a Alligater.

 

[laconicstudent]

It'll Redefine Evolution as we know it, is a better way to put it.

To state it more accurately, the most sure-fire way to falsify evolution completely would be if a Horse gave birth to a Alligater.

Yes. Unless it is part of some genetic engineering experiment, that will probably send the entire scientific community into collective apoplexy since they'd have to re-write all the text-books, throw out all theories, and studies and evidence from the past 150 years.