What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

Incised meanders are typical, nay, proof positive
of rift valley. I heard about that.

Actually they are evidence of either a change in elevation or a drop in sea level. For example the image that I posted is of Goosenecks State Park. The small river within it is a tributary to the Colorado river. The area was a lowland in the past as shown by the meandering stream. Those do not form in high energy environments. Those are ones where where there is not much elevation change over the length of the river. An uplift can change that. As the land is raised it erodes at the border of the uplift and that erosion works it way upstream. It can freeze the meander in place by causing it to get so deep that it no longer overflows the banks during floods.

That is the first problem for flood believers. It could not have been formed from run off of the flood. The meanders may have existed, but when a flood recedes one gets essentially sheet run off.

The second problem is that the steep sides tell us that the rocks were well indurated. Some of them extremely well indurated. Unconsolidated sediments slump, even more so if they are wet. Since it would have had to have formed after the flood run off, and under essentially today's climate there was nowhere near the time for it to erode its way down. Especially when it first forms large flows would only cause the stream to flow over its banks and flow straight to the sea. Wiping out the meanders. An uplift with slow erosion down of the incised meanders does not present these self contradictions.

I am still waiting for a creationist explanation that either does not form it in the first place, erases the meander, or takes too long since the flow of a small stream simply will not cut that in a few thousand years.

 

[Estrid]

and you need to use smilies when referring to Wally's Wacky Hydroplate Theory to a geologist.

Thems as knows me knows.

 

[Estrid]

Actually they are evidence of either a change in elevation or a drop in sea level. For example the image that I posted is of Goosenecks State Park. The small river within it is a tributary to the Colorado river. The area was a lowland in the past as shown by the meandering stream. Those do not form in high energy environments. Those are ones where where there is not much elevation change over the length of the river. An uplift can change that. As the land is raised it erodes at the border of the uplift and that erosion works it way upstream. It can freeze the meander in place by causing it to get so deep that it no longer overflows the banks during floods.

That is the first problem for flood believers. It could not have been formed from run off of the flood. The meanders may have existed, but when a flood recedes one gets essentially sheet run off.

The second problem is that the steep sides tell us that the rocks were well indurated. Some of them extremely well indurated. Unconsolidated sediments slump, even more so if they are wet. Since it would have had to have formed after the flood run off, and under essentially today's climate there was nowhere near the time for it to erode its way down. Especially when it first forms large flows would only cause the stream to flow over its banks and flow straight to the sea. Wiping out the meanders. An uplift with slow erosion down of the incised meanders does not present these self contradictions.

I am still waiting for a creationist explanation that either does not form it in the first place, erases the meander, or takes too long since the flow of a small stream simply will not cut that in a few thousand years.

Preach to the choir as you like but
incised meanders only form in magic rifts.

I do though wonder when the runoff occurred.
During the 40 days( and nights ) of rain or when
the flood was ending?

 

[AV1611VET]

During the 40 days( and nights ) of rain or when the flood was ending?

When the Flood was ending.

God ordered the waters back to a "siphoning point" ... (probably back to where the windows of heaven were) ... and the waters obeyed.

The path that they took to get there were serpentine meandering paths.

Psalm 104:7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

This etched "meandering rivers" into the surface of the earth.

Serpentine meandering paths.

 

[Bradskii]

For example, I have seen many swans and all of them have been white. Therefore, I formulate a theory that all swans are white. It is not a "proven fact" that all swans are white because I have not and cannot see all swans now or in future. If, at some future date I see a black swan, even just one, my theory is falsified and I can never again conclude that all swans are white, no matter how many more white swans I see."

Creationist: Look, a black swan. All swans are black.
Statitician: No, it just means that the swan you see is black. Not all swans.
Scientist: Actually it means that the swan that you are looking at has one side that is black.

 

[dlamberth]

Actually they are evidence of either a change in elevation or a drop in sea level. For example the image that I posted is of Goosenecks State Park. The small river within it is a tributary to the Colorado river. The area was a lowland in the past as shown by the meandering stream. Those do not form in high energy environments. Those are ones where where there is not much elevation change over the length of the river. An uplift can change that. As the land is raised it erodes at the border of the uplift and that erosion works it way upstream. It can freeze the meander in place by causing it to get so deep that it no longer overflows the banks during floods.

That is the first problem for flood believers. It could not have been formed from run off of the flood. The meanders may have existed, but when a flood recedes one gets essentially sheet run off.

The second problem is that the steep sides tell us that the rocks were well indurated. Some of them extremely well indurated. Unconsolidated sediments slump, even more so if they are wet. Since it would have had to have formed after the flood run off, and under essentially today's climate there was nowhere near the time for it to erode its way down. Especially when it first forms large flows would only cause the stream to flow over its banks and flow straight to the sea. Wiping out the meanders. An uplift with slow erosion down of the incised meanders does not present these self contradictions.

I am still waiting for a creationist explanation that either does not form it in the first place, erases the meander, or takes too long since the flow of a small stream simply will not cut that in a few thousand years.

Good stuff, thanks.
I have now added to my bucket list a new place to visit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When the Flood was ending.

God ordered the waters back to a "siphoning point" ... (probably back to where the windows of heaven were) ... and the waters obeyed.

The path that they took to get there were serpentine meandering paths.

Psalm 104:7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

This etched "meandering rivers" into the surface of the earth.

Serpentine meandering paths.

Well that is a rather optimistic interpretation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well that is a rather optimistic interpretation.

Thank you.

I think I was just complimented.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you.

I think I was just complimented.

Not really.

 

[Job 33:6]

Most geologists believe the uplift occurred before erosion of the canyon into and through the plateau. But that leaves the headwaters of the Colorado River at a lower elevation than the top of that plateau, which indicates the Colorado River could not have carved the Grand Canyon...

Or we can go with the more simple explanation that much of the canyon was carved as uplift occurred, and thus water never had to flow uphill.

Young earth Creationists really are just being deceptive at the end of the day. It's like they intentionally ignore evidence and then point at geologists as if we somehow missed this idea that water had to flow up a mountain.

 

[Estrid]

Love it. Imagine the Fountains of the Great Deep erupting with such force as to blow chunks of the Earth into space to form the Asteroid Belt. No fantasy is too preposterous if it saves a literal reading of Genesis.

Move over, Velikovski!

 

[Job 33:6]

Then there's the fact that the cliffs are not worn like they should be if they had have been there millions of years...

The entire planet is riddled with erosional surfaces, including rocks of the grand canyon.

We typically refer to them as unconformities. There are angular unconformities, non-conformities, disconformities, and paraconformities:

Unconformities.

 

[Shemjaza]

True. Behe has tried to show that testable hypotheses are possible and follow Dembski's explanatory filter:

View attachment 297802

The problem is that there seems to be no generally accepted view on what a small probability is or whether a given process is such a small probability (or just an apparent small probability, where natural processes could account for these processes when viewed in steps or using processes that are unknown currently). Specified complexity also seems to be problematic, at least within the scientific community. This attempt to give structure for design (or intelligence) is laudable. Nothing comparable to this has been offered by the YEC community (at least to my knowledge). As I've said elsewhere, the explanatory filter need not imply a God or gods - It could refer to very powerful intelligent beings that are still finite (and still within some definition of nature such as a multi-verse or something beyond the present generally defined universe) or something else.

This filter is applicable to emergent things such as the President's on Mount Rushmore. Specified complexity and small probabilities are involved in it - neither being by natural law and/or chance alone.- (except indirectly as the result of laws and chance come originally from nature to produce intelligent beings). The question is whether things originally come from an intelligent agent(s) in the first place or there really is any evidence for this in biological systems. Most scientists would say no.

It is unfortunate that Dembski (and others) did not pursue his original work in small probabilities to develop it into a more precise science (no program within ID or non-ID mathematicians, to my knowledge, is doing this in on-going manner). People recognize that the Presidents' faces on Rushmore are designed immediately, but a precise mathematical structure does not establish this rigorously (at least to my knowledge). To my knowledge, forensics is less precise to what I'm suggesting here. I know it is based on probability, and to a similar filtering structure as Dembski's.

I see little evidence that ID has anything to add regarding an alternative for modern evolutionary theory. There are a number of non-creationist evolutionary scientists who seem fundamentally dissatisfied with the current new synthesis - such as the sufficiency of random mutations - see evolutionists like James Shapiro. They don't deny that evolution arises from natural processes but like scientists after Darwin, realized there was a whole lot more to the story than his theory. I personally would like to see a more nuanced theory of evolution based on more of a mathematical model to demonstrate probability of events. There is still far too much hand waving about how natural selection, chance, change and mutations work together to produce evolution.

Dembski and Behe have published hundreds of pages in their many editions and rewordings of their ideas... but never seem to actually present metrics and objective measures for their versions of probability and information.

Like all creationists it seems to come back to religious conviction.

 

[Estrid]

The entire planet is riddled with erosional surfaces, including rocks of the grand canyon.

We typically refer to them as unconformities. There are angular unconformities, non-conformities, disconformities, and paraconformities:

Unconformities.

View attachment 297889
View attachment 297888

That is wasted on the wilfully ignorant.
They think geologists just make up stories.

 

[Speedwell]

That is wasted on the wilfully ignorant.
They think geologists just make up stories.

My impression is that creationists don't really get that scientists understand the subject better than they do. I hear all the time that it's just a matter of interpreting a body of data in reference to presuppositions, without support from related data or related scientific disciplines. Rennick's recent comment on hominid fossils is revealing: He truly believes that paleontologists merely line up fossils in accord with their presupposition of evolution and call it done--without confirming that assumption with information from other scientific disciplines.

 

[tas8831]

So what? I've skinned more animals than 99 perfect of the people on here. I know bone structure.

Do you, now?

OK - tell us all about this bone:

Have you dissected any humans? Other mammals? Fish? Amphibians? And have you identified their organs AND their bones and been tested on them?

I have. I can guarantee that I can run circles around you in terms of your bone skills. Now stop pretending and get to it! Tell us what that bone above is.

A fossilized bone from an extinct animal is not gonna tell you what DNA it had,

Great observation. Interestingly, I did not mention anything like that. Nice dodge!

what fur, or lack of fur or hair or even exact size and shape.

So I guess you just totally ignored what I wrote and are running with your layman's "troof"? Based on skinning some animals?

A whole skeleton construction from a leg bone and some teeth? You don't even know the skull shape. Guesswork is inevitable.

Like I said.... Why is it that you ilk always ignore or reject context?

That bone above that I eagerly await your world-class anatomical discussion of - people that have actual relevant experience and knowledge can identify that type of bone. Given its shape and structure, and the estimated timeframe in which the creature it belonged to lived, an actually knowledgeable person who is not desperate to prop up a failing ancient middle eastern belief system could narrow down the type of creature that it belonged to. And given the size of the bone, they could estimate how large the creature was.
There is "guesswork" like what you have done in this thread (based on ignorance and bias) and the guesswork an educated professional would be capable of given the same material.

You dismiss reconstructions because you are too under-educated to understand how it all works, thus you project your own incompetency onto all. How special of you.

 

[tas8831]

My impression is that creationists don't really get that scientists understand the subject better than they do. I hear all the time that it's just a matter of interpreting a body of data in reference to presuppositions, without support from related data or related scientific disciplines. Rennick's recent comment on hominid fossils is revealing: He truly believes that paleontologists merely line up fossils in accord with their presupposition of evolution and call it done--without confirming that assumption with information from other scientific disciplines.

They project their own ignorance onto all. Their egotism prevents them from considering that there really are better educated people, or people with more relevant and appropriate experience than they have. This is in part why, IMO, so many creationists put themselves forth as having not only basic knowledge, but expert knowledge in every topic that comes up on issues related to evolution. This is frustrating as it is easy to tell that they are generally clueless, and you cannot explain their errors to them.

 

[tas8831]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence etc etc.
Argument from silence etc etc.

Fortunately, there actually is a huge amount of evidence. And it's readily available.
I've been listening to a great podcast during the last few weeks.
Bible Dig : Archeology. Typically 25 to 40 minute episodes. Routine, diligent citations of academic source material. Topics such as historical Abram, Terah, Shem, Gilgamesh/Nimrod...geographical accuracy...extra-biblical corroboration. etc.
BIBLE DIG is a conversational Archaeology podcast which examines the historic people, places & cultures of The Bible.

https: //bibledig.libsyn. com/

Is there any evidence for miraculous events? I mean, that the people and places and some of the events mentioned in the bible should be a given. There are real people and places and events mentioned in other ancient holy texts.

 

[tas8831]

Yes.
The Earth didn't create itself. And it hasn't always existed. Therefore....???
How long creation took can be described in epochs of time - six to be precise.

And a pan-national Flood event is corroborated by multiple extra-biblical sources.
Of course, you can dismiss ALL of these as fabrications if you like. But you'd have to justify your belief for thinking that, and you'd have to offer some hypothesis as to the motive ancient cultures would have for fabricating a lie.

I think the best explanation is that it really happened.

None of that is evidence. You are just restating bible tales as fact.

I justify my belief in that you were asked about evidence, yet presented none, then all but declared victory.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Do you, now?

OK - tell us all about this bone:

Have you dissected any humans? Other mammals? Fish? Amphibians? And have you identified their organs AND their bones and been tested on them?

I have. I can guarantee that I can run circles around you in terms of your bone skills. Now stop pretending and get to it! Tell us what that bone above is.

Great observation. Interestingly, I did not mention anything like that. Nice dodge!

So I guess you just totally ignored what I wrote and are running with your layman's "troof"? Based on skinning some animals?


Like I said.... Why is it that you ilk always ignore or reject context?

That bone above that I eagerly await your world-class anatomical discussion of - people that have actual relevant experience and knowledge can identify that type of bone. Given its shape and structure, and the estimated timeframe in which the creature it belonged to lived, an actually knowledgeable person who is not desperate to prop up a failing ancient middle eastern belief system could narrow down the type of creature that it belonged to. And given the size of the bone, they could estimate how large the creature was.
There is "guesswork" like what you have done in this thread (based on ignorance and bias) and the guesswork an educated professional would be capable of given the same material.

You dismiss reconstructions because you are too under-educated to understand how it all works, thus you project your own incompetency onto all. How special of you.