What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Gene2memE]

I beg your pardon.
That's a dictionary definition.

Which carries about the same weight as damp flatulence in a scientific debate.

Tell me, how does grouping by 'kinds' account for carcinisation? Or the known examples of convergent evolution?

 

[Frank Robert]

I'm working with information and sources put out as little as three years ago...

This may very well be my last post as I come to the illusive obvious conclusion that there is no benefit for either party to discuss beliefs and science as if they have anything in common.

Anyway, let me reiterate for my last time. Darwin lived close to two centuries ago. If your recent (3 year) sources are still quibbling over the things Darwin couldn't have know in the 18th century yet neglect everything he got right, as one reviewer of ID has said "it is astonishing what a good job he (Darwin) did of arriving at central insights in biological evolution without having access to a great deal of the data (evidence) we now have that confirm it."

 

[Lion IRC]

Which carries about the same weight as damp flatulence in a scientific debate.

Tell that to the dude who ASKED me for a definition.
If you already have a preferred definition, don't be so intellectually dishonest as to feign ignorance and ask for one.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Tell that to the dude who ASKED me for a definition.
If you already have a preferred definition, don't be so intellectually dishonest as to feign ignorance and ask for one.

A year please.
Or a decade.
Or if this is too much, a century.
Give a century.
To within a 100 years, when did the bible flood take place?

 

[Job 33:6]

Im answering your skeptical assertion that water could never cover Mt Everest.
The Mariana Trench is 2,147 metres deeper than Everest is tall.
There is more than enough water on earth to cover all the land above sea level by hundreds of metres.

So what you're proposing, which is what I figured would be the case, is that perhaps this trench in the pacific, didn't exist at the time of the flood or at the start of this flood, else water would be inside the trench, rather than above sea level. More commonly, young earthers tend to refer to the mid oceanic ridge of the atlantic and it's associated trench.

And so we enter a stage where we can look and we can see if that makes any sense.

And I would say, the simple response is that rocks of these trenches are really just a fraction of the total depth of the geologic succession. And when I say "depth", I'm specifically referring to superposition and relative dating of strata, which is not to be confused with radiometric dating. Meaning that most rocks on earth and earth history by association, by far, pre exist these trenches. But also, vast sequences post date them as well. Which begs questions of, if a flood were not responsible for depositing these pre existing layers, then how did they get there? Aside from a simple statement of (God just created the layers with an appearance of the passage of time that perhaps never truly happened).

 

[tas8831]

I beg your pardon.
That's a dictionary definition.

Yes - a copy paste devoid of attribution. Plagiarism.

You were the one who asked. Now, don't be rude.
Why ask for a definition if you already have one locked and loaded?

It seems as if you are being very disingenuous. It should be obvious to a master apologist like you that when being asked about the definition of "kind" in a discussion involving the ark tall tale that the first entry for "kind" is irrelevant.
And I'm betting you are well aware of this and are just playing games, as creationists often do.

As is the case with most scientific issues, creationists are all over the place. Agreeing upon a simple and relevant definition for "kind" in this context helps to avoid the weaseling and dissembling we tend to see.

Perhaps referring to a creationist that is not consciously trying to play games, we will come to something more concrete - Bodie Hodge, Mechanical Engineer creationist at AiG (why is an engineer writing essays about biology? well, it is a YEC group, so...), tells us authoritatively:

The biblical kind would be closer to the family level in many instances, but sometimes genus or even species level for others.​

It is interesting to note that all of Bodie the mechanical engineer's references were to biblical or creationist sources...

It is important to have some common ground in terms of definitions so that the creationist apologia can be assessed and addressed using reality-based concepts that actual taxonomists/systematists/evolutionary biologists will be familiar with.

So unless you have a non-snarky and better definition than our pal Bodie, shall we consider "kind" to be roughly equivalent to Genus? That does, after all, help the creationist position when it comes to ask stuff...

 

[renniks]

Or that could just be lies you made up. Particularly since you were pontificating that they were "human" until you were called on it.

Do you have any sources for these comments?

We can tell a whole lot from skull shape, in particular how it sits against the spine, giving a clear insight to gait and standing posture.

Seriously, it's one of the most debated finds. I sure wouldn't put any stock in it.

 

[renniks]

This may very well be my last post as I come to the illusive obvious conclusion that there is no benefit for either party to discuss beliefs and

I've been thinking along the same lines.. I know what I believe and I know who I trust to give me true information, and it sure isn't an internet forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible claim so yes, but its very modern to think this is a literal claim.

Modern ideas of "truth" is just that, modern.

Um ... why is it "modern," when it was written long before you ever saw the light of day?

The person who wrote it believed it.

Okay if I believe it too?

 

[AV1611VET]

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for a year, or at least a decade.

2348 BC

What is a "kind"?

A "genus".

 

[Speedwell]

Um ... why is it "modern," when it was written long before you ever saw the light of day?

The person who wrote it believed it.

Okay if I believe it too?

The book is not modern, it was written a long time ago. It's the claim which is modern.

 

[Mr Laurier]

2348 BC

Can we get Lion to agree?
Helloooooo. Lion IRC?

 

[AV1611VET]

The book is not modern, it was written a long time ago. It's the claim which is modern.

Let me get this straight.

A long time ago, a man writes that Methuselah died at the age of 969.

I claim that Methuselah died at the age of 969.

And I'm making a modern claim?

What am I missing here?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can we get Lion to agree?

Would it matter?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Would it matter?

Its kinda the whole point

 

[Speedwell]

Let me get this straight.

A long time ago, a man writes that Methuselah died at the age of 969.

I claim that Methuselah died at the age of 969.

And I'm making a modern claim?

What am I missing here?

Yes--the claim that a single individual named Methuselah died at the age of 969 years exactly, expressed in base 10 numbers without any numerological significance. That is a modern claim.

 

[VirOptimus]

Um ... why is it "modern," when it was written long before you ever saw the light of day?

The person who wrote it believed it.

Okay if I believe it too?

Woooosh

 

[VirOptimus]

Let me get this straight.

A long time ago, a man writes that Methuselah died at the age of 969.

I claim that Methuselah died at the age of 969.

And I'm making a modern claim?

What am I missing here?

A lot.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes--the claim that a single individual named Methuselah died at the age of 969 years exactly, expressed in base 10 numbers without any numerological significance. That is a modern claim.

The Earth had been in existence some 1652 years when it was documented that Methuselah died.

Do you still want to claim that is a modern claim?

 

[Speedwell]

The Earth had been in existence some 1652 years when it was documented that Methuselah died.

Do you still want to claim that is a modern claim?

Why should I? What does that claim have to do with the age of Methuselah?