What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Where I'm looking at is the Earth itSelf. The Earth can't lie. The Earth shows absolutely no sign of a Global flood, so it didn't happen. It's pretty simple.

Look again.

“The history of the Earth is like a book with its first chapter ripped out with no surviving rocks from the very early period, but we’ve used these trace elements of zircon to build a profile of the world at that time,” says lead researcher Antony Burnham, from the Australian National University."

Early Earth was covered in a global ocean and had no mountains | New Scientist

 

[dlamberth]

Look again.

Early Earth was covered in a global ocean and had no mountains | New Scientist

Are you suggesting that the first 700 million years of Earth history is when the Biblical flood occurred?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you suggesting that the first 700 million years of Earth history is when the Biblical flood occurred?

No.

I'm looking at the event that was highlighted.

And I noticed something else too:

Notice it says:

The history of the Earth is like a book with its first chapter ripped out.

That means you don't have the full story.

Genesis 1 does.

Then it goes on to say:

... with no surviving rocks from the very early period,

Can't that gel with what I said in Post 2488?

It was created on the earth, moved to possibly the moon or Mars, came back during the Flood, and could now very well be on Neptune, with "floaties" in it.

You know ... dead bodies, dead plants, rocks and such.

Serving as a warning buoy for other fallen angels who might want to pay us a visit.

 

[renniks]

Only for sociopathic atheists. The rest of us know better. I think you know better too, but set up that straw man because you have no real scientific argument against evolution.

I think lack of compelling evidence is a good enough argument. The other isn't an argument so much as just showing what wrong headed thinking leads to.

 

[SelfSim]

..
Notice it says: That means you don't have the full story.

Genesis 1 does.

Then it goes on to say:Can't that gel with what I said in Post 2488?

It was created on the earth, moved to possibly the moon or Mars, came back during the Flood, and could now very well be on Neptune, with "floaties" in it.

You know ... dead bodies, dead plants, rocks and such.

Serving as a warning buoy for other fallen angels who might want to pay us a visit.

This line of argument is tantamount to an offence against intellects of Faith, IMO.

Is there such a sin as blasphemy against human intellect amongst Christians?

 

[sjastro]

I'll take a look at your case when I have some free time.

Here is a publication about sponge fossils found at the Batesford quarry.
https://www.publish.csiro.au/rs/pdf/RS19001

 

[dlamberth]

No.

I'm looking at the event that was highlighted.

And I noticed something else too:

Notice it says: That means you don't have the full story.

Genesis 1 does.

Then it goes on to say:Can't that gel with what I said in Post 2488?

The Genesis flood is said to have happened when, 4300 years ago? The article, which I found interesting, thanks, places an Earth water world 4 Billion years ago or so. So you would think that if science could discern a water world that long ago that if it actually happened they could find evidence a Biblical Flood that would have happened only 4300 years ago. But no such evidence is there to be seen.

 

[Speedwell]

I think lack of compelling evidence is a good enough argument. The other isn't an argument so much as just showing what wrong headed thinking leads to.

Lack (in your opinion) of compelling evidence will not falsify a theory. It takes contrary evidence to do that.

 

[Kylie]

QV this example: Post 147

As I recall, I was asking you if they were the same kind, and you claimed you couldn't tell unless you knew their genus (and funnily enough, you never explained how you were incapable of determining their genus when the scientists who originally gave them their scientific names could do so).

I even gave you their genus name, and you STILL couldn't do it.

But thanks for the reminder.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was debated for a long time whether it was a legitimate find. Look it up. But now it's accepted as fact on extremely scanty evidence. And people tell me there are no assumptions, no guesswork! It's treated as fact now. Laughable, really. But, they needed a missing link, so they fit it in whether it was legitimate or not.

No reason to believe someone that can never support his claims. You are in effect admitting that you are wrong when your opponents can support their claims and you cannot support yours.

 

[Kylie]

I don't consider warning buoys "garbage dumps".

Neptune's a warning buoy?

 

[AV1611VET]

The Genesis flood is said to have happened when, 4300 years ago?

Close enough.

The article, which I found interesting, thanks, places an Earth water world 4 Billion years ago or so.

WHEN it happened isn't the issue though, so much as the fact that we are both putting the Earth under water at one point in its history.

When it happened, how it happened, why it happened, etc. isn't so much the issue as: "it happened."

Something you denied.

So you would think that if science could discern a water world that long ago that if it actually happened they could find evidence a Biblical Flood that would have happened only 4300 years ago.

This is news to me too, lamberth.

I believe the Earth was covered with water, based on zero evidence, and my interpretation was apparently correct.

I don't know what scientists are seeing back there that's making them come to this conclusion, but they must be seeing something.

But no such evidence is there to be seen.

And do I have to repeat myself that that is because the evidence was ordered off the Earth in Genesis 8, as attested in Psalm 104?

It could be they are seeing the Earth during Day One of the creation, before God ordered the single landmass (Eden/Pangaea) to come forth, BUT as the article stipulated:

The history of the Earth is like a book with its first chapter ripped out.

So they can't be seeing that.

Who knows?

I personally think science is too myopic to be able to make a judgement call.

But keep in mind YOU said:

Where I'm looking at is the Earth itSelf. The Earth can't lie. The Earth shows absolutely no sign of a Global flood, so it didn't happen. It's pretty simple.

And you just may be wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

I even gave you their genus name, and you STILL couldn't do it.

Um ... remember the very next post? Post 148?

Give me their genus names and I'll tell you.

You don't even have to give me their species -- just their genus.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neptune's a warning buoy?

Neptune's a garbage dump?

No, Neptune is not a warning buoy.

What was placed on Neptune was placed there as a warning buoy.

 

[SelfSim]

What was placed on Neptune was placed there as a warning buoy.

References please?

 

[sjastro]

Neptune's a garbage dump?

No, Neptune is not a warning buoy.

What was placed on Neptune was placed there as a warning buoy.

I'd hate to think what was placed on Uranus.

 

[Kylie]

Um ... remember the very next post? Post 148?

Yes. Not only was that NOT an answer to my question, but I even gave you their genus names and you STILL couldn't answer it!

 

[Kylie]

Neptune's a garbage dump?

No, Neptune is not a warning buoy.

What was placed on Neptune was placed there as a warning buoy.

And what was placed on Neptune?

 

[dlamberth]

What was placed on Neptune was placed there as a warning buoy.

I love how things are just made up. I love the humor.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. Not only was that NOT an answer to my question, but I even gave you their genus names and you STILL couldn't answer it!

Then you'll have to give them to me again.

Here's the conversation as far as I got ... and I'm not going to plod through the whole thread:

Tell me, are these two hedgehog tenrecs of the same kind?

Give me their genus names and I'll tell you.

You don't even have to give me their species -- just their genus.

Kind = genus = kind.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what their genuses are.

Post 148 please, Kylie.

Post 150 please, AV...

Afraid I can't help you then, if you're going to withhold a key piece of information from me.

Your challenge is the equivalent of:

Kylie: Tell me, AV, 2x + y = n
AV: Give me the value for n, and I'll give you the value for y.
Kylie: Nothing doing.

Yes, if they can mate with each other and have fertile offspring.

And how about that Post 148?

Is that the best you can do? I even gave you the genus names and everything, which you claim are pivotal in making the determination, and you STILL have to resort to conditional answers? Come on, actually make a proper choice, would ya?



Answered your post 148 in my post 150. Which I have already told you of. Are you just ignoring me now?

This charade went on for days.

So go ahead and give them to me please, and I'll tell you if they are the same kind or not.