What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Brightmoon]

That Russia interfered in our 2016 election is a fact . Just like evolution is a fact. You just don’t want to believe it. Doing a version of the Gish gallop isn’t going to change the fact that these creationist ideas are just silly misunderstandings .

it’s not that scientists “disbelieve” separate creation . It’s that creationists don’t have evidence for separate creation and until they do, scientists aren’t going to accept that concept as factual . That includes scientists who are Christians because lying about evolution serves no purpose and is actually harmful .

 

[nolidad]

You dont understand even the basics of science and we are not responsible for your education.

Ah the old ad-hominem resurrected again.

Instead of answering the question, resort to insults.

Well if I am so benighted to you- you do know there is an ignore button here don't you? Be my guest so you won't have to stoop so low as you think you have to for my benefit.

 

[nolidad]

We know what sort of geological patterns large scale flooding creates. We also know what sort of fossilisation patterns it produces - none of these are seen at a global scale.

How does a global flood and "hydraulic sortation" account for the fact that seed and spore bearing plants (ginko, ferns, connifers) always appear earlier in the fossil record than flowering plants? And why do bryophytes appear earlier in the record than either of the two above?

Well they are seen on a global scale! If you wish I can post a few videos of PHD geologists who have spent 30+ years researching that very thing and showing how!

As for you second question, if you really want an answer, I will have to research it out. It has been a long long time since I was asked such a specific question.

But one for you. We know that "bees" require pollen as food. so how did all the pollen gathering insects survive? they appear in the so called geologic column long before flowering plants do! Even 2 years without a food source would be enough to make any genus and family extinct!

 

[VirOptimus]

Ah the old ad-hominem resurrected again.

Instead of answering the question, resort to insults.

Well if I am so benighted to you- you do know there is an ignore button here don't you? Be my guest so you won't have to stoop so low as you think you have to for my benefit.

My point stands.

 

[Brightmoon]

Well they are seen on a global scale! If you wish I can post a few videos of PHD geologists who have spent 30+ years researching that very thing and showing how!

As for you second question, if you really want an answer, I will have to research it out. It has been a long long time since I was asked such a specific question.

But one for you. We know that "bees" require pollen as food. so how did all the pollen gathering insects survive? they appear in the so called geologic column long before flowering plants do! Even 2 years without a food source would be enough to make any genus and family extinct!

. Ok Gish gallop it is! Bees would have had pollen available because most land plants produce it . Plants can be wind pollinated ; most conifers are . I’ll have to look into when these both appeared in the fossil record to get you and answer . But keep in mind that pollen is very persistent and we do find it as fossils .

ok! Bees evolved about 100 million years ago from the wasp lineage . Pollen bearing Gymnospermae plants evolved during the Carboniferous ( about 350 million years ago) and specifically flowering plants (Angiosperms) were around for about 35 million years before bees evolved . That’s why having pollen for bees isn’t the problem you think it is

 

[Brightmoon]

Male pollen bearing cones in a modern pine tree and some fossil pollen under a microscope

 

[pitabread]

Yes we see that all happening- but those are restricted. It does not change the genus or family of phyla or order etc.

Of course species have changes genus, family, etc. Those are arbitrary human classifications and species get reclassified all the time.

Simply asserting there are limits to evolution and appealing to classification systems is not helping your case. If you want to demonstrate there are limits to biological evolution, you need to do it biologically (e.g. it has nothing to do with Linnaean taxonomy).

Rats had mutative changes in NYC. Subway rats can no longer reproduce with "above ground" rats, due to mutagenic changes in the genome. that reduces the viability of the "evolved" subway rat, not advance it.

Remember the evolutionary story is constant advancement and advantage in continuously changing environments. The micro-evolutionary changes supposedly gave the "new" creature an advantage over the old one.

But going from say land mammal to whale is more artistic imagination than scientific information.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...-Pakicetus-the-terrestrial-Pakistan-whale.png

You're comparing evolution of rats within human lifespans versus millions of years of whale evolution. Time-wise there is a difference in orders of magnitude.

Insofar as the process itself (e.g. natural selection, improved evolutionary fitness, etc.), these are all things that have been directly observed in both lab experiments and nature. There is nothing from a process perspective that we haven't seen that is necessary to account for biological evolution over millions of years.

It really is like you're claiming Pluto can't orbit the Sun because you've only witnessed a fraction of its orbit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well then this ought to be easy.

Show the tests that prove that mutations took us from microbe to man.

You still have no clue as to what evidence is available and what one would expect.

Try again. If you want a proper answer then please try to ask proper and honest questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well we haven't even gotten to teh science supporting Divine Creation so you are ten steps ahead.

There is no "science supporting Divine Creation".

Now we know that you do not understand the concept of evidence, or even the scientific method. It won't take long to learn. Are you interested in doing so?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah the old ad-hominem resurrected again.

Instead of answering the question, resort to insults.

Well if I am so benighted to you- you do know there is an ignore button here don't you? Be my guest so you won't have to stoop so low as you think you have to for my benefit.

I am sorry, but you do not understand the concept of what an ad hominem is either. Instead of making false attacks why don't you try to learn the basics? We can discuss the basics of science without bringing up evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Well we haven't even gotten to teh science supporting Divine Creation so you are ten steps ahead.

We're not talking about divine creation as such, and won't be if we stay on topic for this board.

Well Poppers falsification principle fails. Example: a hypothesis "All swans are white". Proven false by seeing a black swan. Ergo no longer scientific for it has been falsified.

That was just my point; once you see a black swan, you can never again say "all swans are white." Once falsified, a theory stays falsified. The new theory, "all swans are either black or white," would be falsified by seeing a grey swan, but that falsification would not bring back the original "all swans are white" theory. It's the same with biblical creationism. Biblical creationism has been off the table scientifically for 150 years. Falsifying the theory of evolution will not bring it back.

Another hypothesis: All swans are not white. If one swan is found not white- this hypothesis cannot be falsified and thus unfalsifiable. Does this make this hypothesis unscientific?

LOL!

And Special Creation was not until the last 70 years subjected to the same kind of research and study as evolution has enjoyed. Evolutionary sciences have far more adherents and receive magnitudes more funding. But where "creation science" has researched and studied and tested, they have falsified many of the tenets of evolution.

so the new tool of "well they are not real scientists" or "they publish in not respected peer reviewed journals" were born!

Well they are real scientists, and when the "accepted journals" are controlled by scientists who believe in evolution and disbelieve special creation can be possible- they will never get their hearing in those journals.

Kind of like the Russia hoax pulled on Trump. It was proven that there was no collusion, but the "repsepcted" media wouldn't air the facts. Only the disrespected "Fox news" aired the facts. so many still believe that Trump and russia colluded when the facts are it was Hillary and the DNC that colluded by spending money to create the phony steele dossier. now this is just for example purposes to show why rebuttal of established evolutionary dogma will never get the full light of day in the "well respected journals".

The best place for that fantasy would be here: Conspiracy Theories

 

[Brightmoon]

Microbes to man ? Noli, you’d have to understand, plastid endosymbiosis , basic genetics, developmental biology, and cell signaling before we give you that amount of detail . You don’t even understand middle school science. How do you expect to understand a scientific research paper if you don’t understand the basics? We can give you a general idea but it’s just going over your head because you just don’t understand even basic science that you should have learned as a child .

 

[Subduction Zone]

And all you show is that there were fossil feathered dinos. You haven't shown the evolution of the feather from a scale via unplanned random mutations preserved by natural selection.

Once again fossils showed a critter existed. It doesn't show that it evolved. that is up tot eh imagination of the evolutionist and the paleo artist hired to paint a picture of what they think how the creature may have evolved over time.

That is only because you have unrealistic expectations. What we have is is scientific evidence. You have none. And you have yet to own up to your error of not admitting that feathers did not have to evolve in birds since they already existed before birds evolved. Naughty naughty.

Let me try to explain this to you. A scientific hypothesis makes predictions that can be used to test the hypothesis. That feathers would have existed before birds is predicted because they are far too complex to arise rapidly. And that is confirmed by the fossil record. We see older fossils with more and more simple feathers as they get older and older. Just what the theory predicts. Meanwhile creation "scientists" are too cowardly to make proper predictions because they know that they have a history of being wrong. If you understood the concept of scientific evidence you would also know that there is none for your side.

 

[pitabread]

Show the tests that prove that mutations took us from microbe to man.

If you have an honest interest in learning how evolution is tested and supported by evidence, I'd invite you to check out the free education resources compiled in this thread: Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution

If you're willing to make the time and effort, you could learn a lot about the science in question with the resources provided.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes we see that all happening- but those are restricted. It does not change the genus or family of phyla or order etc.

Rats had mutative changes in NYC. Subway rats can no longer reproduce with "above ground" rats, due to mutagenic changes in the genome. that reduces the viability of the "evolved" subway rat, not advance it.

Remember the evolutionary story is constant advancement and advantage in continuously changing environments. The micro-evolutionary changes supposedly gave the "new" creature an advantage over the old one.

But going from say land mammal to whale is more artistic imagination than scientific information.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...-Pakicetus-the-terrestrial-Pakistan-whale.png

This is literally how speciation happens. Two groups from the same species that could have previously interbred break into two incompatible species because their genes have changed in a way that effect their biochemistry, cellular structures, anatomy, or behavior such that they can no longer mate or won't mate with each other. Those changes that occurred to both groups during their separation were evolution. They occurred because different genetic variants were selected and perhaps some new ones were created by "mutations". This *is* evolution and that's how it happens.

(I don't know if the "subway rat" story is real, but you seem to think it is. If it is that's exactly what evolution is.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ah the old ad-hominem resurrected again.

Instead of answering the question, resort to insults.

Well if I am so benighted to you- you do know there is an ignore button here don't you? Be my guest so you won't have to stoop so low as you think you have to for my benefit.

No this is what happens when you exhibit a deficit in understanding. It can be corrected, but you have to work to learn.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well they are seen on a global scale! If you wish I can post a few videos of PHD geologists who have spent 30+ years researching that very thing and showing how!

How about you post the citations of their published research. I came here for a serious discussion, not a movie.

 

[driewerf]

Ah the old ad-hominem resurrected again.

Instead of answering the question, resort to insults.

Well if I am so benighted to you- you do know there is an ignore button here don't you? Be my guest so you won't have to stoop so low as you think you have to for my benefit.

From your posts here, we can easily see that you don't know the basics of the Theory of Evolution (ToE). I understand that it isn't nice to be labelled as ignorant publicly, but if you take a few seconds to think about it, we are all ignorant about many things. I outknowledge you probably on one or two different fields and you outknowledge me probably in many different fields. And Hans Blaster, Shemjaza, Vir Optimus and all others posting here have their subjects in which they outknowledge all the others while be ignorant on some other fields.
Some weeks ago a fellow YEC'sts (NBB) displayed the same ignorance as you. I posted some links to educational resources. Going from youtube series, introductional level sites to free college level textbooks. He/She refused to look at it. His/her choice.
Surprise us. Show a will to learn.

@NBB,
you know what, I am in a good mood this evening.
Here are some links to different educational resources. If you don't want to be called ignorant start studying. Astonish us with your will to learn.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01 (very basic introduction)

here are some free textbooks on line
Biology Books Online
Natural Sciences Textbooks - Open Textbook Library
https://bookboon.com/en/textbooks (note, the books contain advertisements)

You could start with studying about what science is, how it works and what the scientific method is. That's not 'evolution", but it will be a great step forward in the quality of this discussion.
https://www.geosociety.org/documents/gsa/geoteachers/NatureScience.pdf
http://www2.ic.uff.br/~vanessa/material/escience/02-ScientificMethod.pdf
http://course.sdu.edu.cn/G2S/eWebEditor/uploadfile/20140306165315001.pdf (153 pages)

 

[Brightmoon]

You know that sometimes YECs get told not to look at the evidence for evolution. That’s why Noli continues to post the same silly strawman versions . He’s not going to examine his beliefs nor does he want to actually find out who’s telling him the truth or not. He’d rather continue to believe in the con.
I don’t think he realizes that anyone who’s mainstream science literate has already examined both sides and has realized that the ideas of creationists don’t match with reality very well. That’s the real reason we don’t accept YEC or OEC ideas , it’s because they fail at describing nature. It has NOTHING to do with atheism at all.

 

[pitabread]

I don’t think he realizes that anyone who’s mainstream science literate has already examined both sides and has realized that the ideas of creationists don’t match with reality very well.

Not only this, but non-creationists almost always are more familiar with creationism than creationists themselves. When one has been debating this subject for decades, creationist arguments become old hat (especially since they're always the same).

It never ceases to amaze me how unfamiliar creationists tend to be with both science and creationism.