What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[essentialsaltes]

It wasn't true before the 1850s.

You'll find that Lyell and Whewell and Cuvier and Linnaeus gathered their specimens from the natural world and not from biblical concordances.

 

[muichimotsu]

You'll find that Lyell and Whewell and Cuvier and Linnaeus gathered their specimens from the natural world and not from biblical concordances.

Does the OP even care about whether science was even used at all except insofar as it confirms their presuppositions? I'm skeptical they've got much more than the grasp of science a high school graduate would

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Does the OP even care about whether science was even used at all except insofar as it confirms their presuppositions? I'm skeptical they've got much more than the grasp of science a high school graduate would

OP is here for an argument. The science was settled years ago, but an argument is always a fun distraction.

 

[muichimotsu]

OP is here for an argument. The science was settled years ago, but an argument is always a fun distraction.

Careful, you might give them the impression science is making "absolute" claims

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Careful, you might give them the impression science is making "absolute" claims

OP already thinks that. His religious views are absolute, therefore any disagreeing view must likewise be absolute. Like most creationists he is very black & white in his perceptions.

 

[SelfSim]

Time is a testably objective concept in science which generates abundant evidence and that is the only reason science regards time as existing.

If you want more, then we have an explanation for the time before the Big Bang when there was no time.

The 'Big Bang' is a cosmological model. That model would be completely meaningless unless time is included as a dimensional attribute of that model.
Your erroneous assumption of 'no time' leads to complete gobbledygook. Which is what renders it a scientifically invalid concept.

One evidence as I said was we only have access to space. We are not fourth dimension creatures, so we do not have access to time.

Our minds invoke the dimension of time in order to explain the dimensionality of the spacetime model.

You erroneously assume time is a 'thing' which exists independently from our concept of it.
You have zip objective evidence for that assumption. It is nothing more than just another belief which can be put on top of the pile of all the others driving your misconceptions about what's real .. and what isn't.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Lucy is the one that was presented.

There is disagreement that Lucy walked upright since her skeleton does not have a foot. It's only by the knee, but doubters state the knee shows she was a knuckle walker, i.e four limbs. OTOH, the gorilla foot is similar to a modern gorilla and shows the apes were still climbing trees. It falsifies the theory that apes walked upright. We see that today with modern apes. Even a bear can walk more upright that an ape.

Except it doesn't because you conveniently left out/ignored the rest of what I said in the post you quoted:

And also, since this does need to be pointed out a few times, the fossil of Lucy is not the be-all and end-all of evidence of Australopithecus fossils, with more than 300 different specimens being discovered.

Lying for the Bible again?

 

[Shemjaza]

The Precambrian Rabbit argument is basically to find something out of place with ToE. There have been several objects already found to falsify evolution.

View attachment 288410

This is a 3.4 million-year-old partial fossil foot of an ape, like a gorilla, unearthed in Ethiopia. It was deemed to walk awkwardly, not exactly upright. This belonged to the same time history that Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) was found. Lucy didn't even have a foot. This appeared in Nature.

'A SET of foot bones found in Ethiopia suggests our ancestors kept climbing trees for millions of years after they came down to walk on two feet.

The research, published today in the journal Nature, adds to the complexity of our family tree and points to the existence of a new species, somewhere between primate and human, that lived about 3.4 million years ago.

Co-author Dr Bruce M. Latimer, executive director of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, said that the discovery was "quite shocking" because it did not fit the present model of human evolution.

The likely human ancestor known to scientists from that time ("Lucy") had feet much like modern humans, but the new fossil foot has an opposable big toe, like a gorilla or chimp.

"This new specimen is walking upright when on the ground, doing it in an awkward fashion, not like us, but still maintains its big toe grasping ability," Dr Latimer said.

"What we see here is two different groups and that was one of the big surprises."'

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news...a/news-story/4c1e7e0dfa74f25f5be28e76fa7c996e

That's hardly an out of place fossil. I don't think anyone was proposing that the species that led to humanity was some exclusive lineage of apes without branches and variation.

Did you know that some modern primates have tails and some don't?

 

[VirOptimus]

Trolls gonna troll.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

One big example is creation science states God was the cause of the beginning of spacetime and the universe, i.e. Big Bang by Father Georges Lemaitre.

Father Georges Lemaitre went to great lengths to prevent the big bang being taken as a divine act of creation - he even wrote to the pope asking him not to do so.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If irrelevant as you state, then I agree. We should allow creation science to be taught in public schools to offer an alternative to evolution and just repeal the laws.

Perhaps you'd like astrology to be taught in schools too? When the case for teaching creation science in schools went to court (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, 2005), the leading creation science 'scientist', William Dembski, had to admit, under oath, that it was no more scientific than astrology...

 

[Gene2memE]

You really don't get it, which is hardly surprising. GOD is Truth. Anything that contradicts God's word is worthless. Evolution is contrary to God's word and hence untrue.

Even when its shown to be the best explanation for the available evidence. So there!

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” - George Orwell

"O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother." - George Orwell

 

[Hans Blaster]

Did you know that some modern primates have tails and some don't?

For example, like most apes I lack a tail.

 

[Ophiolite]

For example, like most apes I lack a tail.

You do though, surely, have a cocyx?

 

[jamesbond007]

You'll find that Lyell and Whewell and Cuvier and Linnaeus gathered their specimens from the natural world and not from biblical concordances.

What they gathered or what we have as evidence isn't the issue. It's atheists' presuppositions versus the creationists' presuppositions. Maybe the reality is we reach our conclusions using the same data based on our presuppositions.

 

[jamesbond007]

That's hardly an out of place fossil. I don't think anyone was proposing that the species that led to humanity was some exclusive lineage of apes without branches and variation.

Did you know that some modern primates have tails and some don't?

To me and creation scientists it is. It is something for the atheist scientists to explain, but I can see you're in denial. I mean our apes today do not walk upright. If your theory was valid, then they would. I even said bears are more bipedal.

Mostly, evolutionists do not have a rational explanation when they are faced with the evidence. They just deny it as you have. Thus, science does not back up evolution.

 

[jamesbond007]

Father Georges Lemaitre went to great lengths to prevent the big bang being taken as a divine act of creation - he even wrote to the pope asking him not to do so.

Where do you get this from?

 

[Speedwell]

What they gathered or what we have as evidence isn't the issue. It's atheists' presuppositions versus the creationists' presuppositions. Maybe the reality is we reach our conclusions using the same data based on our presuppositions.

Neither atheist presuppositions nor creationist presuppositions carry any weight in science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I mean our apes today do not walk upright. If your theory was valid, then they would. I even said bears are more bipedal.

Except that bears aren't more bipedal than apes.

 

[jamesbond007]

Perhaps you'd like astrology to be taught in schools too? When the case for teaching creation science in schools went to court (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, 2005), the leading creation science 'scientist', William Dembski, had to admit, under oath, that it was no more scientific than astrology...

Haha. You said it. I didn't. Why don't we just tell students that there is no evidence or scientific experiment backing up evolution and that true science happens on these forums today.

Humans Evolving? Armed with the Evidence, the Story Breaks Down | Evolution News

Furthermore, you are wrong Dembski didn't say it. The bottom line is I argue creation science and the Bible. Not ID. It appears creation science has falsified ToE as it could not have happened as we find things out of place in the fossil evidence and lack of transitional ones. I would say ToE is more like astrology based on whether one believes in it or not.