What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[renniks]

Yes you are. Your feeble attempt to demean science by claiming it is faith tells us you do not place much value in faith.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[renniks]

Wrong! While I can't do the scientific work myself I have enough of a science background to understand and weigh the evidence and to draw my own conclusions. I can also go to science sites like Peaceful Science to interact with experts to fill in for knowledge that I do not have.

Thanks for proving my point. You're depending on the so-called "experts" testimony
Kind of like someone depending on the eyewitness testimony of a man rising from the dead, only you don't have eyewitnesses, just data, plugged into a certain model to reach a certain conclusion.

 

[Frank Robert]

That doesn't even make sense.

Why do you call science faith if not to bring science down to your own level.

 

[renniks]

Why do you call science faith if not to bring science down to your own level.

Down? I don't hate science. That is you projecting you're own suppositions.

 

[Frank Robert]

Thanks for proving my point. You're depending on the so-called "experts" testimony
Kind of like someone depending on the eyewitness testimony of a man rising from the dead, only you don't have eyewitnesses, just data, plugged into a certain model to reach a certain conclusion.

Are you suggesting that I should first hand knowledge of everything about evolution before I make comment about scientific evidence? Asking for help from a biology professors or other experts in the field is not depending on their testimony, its simply filling in what I do not yet know. When you want to learn more about your religion wouldn't the logical person to go be your pastor or another expert in the field?

 

[Frank Robert]

Down? I don't hate science. That is you projecting you're own suppositions.

I didn't claim you hate science only that your analogies to faith come across as an attempt to demean science.

 

[Job 33:6]

Birds existed alongside dinosaurs. They didn't descend from them.

We have to remember that a species can live alongside more basal descendants of a same common ancestor.

Saurischian dinosaurs, from which birds are considered descendants, go back some 230 million years.

The averostra or bird-snout clade goes back some 200 million.

Ave-theropoda or bird dinosaurs date back some 170 million.

Whereas paraves date back some 160-165.

So really what we see are dinosaurs evolving bird like traits really over 200 million years ago. Whereas birds go back, maybe 150 million.

The Origin and Diversification of Birds - ScienceDirect

 

[Astrid]

Yes you are. Your feeble attempt to demean science by claiming it is faith tells us you do not place much value in faith.
Wrong! When are you going to learn that scientific theories are testable? That is why they are provisional when there are competing theories like BAND vs birds are dinosaurs, BAND falls fatally short on evidence while there is a preponderance of evidence that birds are dinosaurs making it the accepted theory.
Correct!

Wrong! While I can't do the scientific work myself I have enough of a science background to understand and weigh the evidence and to draw my own conclusions. I can also go to science sites like Peaceful Science to interact with experts to fill in for knowledge that I do not have.

AND, unlike the BLIND faith in the unseen and unseeable
so beloved of the theists, anything in science is wide open
to investigation by anyone who wishes to make the effort.
Equating religious faith to provisional trust
in science is a really stupid obnoxious bit of
equivocation that you'd THINK they'd have the
self respect to quit.

Anyone can look into anything in science they've
the brains and energy to pursue.

Our crop of creos has not investigated
any of our topics even to the level of
middle school biology.

BUT they fancy they know more than any / every
scientist on earth.

Do they ever stop for even a quiet moment to wonder
about how that can be?

 

[renniks]

Are you suggesting that I should first hand knowledge of everything about evolution before I make comment about scientific evidence? Asking for help from a biology professors or other experts in the field is not depending on their testimony, its simply filling in what I do not yet know. When you want to learn more about your religion wouldn't the logical person to go be your pastor or another expert in the field?

Again, thanks for proving my point.

 

[Speedwell]

Again, thanks for proving my point.

Suppose you succeeded in falsifying the theory of evolution. What would you do next?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Only on paper.

Actually, that's one of the few places where they are NOT dinosaurs.
Whereas, in genetics, they are dinosaurs. In anatomy, brain organization, physiology, and lineage too.

 

[Frank Robert]

Again, thanks for proving my point.

It nice to know you agree with me.

 

[Mr Laurier]

So a creature that existed before dinosaurs is a descendant of dinosaurs?

No. Read my words.
"Birds ARE dinosaurs".

 

[Frank Robert]

Suppose you succeeded in falsifying the theory of evolution. What would you do next?

He already believes he has falsified the ToE.

 

[renniks]

So really what we see are dinosaurs evolving bird like traits really over 200 million years ago. Whereas birds go back, maybe 150 million.

Uh huh. Until they find another bird fossil is the " wrong" place. And that's all based on assumptions of dating methods being correct.

When we find animals and plants fossilized together, they didn’t necessarily live together in the same environment or even die together, but all we know for certain is they were buried together.

Evolutionists claim that all these animals must have died, been buried, and become extinct all at the same time.

They call these distinctive levels in the fossil record mass extinctions.

Both creationists and evolutionists start with presupposed assumptions, which they then use to interpret the presently observed evidence.
Fossilization under present-day conditions is exceedingly rare, so why the mass fossils in the past?
Assuming the layers are evidence of time periods is their first mistake.

 

[Frank Robert]

Uh huh. Until they find another bird fossil is the " wrong" place. And that's all based on assumptions of dating methods being correct.

You are making the assumption that dating methods are wrong, not due to evidence but to religious faith in the the world is 6000 years old.

When we find animals and plants fossilized together, they didn’t necessarily live together in the same environment or even die together, but all we know for certain is they were buried together.

That is astonishing claim to make without any evidence for the animals and plants from different times to be buried together?

Evolutionists claim that all these animals must have died, been buried, and become extinct all at the same time.

Wow! Who did you hear that from.

They call these distinctive levels in the fossil record mass extinctions.

No! They are called Stratum.

In geology and related fields, a stratum (plural: strata) is a layer of sedimentary rock or soil, or igneous rock that was formed at the Earth's surface, with internally consistent characteristics that distinguish it from other layers.​

Both creationists and evolutionists start with presupposed assumptions, which they then use to interpret the presently observed evidence.

Wrong! Both may start with assumptions but one group turns them into testable scientific hypotheses while the other turns to faith without evidence.

Fossilization under present-day conditions is exceedingly rare, so why the mass fossils in the past?

Fossils are rare because most remains are consumed or destroyed soon after death.

Assuming the layers are evidence of time periods is their first mistake.

No assumptions necessary, stratum are solid evidence.

 

[renniks]

Suppose you succeeded in falsifying the theory of evolution. What would you do next?

Since it has never been proven, according to everyone who believes it in this thread, what is there to falsify? I'm just here to confirm that it is indeed just a rather shakey theory.

 

[renniks]

No! They are called Stratum.
In geology and related fields, a stratum (plural: strata) is a layer of sedimentary rock or soil, or igneous rock that was formed at the Earth's surface, with internally consistent characteristics that distinguish it from other layers.

And what is laying down the layers? You can not just lay a bone on the ground and let it be covered with leaves and produce fossils. It's obvious that's the layers are not laid down gradually over millions of years.

 

[Job 33:6]

Uh huh. Until they find another bird fossil is the " wrong" place. And that's all based on assumptions of dating methods being correct.

When we find animals and plants fossilized together, they didn’t necessarily live together in the same environment or even die together, but all we know for certain is they were buried together.

Evolutionists claim that all these animals must have died, been buried, and become extinct all at the same time.

They call these distinctive levels in the fossil record mass extinctions.

Both creationists and evolutionists start with presupposed assumptions, which they then use to interpret the presently observed evidence.
Fossilization under present-day conditions is exceedingly rare, so why the mass fossils in the past?
Assuming the layers are evidence of time periods is their first mistake.

It has more to do with the rock layer they're in than it does the date of that rock layer (remember the law of superposition).

But anyway, incredulity really isn't a sufficient response. It's just your personal opinion, which is fine.

And there aren't really "mass fossils in the past". There are actually only 13 complete t rex skeletons for example, despite them living for millions of years. Terrestrial species are generally rare. Hence why Creationists always ask why we aren't buried in fossils if animals truly did live for millions of years. The answer being because fossilization is rare.

There are mass extinctions such as the k-t boundary with global iridium layer and the impact crater of the yucatan, suggesting that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs. Along with things like shocked quartz and melted glass beads in the gills of fish suggesting that it rained molten minerals down on those in the radius of the asteroid.

There are tar pits that have many fossils as well, where animals get stuck and sink, die and become buried.

There are also relatively more fossils in anoxic or black shale type environments as well, where aerobic bacterial decay cannot occur and where sunlight us limited and thus the probability of preservation is greater.

But in a more broad sense, fossilization is rare minus these special instances.

 

[Frank Robert]

And what is laying down the layers? You can not just lay a bone on the ground and let it be covered with leaves and produce fossils. It's obvious that's the layers are not laid down gradually over millions of years.

Nature is responsible for the layers through weather, hurricanes, volcanoes, floods and other natural causes over more years than a 6000 year old earth allows for. See: What are the Earth's layers?