What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

Bradskii said:

And it won't tell you what colour eyes it had or whether it was a late riser or if it could swim. Your ankle bone won't tell us about you in that detail either. Why bring that up?

Click to expand...

Because they just fabricate those details apparently.

Speedwell said:

I don't see how it would do anybody good to influence lurkers who have no influence on science if what he wanted was to discredit a scientific theory.

Click to expand...

Never mind...you just ignored what I told you...why bother?

Mr Laurier said:

Except that its not. Given that they are

Click to expand...

Not possible. The bones would be long gone.

KomatiiteBIF said:

It would have to hypothetically be "post flood", and yet, if he flood were hypothetically over, then what would have propelled these rocks around eachother?

Click to expand...

Run off?

renniks said:

Never mind...you just ignored what I told you...why bother?

Click to expand...

Well, you haven't convinced anyone who is posting here. I don't know about the lurkers, but good luck.

renniks said:

Run off?

Click to expand...

Storm water or flood runoff would propel continents that float atop magma?

To help describe the formation, we have ordovician bedding in a horizontal position, with silurian strata in a vertical position, with fault gouge at the base of the silurian and burrow networks above the fault gouge.

So you could imagine the ordovician strata would be laid down horizontally due to gravity.
==========
==========

The ordovician strata was then upturned and eroded away.

llllllllllllll

Silurian strata was deposited stop the ordovician.

========
llllllllllllllllll

Fault gouge forms as a product of the grinding of two solidified massive bodies of rock, suggesting the passage of deep time (as opposed to the whole place being some muddled soft storm deposits). Also keep in mind that metamorphosis occurs under specific temperatures and pressures. Push too hard or fast and you end up with eclogites, granulites or blue schists depending on the formation and temperatures. So in this instance, pressures and temperatures were not particularly significant enough to metamorphose these common sandstone and shale bodies, as that is what these formations consist of, the ordovician being un metamorphosed shale, while the silurian being sandstone which also is an unmetamorphosed rock type or simply a sedimentary rock type which is not metamorphic.



Young earth Creationists will never be able to explain how flood waters could apply such an extraordinary pressure on mountains to shove them into the atmosphere while simultaneously not causing brittle fracturing of any ductile deformed body. Nor how such pressure could exist while still allowing for patterns of regional metamorphosis.

Indeed, they never talk about these things. I wonder why...

Life lived in this particular area and dug networks of burrows within the silurian strata (a further demonstration of the passage of time).
And then beyond all this, the horizontal silurian body turns vertical, while the ordovician body returns to near it's original position.

=====lllllllllllll

What is the young earth explanation for these features? We may never know. Perhaps physics was completely different in the past. Perhaps the rock bodies instantaneously lithified and hardened upon deposition allowing for the formation of fault gouge. Perhaps the burrowing insects were extremophiles immune from incineration that created their burrow networks while trying to flee the carnage of tectonic plates bouncing around like ping pong balls without regard for any physical laws.

And all of this merely consists of the smallest fraction of the geologic column. We have yet to even move on to the other 99% of the column in which young earthers face innumerable issues.

renniks said:

Because they just fabricate those details apparently.

Click to expand...

Who does? Have you an example you know of that would make you say that?

renniks said:

I don't " need" to do any such thing. Casting doubt on the current model is enough.
People will believe what they want to regardless, but there's always the " swing voters".

Click to expand...

Then just admit that you don't know and that you preference is belief. There is nothing wrong with that but you are actively passing false information about evolution a subject that you appear proud to know nothing about.

renniks said:

Because they just fabricate those details apparently.

Click to expand...

It is you and creationists who are fabricating. It is dishonest to demean something that you have less than a grammar school of.

Frank Robert said:

It is you and creationists who are fabricating. It is dishonest to demean something that you have less than a grammar school of.

Click to expand...

Uh huh. I've read plenty of college-type material on genetics. So, keep your insults to yourself.

renniks said:

Uh huh. I've read plenty of college-type material on genetics. So, keep your insults to yourself.

Click to expand...

Read maybe, but its obvious you havent understood anything.

renniks said:

Not possible. The bones would be long gone.

Click to expand...

Please do explain.

renniks said:

Uh huh. I've read plenty of college-type material on genetics. So, keep your insults to yourself.

Click to expand...

If you did it is obvious from what you write that you did not retain any scientific knowledge, more likely what you learned was creationist apologetics.

renniks said:

Strahler (1987, 233) questioned the number and regularity of the Green River “varves,” a good question given the proposed fluctuations in the lake level:

The Green River couplets are indeed a remarkable accumulation; their regularity and vast numbers are mind-boggling. How could such uniform deposition continue for 5 to 8 million years?

Varves formed in lakes today or claimed to have formed in lakes associated with the Ice Age are often chaotic (Oard 2009a).

Click to expand...

Oard (2009b) Fails to Distinguish between Actual Varves and Non-varved Layers in the Green River Formation

Frank Robert said:

If you did it is obvious from what you write that you did not retain any scientific knowledge, more likely what you learned was creationist apologetics.

Click to expand...

I guess you just can't help yourself.... what is the point of this post? Does it add something to the thread? I think not. It's just flaming.

renniks said:

I guess you just can't help yourself.... what is the point of this post? Does it add something to the thread? I think not. It's just flaming.

Click to expand...

That is exactly the way you come across to non-creationists. You don't display any basic knowledge of science, you only demean and criticize science with hackneyed creationist tropes. However, I do agree that I did go overboard with some of my comments, I apologize and I will make an effort to not do so in the future.

Frank Robert said:

That is exactly the way you come across to non-creationists. You don't display any basic knowledge of science, you only demean and criticize science with hackneyed creationist tropes. However, I do agree that I did go overboard with some of my comments, I apologize and I will make an effort to not do so in the future.

Click to expand...

No apologies due for that simple observation of the obvious.

renniks said:

Because they just fabricate those details apparently.

Click to expand...

Still waiting for some further details on why you'd say this.

renniks said:

Because they just fabricate those details apparently.

Click to expand...

Exodus 20:16

Bradskii said:

Still waiting for some further details on why you'd say this.

Click to expand...

Because they make up pictures of animals that, in reality, they only have the teeth and a couple leg bones of. That's a lot of supposing.