What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[renniks]

Evidence doesn't demonstrate a primordial ocean splitting into sky and sea or the land existing before the sun and stars.

You don't understand Genesis at all.

 

[Shemjaza]

Birds are still birds.

Ever seen the skeleton of the Archaeopteryx?

It's clearly structured like a bird with feathered wings for flight... but has a long tail like a lizard and a maw full of teeth.

 

[Shemjaza]

You don't understand Genesis at all.

So if it can't be read literally... and it can't be interpreted as an allegory for the formation of the universe as evidence demonstrates... how do you understand it?

Are we onto only accepting your personal interpretation as infallible?

 

[Astrid]

Ever seen the skeleton of the Archaeopteryx?

It's clearly structured like a bird with feathered wings for flight... but has a long tail like a lizard and a maw full of teeth.

"Birds are still birds", a clever lil tautological truism.
And birds are still dinosaurs.
Creationiss are actually so close to understanding!

 

[AV1611VET]

Ever seen the skeleton of the Archaeopteryx?

It's clearly structured like a bird with feathered wings for flight... but has a long tail like a lizard and a maw full of teeth.

Which confirms what I say about finding a crocoduck.

It'll just be labeled a monotreme, or a cryptid, or some other such label and forgotten.

If anyone thinks finding a crocoduck is going to disprove evolution, they can call me Genghis Khan.

Science has more escape hatches than Apollo 1.

 

[renniks]

Ever seen the skeleton of the Archaeopteryx?

It's clearly structured like a bird with feathered wings for flight... but has a long tail like a lizard and a maw full of teeth.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”

Or in evolution theory:
If it looked like a bird, had feathers like a bird, and flew like a bird, then it was probably a dinosaur.”

Its wing bones match that of modern birds with the ability to take off quickly and fly a short distance, like pheasants.
This creature had hollow bones like a bird, feathers like a bird, the ability to fly like a bird, and other features some birds are known to have.
I'll take " It was a bird, Alex." for a million dollars!

 

[Bradskii]

Yeah, because if you have a cow bone or a lion bone you also have something to compare it with. A full lion or full cow skeleton, and you know what the fur and other features are exactly because you have live animals to compare to. Big difference.

The size of any given bone will tell you the approximate size of the creature from whence it came.

And the tooth could be a week old or a million years old. One from a creature that eats grass is significantly different to one that tears flesh.

This is very basic biology.

 

[Astrid]

The size of any given bone will tell you the approximate size of the creature from whence it came.

And the tooth could be a week old or a million years old. One from a creature that eats grass is significantly different to one that tears flesh.

This is very basic biology.

Unless it is ONE bone from a completely
nknown animal, it will tell you very close to the size.
And so freaking what if it's off by ten percent?
The theory ofvevolution spins seemingly out of control
and creoism wins?

The bones are a sort of blueprint for the muscles,
which can be reconstructed with a high degree of accuracy.

An identifiable face can be, has been reconstructed on
a skull of unknown origin.
Skeletal muscles are a snap.

 

[AV1611VET]

The theory of evolution spins seemingly out of control and creoism wins?

Creoism doesn't need a shipwrecked version of evolution in order to win; nor does it need a rock-solid coherent explanation of evolution to lose.

Creoism has God's written Authority behind it: the Bible.

 

[Shemjaza]

Which confirms what I say about finding a crocoduck.

It'll just be labeled a monotreme, or a cryptid, or some other such label and forgotten.

If anyone thinks finding a crocoduck is going to disprove evolution, they can call me Genghis Khan.

Science has more escape hatches than Apollo 1.

Nonsense.

That's false witness and you should be ashamed.

A literal crocoduck is an impossible combination of traits.

The Platypus has traits not found in other mammals, but its bill is clearly not a bird bill it merely superficially resembles one. Even their eggs aren't the same as bird or reptile eggs.

Common ancestry certainly, but not a chimera.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”

Or in evolution theory:
If it looked like a bird, had feathers like a bird, and flew like a bird, then it was probably a dinosaur.”

Its wing bones match that of modern birds with the ability to take off quickly and fly a short distance, like pheasants.
This creature had hollow bones like a bird, feathers like a bird, the ability to fly like a bird, and other features some birds are known to have.
I'll take " It was a bird, Alex." for a million dollars!

Did you get bored and stop reading half way though the sentence?

It's a bird... with a toothed maw and a long boned tail.

Also structures physically very like the therapod ground predators (eg, Velociraptor) who didn't have flight adaptions, but had feathers.

 

[AV1611VET]

A literal crocoduck is an impossible combination of traits.

That's easy for you to say, but I'm not obligated to believe that, if a crocoduck was to be found, evolution would go down the drain.

I'm already on record as saying that, if a rabbit was found in the preCambrian, I believe they would just readjust the time of the preCambrian.

Here's a post I made a few years ago:

Find rabbits in the Precambrian?

No problem.

Just make a couple program changes, recalibrate some equipment, rig a vote, and voilà, a new paradigm emerges.

Then all they have to do is change all the textbooks and sell them in the student bookstores for another $275.00.

 

[Bradskii]

That's easy for you to say, but I'm not obligated to believe that, if a crocoduck was to be found, evolution would go down the drain.

I'm already on record as saying that, if a rabbit was found in the preCambrian, I believe they would just readjust the time of the preCambrian.

Here's a post I made a few years ago:

So they'd adjust the age of the pre cambrian - which ended 540 million years ago, to the point where modern bunnies appeared - around 15 thousand years ago?

That would equate to readjusting the distance to the moon to 10 kms.

Hey, stop giggling up the back! Yes, I know some people involved think that nothing even existed 15,000 years ago so it's a nonsensical point. But we need to keep the discussion respectful.

 

[AV1611VET]

So they'd adjust the age of the pre cambrian - which ended 540 million years ago, to the point where modern bunnies appeared - around 15 thousand years ago?

I'm sure they'd come up with some kind of explanation.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Which confirms what I say about finding a crocoduck.

Actualy it refutes it.

It'll just be labeled a monotreme, or a cryptid, or some other such label and forgotten.

Why?
A monotreme is a very specific type of animal. A primitive mammal.
Why would a crocoduck be labeled a montreme?
Why would ir be labeled a "cryptid"?

If anyone thinks finding a crocoduck is going to disprove evolution, they can call me Genghis Khan.

Why?

Science has more escape hatches than Apollo 1.

How so?

 

[Mr Laurier]

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”

Or in evolution theory:
If it looked like a bird, had feathers like a bird, and flew like a bird, then it was probably a dinosaur.”

Its wing bones match that of modern birds with the ability to take off quickly and fly a short distance, like pheasants.
This creature had hollow bones like a bird, feathers like a bird, the ability to fly like a bird, and other features some birds are known to have.
I'll take " It was a bird, Alex." for a million dollars!

And?

 

[Bradskii]

Yea

I'm sure they'd come up with some kind of explanation.

Yeah. The explanation would be that some aspects of the theory of evolution were wrong. Like if the moon was determined to be a short walk away then we'd suggest that the methods of measuring the distance were wrong

That's how theories work. They are the best explanation in regard to the available evidence. And they make predictions. And one of the predictions is that you won't find bunny fossils in pre cambrian material. Until we do, that prediction holds.

And redating the pre cambrian era is a matter for geology, not biology. So you won't get all the biologists telling all the geologists to re-write their text books.

Oh, and Apollo 1 unfortunately didn't have any escape hatches. Which means that the three crewmen tragically had no means of escape when the capsule caught fire.

Do you know how Google works? You should ask someone to show you.

 

[AV1611VET]

The explanation would be that some aspects of the theory of evolution were wrong.

So you agree with me that the theory of evolution wouldn't go down the drain?

Like if the moon was determined to be a short walk away then we'd suggest that the methods of measuring the distance were wrong.

Ya ... the moon is a different story.

I started a thread on that here: Moondust

 

[Bradskii]

So you agree with me that the theory of evolution wouldn't go down the drain?

It would mean that what we know about the evolution of lagamorpha would definitely be wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would mean that what we know about the evolution of lagamorpha would definitely be wrong.

Right ... and then what?

My guess is that something new will suddenly be "discovered" that nicely explains away rabbits in the preCambrian.

 

[Bradskii]

Right ... and then what?

My guess is that something new will suddenly be "discovered" that nicely explains away rabbits in the preCambrian.

Yeah. We will discover that we were wrong about the evolution of lagamorpha. Obviously.

Let me know when they find one.