What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Shemjaza]

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.

A crocoduck would have to have been built somehow. Evolution could not account for it.

It's genes would show that it had multiple traits found in separate families. Clearly a miracle or mad science would have to be responsible because nothing in biology does that.

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:

Yeah, and that is bearing false witness.

You are accusing the entire fields of biology and geology of being frauds without evidence or justification. You should be ashamed.

It's shameful, but it's also ridiculous. The point of the precambrian rabbit is that it is grotesquely out of order, that a modern mammal can't exist billions of years before the first vertebrate. I could not get there by evolution and another explanation would be needed.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point of the precambrian rabbit is that it is grotesquely out of order, that a modern mammal can't exist billions of years before the first vertebrate. I could not get there by evolution and another explanation would be needed.

QV please, from Wikipedia: Would anachronistic fossils disprove evolution?

 

[Frank Robert]

Seems tricky to appreciate something if you're no clue what it is.

It is paradox that draws me to the Tao. Most people are uncomfortable with paradox.

 

[Frank Robert]

Birds are still birds.

Yes they are known by their common name but they are living dinosaurs.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Birds are still birds.

Yes. And they are theropods.
And they are tetrapods.
And they are vertibraits.

 

[Frank Robert]

You don't understand Genesis at all.

Which interpretation of genesis do you think he doesn't understand?

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.

The evidence that birds are dinosaurs is overwhelming. The evolution of just about every feature in today's dinosaurs has been found in multiple dinosaur fossils and it just keeps piling up with every new find.

 

[Frank Robert]

You don't understand Genesis at all.

There are so many competing interpretations of genesis that it could be said that no one understands genesis including you.

I like Joseph Campbell's interpretation: “[The Christian story] amounts to a refusal to affirm life."

In the biblical tradition we have inherited, life is corrupt, and every natural impulse is sinful unless it has been circumcised or baptized.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is paradox that draws me to the Tao.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Taoism, good and evil co-exist in harmony in the universe; but God says to overcome evil with good.

Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Most people are uncomfortable with paradox.

Not Paul.

When he was weak, then was he strong.

When he was abased, then was he lifted up.

Poor, yet rich.

And so on.

 

[AV1611VET]

The evidence that birds are dinosaurs is overwhelming.

Noah sent two dinosaurs out of the Ark, despite those who arc and spark that man and dinosaurs never co-existed.

 

[renniks]

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.

It won't tell you what DNA the animal had. It won't tell you what kind of fur if any, or it's organs and on and on.

 

[Shemjaza]

QV please, from Wikipedia: Would anachronistic fossils disprove evolution?

I think this sentence from your link sums it up perfectly:
"Hence, "Precambrian rabbits" would prove that there were one or more serious errors somewhere in this package, and the next task would be to identify those errors."

 

[renniks]

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.

So? Do you have it's organs? It's feathers? Long boned tail, or long tail bone? Having a long tail bone doesn't make it a dino.

 

[Frank Robert]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Taoism, good and evil co-exist in harmony in the universe

The Tao says good and evil are human creations.

but God says to overcome evil with good.
Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.Not Paul.

When he was weak, then was he strong.

When he was abased, then was he lifted up.

Poor, yet rich.

And so on.

Paul is referring to faith, or more precisely what he believes is the power of faith

 

[Frank Robert]

So? Do you have it's organs? It's feathers? Long boned tail, or long tail bone? Having a long tail bone doesn't make it a dino.

All those features changed over time but that is unacceptable because 6000 years is not enough time for the changes.

 

[renniks]

Yes they are known by their common name but they are living dinosaurs.

That's speculation at best.
The theropod hypothesis of bird origins is not universally accepted. Some ornithologists and paleontologists argue that theropods cannot be ancestral to birds because they do not conform, in anatomy or lifestyle, to the true bird ancestor as imagined by these researchers.

 

[Astrid]

It is paradox that draws me to the Tao. Most people are uncomfortable with paradox.

So like total ignorance is bliss?

 

[Astrid]

The Tao says good and evil are human creations.
Paul is referring to faith, or more precisely what he believes is the power of faith

I wonder when that ever worked.

 

[renniks]

All those features changed over time but that is unacceptable because 6000 years is not enough time for the changes.

Says who?
How long does it take to breed another form of bird?
Even toothless birds do have genes for teeth but that they are not expressed—are “turned off”—in modern birds.
Just a variation in a kind.

 

[Astrid]

I think this sentence from your link sums it up perfectly:
"Hence, "Precambrian rabbits" would prove that there were one or more serious errors somewhere in this package, and the next task would be to identify those errors."

Too silly for much discussion.

More to the point is that fossils and dated strata
are always in the right order.
The least grounded among the creationists try to
explain the lack of "bunnies" or any other such anomaly
with things like "hydrostatic sorting", malpractice by
scientists, and some sorts of embedded age sleight of hand.

Pollen goes everywhere as allergy sufferers know.
It's all but indestructible- lots and lots of fossil pollen.
But there is no pollen in the Cambrian or
other early strata. Not a leaf or twig

This is because geologists are fakes.

 

[Frank Robert]

That's speculation at best.
The theropod hypothesis of bird origins is not universally accepted.

Some people know as the BAND disagree but their numbers are small and over the last few years of fossil finds numbers have dwindled ever more.

Some ornithologists and paleontologists argue that theropods cannot be ancestral to birds because they do not conform, in anatomy or lifestyle, to the true bird ancestor as imagined by these researchers.

Their arguments are naive. It is not the differences that define evolution but the similarities.
The "Birds Are Not Dinosaurs" Movement

Birds are dinosaurs. But some scientists argue that this just can’t be so because... because... well, it just can’t. What, specifically, are their arguments?