What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

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."

That is correct.

Thus he is making my point that finding rabbits in the preCambrian would not pwn evolution down the drain, as some may think.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

From a thread of mine I started a few years back:

Behold the terrible lizard!

 

[Frank Robert]

Says who?

The fossil record.

How long does it take to breed another form of bird?

Not long at all and it happens frequently.

Even toothless birds do have genes for teeth but that they are not expressed—are “turned off”—in modern birds.

What do you see as the problem

Just a variation in a kind.

I don't know what a "kind" is, do you?
Defining "Kinds" -- Do Creationists Apply a Double Standard?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know what a "kind" is, do you?

Kind = Genus

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

Genus:

1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin"

 

[Frank Robert]

From a thread of mine I started a few years back:

Birds are distantly related to reptiles through Archosaurs their common ancestor but Dinos and reptiles went their separate ways about 150 million years ago.

 

[renniks]

The fossil record.
Not long at all and it happens frequently.
What do you see as the problem
I don't know what a "kind" is, do you?
Defining "Kinds" -- Do Creationists Apply a Double Standard?

Oh yeah the fossil record ...where the modern birds appear alongside dinosaurs? The ones they supposedly evolved from?
Seems like evolution believers pick and choose which "evidence" to use to support their claims.

 

[Frank Robert]

Kind = Genus

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

How do you tell them apart?

 

[renniks]

What do you see as the problem

I don't see built in design as a problem at all.
I see it as God's hand at work in creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Defining "Kinds" -- Do Creationists Apply a Double Standard?

From your link:

Creationists long ago gave up on their original idea of fixity of species. One reason is because simple calculation can show that Noah's Ark could not possibly have held pairs from each of some two to five million species (there would be less than one-half cubic foot per pair), nor could Noah and his family have possibly taken care of them all. A second reason is that the evidence for adaptive change and species formation is overwhelming. Therefore, they had to develop another concept.

If that's why they had to develop another concept, I submit that's a pretty weak reason for doing so.

I can explain nicely how all those animals fit on the Ark.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you tell them apart?

How do you tell what apart?

Some time ago a girl here showed me two pictures of animals and asked me if they were the same kind.

I said give me their binomials, and I'll tell you if they are or not.

ETA: Post 147

 

[Frank Robert]

Oh yeah the fossil record ...where the modern birds appear alongside dinosaurs? The ones they supposedly evolved from?
Seems like evolution believers pick and choose which "evidence" to use to support their claims.

I have given up trying to explain the basics of evolution to you so I'll just say the fossil record is evidence that dinosaurs changed slowly over time.

 

[renniks]

I have given up trying to explain the basics of evolution to you so I'll just say the fossil record is evidence that dinosaurs changed slowly over time.

I'm sure they did, but they didn't become birds.

 

[Frank Robert]

From your link:If that's why they had to develop another concept, I submit that's a pretty weak reason for doing so.

I can explain nicely how all those animals fit on the Ark.

Wouldn't an omni god just use DNA. It would solve the problem of space and clean up. Perhaps the Lunar Ark will be the next Noah's Ark

 

[Frank Robert]

I'm sure they did, but they didn't become birds.

I already outlined why your beliefs prevent you from accepting the evidence. 6000 years is not enough time for the so many changes to take place.

 

[Astrid]

The fossil record.
Not long at all and it happens frequently.
What do you see as the problem
I don't know what a "kind" is, do you?
Defining "Kinds" -- Do Creationists Apply a Double Standard?

So pigeons find an isolated island and take up residence there.
No predator, no need to fly.
Many years later there are no pigeons flying about but there are dodo
birds.
Since nobody knows what a "kind' is, and all agree that nothing
reproduces with offspring EXACTLY like parents...
Let me call dodo birds "pigeon kind".
But not variation within the original kind.
For lo, breed pigeons as you will, no two Paris pigeons
will hatch dodo eggs. Nor two wolves a peekapoo.

Creationists go off the rail pretty badly on "kind".
They accept wolf ancestry but know two bulldogs won't
give birth to a dalmatian.

They MIGHT even risk accepting that a dodo was "pigeon kind"
But pigeons as " dinosaur kind" is too tough apparently.

So little feathered dinosaurs are Chinese fakes.
The pneumatic bones are fake or misinterpreted.
The long dino type tail, teeth etc that are typical
dinosaur features found in early birds, well, none
are acknowledged.

But then it's hard to acknowledge something you don't know,
and no creationist here shows signs of even having taken
high school biology.

The shattering psychological shock of admitting they dont know
more than every scientist on earth and may not be consumate
masters of Bible interpretation is too much to risk anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wouldn't an omni god just use DNA. It would solve the problem of space and clean up. Perhaps the Lunar Ark will be the next Noah's Ark

Your "Double Standard" link can take a hike.

 

[renniks]

I already outlined why your beliefs prevent you from accepting the evidence. 6000 years is not enough time for the so many changes to take place.

"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."

Oh wait did birds come from dinosaurs or vice versa? Or neither?
"Pesky new fossils...sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up," Ruben wrote in his PNAS commentary. "Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with caution."

Oh look, an honest scientist!
Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?

 

[AV1611VET]

Since nobody knows what a "kind' is,

This premise is faulty, and leads to all kinds of faulty arguments and assumptions.

If you want to hang on to it, you can; but you make yourself look ... scholarly.

 

[Astrid]

A question for any creationist
who cares to respond:

Has it ever occurred to you that you might
not know more than any scientist on earth?

 

[renniks]

But then it's hard to acknowledge something you don't know,
and no creationist here shows signs of even having taken
high school biology.

Well I might be a little rusty, but I've gutted and cleaned a lot of birds. And they don't have reptilian organs. So you have to not only add wings you have to get an animal with one type of lungs to become one with a totally different type of lung.

Reptiles also lack the air sacs that birds have scattered all over their bodies.