What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Lion IRC]

What is a "kind"?

A group of people or things having similar characteristics.

 

[tas8831]

A group of people or things having similar characteristics.

"Similar characteristics".... Apologetics apparently has really low bars.

 

[Speedwell]

Was Noah a historical person?
Lion IRC - yes. Here's my evidence.

Was Noah a historical person?
VirOptimus - no. (I have no evidence. I just gainsay.)


LOL

So far you have provided no historical evidence. All you have done is made reference to a story in a book which may or may not be historical.

 

[tas8831]

Was Noah a historical person?
Lion IRC - yes. Here's my evidence.

A single source with no corroboration. Cool.

 

[Lion IRC]

The controversial aspects are those that tend to go against what we might intuitively thing. Such as the idea that a person could live a thousand years...

This is just an argument from incredulity.

...or the idea that this person was on a boat during a flood that covered mt everest.

You know Mt Everest is covered in water right now right?
Frozen water.
To say Mt Everest is covered in water isn't anti-science Fundyism

 

[Job 33:6]

"Similar characteristics".... Apologetics apparently has really low bars.

Well birds have two eyes and we have two eyes. Therefore we are of a same kind with birds.

 

[tas8831]

Well birds have two eyes and we have two eyes. Therefore we are of a same kind with birds.

And with but a bird-man on the ark representing all birds (and dinosaurs?) and all mammals, then the creationist must embrace super-extra-hyper evolution. Post-flood only, of course.

 

[Lion IRC]

A single source with no corroboration. Cool.

Moreover, that source wasn't called "The Bible" back then.
So, its a historical document.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is just an argument from incredulity.




You know Mt Everest is covered in water right now right?
Frozen water.
To say Mt Everest is covered in water isn't anti-science Fundyism

It is incredulity, but it's also based on observation of life on earth. Even with modern medicine that has allowed us to extend our life span, we've never seen anyone get anywhere near the years of age that you're suggesting.


And snow doesn't count as a flood. Just because we have clouds in the atmosphere that are made of water, doesn't mean that it automatically becomes feasible that the world was flooded. Just because it rains, doesn't mean that the planet was flooded either, even though rain too occurs on mountains.

 

[tas8831]

You know Mt Everest is covered in water right now right?
Frozen water.
To say Mt Everest is covered in water isn't anti-science Fundyism

And yet Everest's peak is not buried in ice.

Looks like those tears you referred to were tears of laughter at the inanity of your performance.

 

[tas8831]

Moreover, that source wasn't called "The Bible" back then.
So, its a historical document.

With no corroboration. Awfully flimsy peg to hang your hat on, eh?

But do tell us more about the "kinds" on the ark, won't you?

 

[Lion IRC]

"Similar characteristics".... Apologetics apparently has really low bars.

I beg your pardon.
That's a dictionary definition.
You were the one who asked. Now, don't be rude.
Why ask for a definition if you already have one locked and loaded?

 

[Speedwell]

Moreover, that source wasn't called "The Bible" back then.
So, its a historical document.

Being part of a collection of texts called "The Bible" is not relevant to determining whether a particular document contains historical information.

 

[Lion IRC]

And snow doesn't count as a flood.

Snow counts as water covering a mountain top.

 

[Job 33:6]

Snow counts as water covering a mountain top.

So you're proposing that the global flood, was actually perhaps a snowstorm?

 

[Lion IRC]

Being part of a collection of texts called "The Bible" is not relevant to determining whether a particular document contains historical information.

Great.
I'll remember to quote this next time someone dismisses a historical claim BECAUSE it appears in the bible.

 

[Job 33:6]

So you're proposing that the global flood, was actually perhaps a snowstorm?

Maybe an ice age? Glacial striations suggest that 10,000 years ago or so, norther latitudes were covered in a mile high stack of ice. If ice counts as water, we could make that connection.

But then we would be pondering the question of Noah having an ark on a stack of ice.

Or maybe the ark over ice melt with the onset of an interglacial?

Then we would be left with a local flood.

 

[Speedwell]

Great.
I'll remember to quote this next time someone dismisses a historical claim BECAUSE it appears in the bible.

You're welcome. If you ever meet anyone like that, let me know how it works out.

 

[Lion IRC]

So you're proposing that the global flood, was actually perhaps a snowstorm?

Im answering your skeptical assertion that water could never cover Mt Everest.
The Mariana Trench is 2,147 metres deeper than Everest is tall.
There is more than enough water on earth to cover all the land above sea level by hundreds of metres.

 

[VirOptimus]

Was Noah a historical person?
Lion IRC - yes. Here's my evidence.

Was Noah a historical person?
VirOptimus - no. (I have no evidence. I just gainsay.)


LOL

You have not given any evidence, just a claim from a religious text.