What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Do you have a belief about what has produced the order that these fossils are in?

Take that Precambrian, all the way up to that Quaternary, and call it one single period: The Old Testament Period, and your question should be effectively answered.

As to why they are in that particular order, I don't know.

But I do know that God does things ...

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

 

[AV1611VET]

It makes a difference because the order they're in, tells us about the history of life on earth,

No, it doesn't.

You can put books on your bookshelf in alphabetical order by title, alphabetical order by author, order by date written, order by size, order by color, almost any order you prefer -- even no order.

All it shows is owner's preference.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Lion IRC

I would recommend taking a crash course on basic physical geology, historical geology and paleontology. Maybe youtube has some nice crash course information.

To be truly effective at apologetics as they pertain to the age of the earth, you will ideally want to understand what is on the other side of the table.

And beyond that, a quality of any good scientist is never to avoid investigation of questions. It doesn't matter if the question seems hard. Questions sometimes hurt too. But there really cannot be any questions that are avoided. Every scientist has to be willing to go beyond laymen experiences.

And if you want to try to pit yourself against scientists, you have to be on par to really critique our ideas. Arm yourself with knowledge.

And if you have any questions about the science of geology, you are welcome to ask. I've been studying geology for about 15 years now.

And I also accept Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. I believe that he died for our sins And that without his great sacrifice we would truly be lost.

 

[Speedwell]

No, it doesn't.

You can put books on your bookshelf in alphabetical order by title, alphabetical order by author, order by date written, order by size, order by color, almost any order you prefer -- even no order.

All it shows is owner's preference.

But with fossils you can't just decide the order--they're in the order they're in whether it's your preference or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

I started participating in this thread because the OP was based on the despicable lie that the existence of God falsifies the theory of evolution, which should be countered wherever it is met with.

The falsification of the theory of evolution, in my opinion, is a task reserved for Jesus himself.

How He will do that ... (should He so choose to do so) ... is up to Him.

He may just take us all back in time to 4004 BC and let us see what the angels saw during that week.

I don't know.

But the POINT is that Jesus, not we, will falsify the theory of evolution (should He so choose).

People who want to know how it can be falsified today don't know what they're asking.

 

[AV1611VET]

But with fossils you can't just decide the order--

Believe me ... I didn't.

... they're in the order they're in whether it's your preference or not.

That's right.

 

[Lion IRC]

To be truly effective at apologetics as they pertain to the age of the earth...

Excuse me?
When did the topic change to the age of the earth?
I'm talking about the Noachian Flood as described in the bible.

 

[Lion IRC]

And I also accept Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. I believe that he died for our sins And that without his great sacrifice we would truly be lost.

Amen.

 

[Job 33:6]

Excuse me?
When did the topic change to the age of the earth?
I'm talking about the Noachian Flood as described in the bible.

The two topics are closely entwined. Given that the study of geology clarifies on both.

There was someone on this forum that recently said that they believed that life on Earth could be young and that the Earth itself could be old, But these kinds of ideas really to us, suggests an absence of familiarity with the science that applies to both.

 

[renniks]

That is just your opinion. And I've already answered this question before.

I started participating in this thread because the OP was based on the despicable lie that the existence of God falsifies the theory of evolution, which should be countered wherever it is met with.


Of course you don't have to tell me why you are here, but knowing might help me to make sense of your arguments, which right now don't seem to be going anywhere.

 

[Speedwell]

That is just your opinion. And I've already answered this question before.

What is "just my opinion?" I referred to several things in my post. But the theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God--that is a fact, not an opinion, so the existence of God does not falsify it.

 

[Job 33:6]

The two topics are closely entwined. Given that the study of geology clarifies on both.

There was someone on this forum that recently said that they believed that life on Earth could be young and that the Earth itself could be old, But these kinds of ideas really to us, suggests an absence of familiarity with the science that applies to both.

Unless someone believed that the earth's layers were not produced by a flood.

Though that would draw a lot of questions of, where is the evidence for a global flood in the holocene in particular? Hm.

I think it would also bring up many questions of, if brachiosaurus was a pre flood animal, that lived millions of years, would that brachiosaurus have died of an asteroid in the mesozoic, or would it have died in a global flood in the holocene? As an example question.

I can already see the obstacles arising.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't find the source with a name and a quote? You are on the internet. It has a search engine.

I could, but if I refuted it you would likely make some weak excuse.

You made the claim, you need to support it. Otherwise Hitch's razor applies. Have you heard of that? Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

In other words if you refuse to support your claims a simple "You are wrong" refutes you. If others make posts with evidence you do not get to do the same, you need to refute the evidence.

 

[Lion IRC]

The two topics are closely entwined. Given that the study of geology clarifies on both.

There was someone on this forum that recently said that they believed that life on Earth could be young and that the Earth itself could be old, But these kinds of ideas really to us, suggests an absence of familiarity with the science that applies to both.

Unless someone believed that the earth's layers were not produced by a flood.

Though that would draw a lot of questions of, where is the evidence for a global flood in the holocene in particular? Hm.

I think it would also bring up many questions of, if brachiosaurus was a pre flood animal, that lived millions of years, would that brachiosaurus have died of an asteroid in the mesozoic, or would it have died in a global flood in the holocene? As an example question.

I can already see the obstacles arising.

Youre having a discussion with yourself about someone, somewhere who posted some other views which I do not hold.

 

[renniks]

I could, but if I refuted it you would likely make some weak excuse.

You made the claim, you need to support it. Otherwise Hitch's razor applies. Have you heard of that? Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

In other words if you refuse to support your claims a simple "You are wrong" refutes you. If others make posts with evidence you do not get to do the same, you need to refute the evidence.

I already did support my claims. And they should be common knowledge, but apparently are not. Which leads to the question: why are colleges teaching poorly supported theories about origins as fact?

 

[Lion IRC]

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
In other words if you refuse to support your claims a simple "You are wrong" refutes you.

Nope.
That would be a nil-all-draw. Not a refutation.

...assuming you weren't merely gainsaying or in denial as to the existence of evidence.

 

[renniks]

I could, but if I refuted it you would likely make some weak excuse.

You made the claim, you need to support it. Otherwise Hitch's razor applies. Have you heard of that? Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

In other words if you refuse to support your claims a simple "You are wrong" refutes you. If others make posts with evidence you do not get to do the same, you need to refute the evidence.

Here's another: " researchers have been debating the reality of this species ever since it was first discovered in 1964." )Paleontologists Cartmill and Smith. )

 

[Speedwell]

I already did support my claims. And they should be common knowledge, but apparently are not. Which leads to the question: why are colleges teaching poorly supported theories about origins as fact?

They're teach them as theories, though it's a fact that there are no better ones around.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I dont think the bible provides a date.
But as I said earlier...


2348 BCE?

thankyou.
And having finally got this out of you, how do you explain the unbroken continuity of Egyptian Old Kingdom period?

 

[AV1611VET]

thankyou.
And having finally got this out of you, how do you explain the unbroken continuity of Egyptian Old Kingdom period?

I don't.

Egyptology ain't my bag.