Evolutionism, what magnitude of error?

"Falsifiability--

Is a basic fault with evolution--presented as science, it cannot be proven true or false--all the proof is based on unnecessary inference and speculation from skewed and scanty evidence.

That is not science but rather religion. The world is full of religion--most of it false.

Falsifiability is a basic tenet of the scientific method. Evolution does not hold up under the scrutiny of real scientific methodology."

I think you are confused. Biology, as good science, is falsifiable. Your assertions about YE are the ones that are not falsifiable. You will not pin yourself down specifically enough to any particular mechanism that can be falsified because you know that if you do it will be falsified. Look above for a prime example.

Some of the classic example of potential falsification for evolution would be things like finding undeniable mammal fossils in undeniable pre-Cambrian deposits. Or finding a dinosaur eating a human. But we can do better.

For instance, one evidence for evolution is that phylogenetic trees can be constructed for extant and fossil organisms from morphology. With the advent of molecular and genetic testing, these trees can be produced from lines of evidence completely independent of morphology. If we regularly found that trees from different lines of evidence were statistically dissimilar, this would be a falsification of evolution. Do you have any such data?

There are many examples of transitional creatures in the fossil record. But these invariably follow the rules of the nested heirarchy and phylogenetic trees. For instance, you expect to find, and do find, fossils intermediate between reptiles and birds. A falsification would be to instead find, say, a half mammal / half bird fossil. This would not fit the rules. Do you have any such evidence?

Another consequence of evlution is atavisms. This occurs when a trait from an anestor makes a reappearance in an individual. Some example are atavistic legs on whales and atavistic tails on some humans. Evolution would not be able to explain atavisms that did not match the scientific history. For example, mammal-like nipples on a reptile or feathers on a mammal would not be able to be explained. Do you have any such evidence?

A related example comes from embryology and developmental biology. Ontogeny can reveal details about phylogeny. For example, two bones in a developing reptile for its jaw. The same two bones in a mammal fetus form the bones of the ear. (There happens to be a series of intermediate fossils that show the reptile jaw turning into the mammal ear.) Human embryos have tails which are reabsorbed. Whales and snakes form limbs which are reabsorbed by birth. Falsification would come from finding ontogeny that did not match phylogeny. For instance, finding legs which are reabsorbed on a developing fish. Do you have any such evidence?

So see, evolution is falsifiable.

 

"Falsifiability--"

Now, how about giving me a mechanism for producing the evidence that you claim the flood would leave, talked about above, and what you think would falsify these hypothesis.

 

Mechanism...

God's judgement on the world is the mechanism. God made it He can destroy it.

No need to check for falsifiability--it is a matter of faith in the Word of God--not a scientific proposition.

Selah,

Bro. James

Bro. James

 

No, no, no.

You said that the data we see could be explained by the flood. You specifically mentioned sorting by hydraulics. YOu specifically mentioned rapid plate techtonics. You specifically mentioned a change in the earth's tilt. You specifically mentioned the formation of oil.

These are specific claims that you made. But you are unable to tell us the mechanism or the evidence for these things.

You complain that evolution is unfalsifiable. This is shown to be actually a lack of knowledge of the subject on your part by demonstrating a short list, out of many other such things, that would actually falsify evolution. You have presented no such falsifying evidence.

However you do complain about a lack of falsifiablity even as you are unable to produce such a theory yourself or to let us know what you think would falsify your position.

So give us detailed mechanisms. Tell us what would convince you your ideas are wrong.

You cannot complain about something not being falsifiable and then give us something which is not falsifiable.

 

Possible evidence:

1. Marine fossils on mountain tops

2. Large amounts of subterranean hydrocarbons--the remnants of plants and animals in a localized zone--yep, black gold--texas tea--the commodity that rules the world--cannot do without it.

3. "Older layers" on top of "newer layers" of sediment.

4. Rapid sedimentation at the vents of Mt. ST. Helens.

5. Rapid petrification of trees near Mt. St. Helens.

6. Flash flooding could have made the Grand Canyon in a short time.

Are we having trouble with OMNIPOTENCE?

The world was turned upside down, inside out, and basically remade--in the mantle anyway(my philosophical allegory).

God said He would not do that again(flood). The next remake will be by "fervent heat". That could be many Mt. St. Helens simultaneously. So how would we set up such an experiment?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

"1. Marine fossils on mountain tops"

Evidence shows that this is better explained by uplift of sedimentary strata. For instance, take the Tetons. One of the peaks, Mt. Moran, has a thin layer of sedimentary deposits on top. This layer matches exactly a layer tens of thousands of feet below underneath Jackson Hole. The data shows that the Tetons and Jackson Hole were formed when two blocks moved in different directions. The block which formed the Tetons moved up about 10000 feet while the other block fell about twice as far.

"2. Large amounts of subterranean hydrocarbons--the remnants of plants and animals in a localized zone--yep, black gold--texas tea--the commodity that rules the world--cannot do without it."

What is the mechanism? A great flood would disperse the vegetation not concentrate it. Plus calculations have shown that if all the vegetation in the world were fully turned into fossil fuels, you would be well short of proven reserves. You cannot grow enough plants to make that much oil and other fossil fuels and you cannot concentrate them through a global flood.

"3. "Older layers" on top of "newer layers" of sediment."

Do you have a specific example of a problem location? In general, for sedimentary layers it is possible to radioisotope date a layer as old on top of a layer that is dated younger. This is because sedimentary rocks cannot be accurately dated in such a manner. For example. A layer could be made from eroded "young" rock and covered with a layer of eroded "older" rock. Such a situation would be apparent to a trained geologist.

"4. Rapid sedimentation at the vents of Mt. ST. Helens."

Escept they do not look like the layers we actually find.

"5. Rapid petrification of trees near Mt. St. Helens."

So what? In Yellowstone, there are layers where trees have grown to maturity, been petrified by some event, then a new forest grows, this forest is buried, then a new forest grows on top and so forth. You cannot explain the in situ growth of multiple layers.

There are similar coal seams where there are multiple coal seams in layers with in situ tree growth indicated by fossilized roots growing through the upper layers of each seam and fossilized tree trunks above. Again, you cannot grow multiple mature forests during a flood.

"6. Flash flooding could have made the Grand Canyon in a short time."

That is funny.

Just how were the various layer laid down? You know that many of the layers show formation in specific and different environments? Limestones, sandstones, slates, etc. Some of the layers were formed and then changed metamorphically by intrusion of magma. How did this happen? Flash flooding through soft sediments would be unable to produce the high cliffs or the meanders in the path.

And then there are the angular uncomformities? You really have a problem there. I see no way to make the angular uncomformities seen in the Grand Canyon by a great flood. Do you?

We even have thread on this if you want to read more details or to offer any explanations.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/29.html

"Are we having trouble with OMNIPOTENCE?"

Oh no. Are you?

Can you make up your mind. There are two choices here for you here.

One choice is that the data really is consistent with a global flood. In that case you can give us detailed mechanisms for these questions and tell us what you think would falsify your assertions.

Two, you can invoke omnipotence. But in this case, you then admit that what we see COULD NOT have been formed through a global flood but that God choose to flood the world and then alter the world to make it look like it did not happen. That would be an interesting admission for you to make.

So which is it?

I gave you potential falsifications for evolution. Have you got any examples yet?

 

Since evolution is true, as per the overwhelming evidence, and since christianity is God's true religion, as we all know by faith etc., then God, who cannot contradict truth, has a way to accomodate evolution with christianity.

 

Someone asked for the mechanism?

The wrath of God--this time with water--next time with fire--a conflagration like no one has ever seen.

Is God waiting for enough fuel to evolve?--I doubt it.

Are we ready?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

A term for the theistic-evolutionists to consider:

"punctuated omnipotence"

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Good.

We have reached agreement that the world does not look like what it would if it had recently been devastated by a global flood. This is progress.

So now the question becomes why would God get so mad that He destroys the whole earth in a great calamity, but then chooses to go back and cover up all the evidence for such a calamity and instead make the earth look like it had toiled along under a four and a half billion year history with various events and processes evident that I guess you think never happened?

 

Why God destroyed the world with water--

Gen. 6:5-7, "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man,and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

"Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" would be the justification and the why.

Covered up? I do not think so. The evidence is everywhere--on the ground and miles into the ground. If one does not "see", one must be using the wrong set of paradigms.

The paradigm of evolution will lead one to question the revelation of God. Study Romans 1:18-25 real hard.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Man sure likes to think big.Billions and Billions and Billions and Billions of years.Where any of us here Billions of years ago,does Gods word say anything about Billions of years ago.If it were Billions of years ago why didn't God just say in His word man shall evolve from ape,or maybe dolphins,whales?Sapience;wisdom,sagacity.Homosapiens not me brother.Im a man,This verse gets alot of play,I think its a good one.Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise,they became fools.Before I went around telling anyone millions,billions,trillions,I would want to be sure.

 

Make up your mind.

If the "evidence is everywhere" then show it. Give us the mechanisms behind what you claim.

If it were all supernatural, then admit that what we see is not what would be expected.

You cannot have it both ways. Either we do or we do not see what would be expected. If we do, then explain the questions put to you.

 

What one would expect--

What would one expect to see looking at a living cell at a magnification of 50,000 diameters for the first time? How does one describe such a viewpoint using 10X verbage?

A similar situation is encountered looking at data from an instrument like the Hubbell telescope. New words are necessary to describe what we think we see. Whether we admit it or not
our finite words are inadequate to describe that which is created by that which is infinite.

God made everything--from nothing. If He destroys everything it is His choice. How He destroys, what He destroys, and why He destroys are totally up to His will and good pleasure. Questioning God and His motives and methods is not for man to do.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Look.

You have made some claims about what we should see. But when asked to put your money where your mouth is, you start playing word games with me. You either think these things are what we expect or not.

When asked to provide evidence, you basically say that you don't have to because you think it was casued supernaturally. When I say OK, but that is an admission that things really are not as the should be if your version is correct, you go back to claiming that what we see is exactly what you would expect.

You cannot have it both ways. Is it

A) The was a worldwide flood and what we see matches exactly what should be expected from such a flood. If so, then answer the questions posed.

or

B) There was a flood but for reasons unknown to you, God decided to change the appearance of the earth after the flood to make it look like something else happened.

Make a choice and stick with it. Please.

 

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Proverbs 4:5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.

Hmmmm. It would appear that God is not against us learning things after all.

 

Has any one ever created a replica of the earth and flooded it the way the Bible decribes the flood?Can man open the windows of heaven?Can you imagine?The fountains of the deep broken up.Wow.I do belive God wants us to learn about him,and things that can be proven.You just can't prove by fossils or the layers of fossils that man evolved.Adapting to this sin cursed world.YES