Falsifying Creation

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Can the Creation account be falsified? Yes, by showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that purely natural processes are responsible for all we observe.

​

---

First, are you saying that natural processes are NOT responsible
for all we OBSERVE. i.e. the modern biological world ?Can the Creation Account be Falsified ?By the creation account I presume you mean the early part of
Genesis.If, as in genesis, all creatures were created at (broadly speaking) the same time one would expect to find (and this has been
mentioned elsewhere) fossils of all the variety of life
randomly distributed throughout the rock strata of the earth.This is regardless of the relative ages of those rock strata or
of the possibility of a global flood causing unanticipated
layerings.We consistently do NOT see this.In different parts of the world, the sequences of fossils by
stratum are equivalent.This alone falsifies the ACCOUNT of creation in Genesis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"In different parts of the world, the sequences of fossils by
stratum are equivalent.

​

This alone falsifies the ACCOUNT of creation in Genesis."
--How in the world does this falsify it? I don't see the relevance of your accusation of this being a valid falsification of the Genesis Creation account, for one, the Genesis 'creation' account cannot be attributed to being validated by the hierarchy of fossil succession in its burrial record. This attributes to a falsification of the Noacian Flood, but not creation. The initial creaiton, is simply based on faith, because it is based on the question of Origins, creationists ofcourse allready have their answer for for Origins. One of the few questions we answer with 'Goddidit'.

---

The proposal put forward in Genesis for the creation is that
all animal life was created 'as is' during the six day creation
period.Fossils are created when animals die, and particular conditions
exists such that their remains are petrified (simplification).If ALL animals were created at the same time it follows that there
would be NO sequence within the fossil record. Animals of varying
types would have died as their lifespan dictated (even if that were
much longer when they were first created than now).Sequences observable in the fossil record show, for example,
no mammals in layers below or equivalent to , say, dinosaurs.Sequence in the fossil record is contrary to the expected observation
if the creation account were fact.Therefore the creation ACCOUNT is inaccurate.Whether or not the ACCOUNT of creation is accurate, inaccurate, or
falsified has little bearing on whether there is a God who
actually created the world. I am not concerned with undermining
your faith, but if the creation is a matter of faith to you and
that's that ... why are you debating here ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
yeah i agree with retro's statement if anything one will be able to prove the other.

---

I think the point being made is that no validation/falsification of
either theory has any relevance to the other.They are BOTH theories of creation and the origins of life. They
are NOT necessarily contradictory in all areas (depending on your
branch of creationism/evolutionism).One theory says nothing directly about the other.To falsify either theory requires matching expected results of the
proposals made with real-world observations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"LUD:...though quite innacurate."
--Oh, then what else could it be other than 'as is'?

​

"LUD: we all agree here but i know it cant last..."
--Yeah, too bad isn't it

​

"LUD:But it does in a way...lets keep reading."
--In what way was that, ok lets keep reading then.

​

"LUD:actually,premineralisation depends on the environemental conditions that prevailed where the animal as i understand it and burrial in certain substance is often necessary to achieve this. If i'm wrong about this,someone correct me."
--Your correct, though I don't see what is the contrary towards my statement, I was making aware that things that die, don't always get permineralized (fossilized), 99.999% of the time, it requires burrial.

​

"LUD:But the point is that despite some rare exceptions,the fossil record is quite consistant..."
--That depends on what your view of consistancy is, obviously in its own logical way, there is no way it could not be consistant, but if you are refering to how people determine where you will find a creature, it requires minor and major refinement constantly.

​

"nothing,then small critters from the cambian explosion,dinos,and THEN birds and mammals. In that context,the weight of evidence does not support the creation accounts..."
--Again, it has nothing to do with the account of creation, I was hoping you would give me a reason why it does, as I would hope even the most anti of anti-creationists should realize this as basic (for young earth arguments). And again Dinosaurs are found along with mammals (smaller mammals that supposedly evolved with the dinosaurs) int he Fossil record.

​

"LUD: yes it does if the fossil record tends to demonstrate that certain types of animals appeared and were gone LONG BEFORE other type of animals came about."
--which, might I add, is a major assumption, and is based on interperetation, not fact.

​

"The creation account is quite specific on this...BIRDS THAN ANIMALS,all of em in 2 days."
--Yup, and its also specific in its own little way on the flood, 'Everything ourside of the ark perished'.

​

"LUD:you too,TC..."
--Thanx, lets run through it again (no YEC theory has anything to do with the creation account within the record of fossils).

​

"LUD: We never were anywhere near being lost...Evolutionists dont claim that there is no God...they just explain that he probably did not work the way teh Bible describes."
--Takes alot more faith than is needed to believe that the bible isn't accurate. Like I explained above, so this statment isn't too relevant if you regard it as a sortof conclusion from the previous.

​

"LUD:If i may be permited to answer this as well,i come here because i get many things from the debates."
--Likewize, thats a good thing.

​

"The absolute worst thing that can happen to science is to become complacent."
--I don't see that happening.

​

"Sometimes,debating the "other side" so to speak allows certain faults in your logic to appear that you may have missed otherwise and it gives you the opportunity to re-evaluate your conclusions to see what you may have missed."
--Thats the main reason I am here, and forgive me Peter if I was a little sarcastic, just make sure you know the basics of the theory your arguing with, unless of course you were arguing with someone else, but don't argue with the bible, argue with the theory.

​

"True,this may mean that you might change your mind completely about the issue you're debating if the fault discovered in your logic was a fatal one but most of the time,it just re-inforces your earlier position because you come back after adressing the problems with an even greater understanding of the hypothesis you are defending in a debate."
--Amen

​

"Does that answer your question...at least as far as i'm concerned?"
--As far as I am concerned, yes.

---

I'll skip to the bits that we disagree on The fossil record, regardless of how old the different
layers in which fossils are found may be, indicates a sequence
of demise within the animals that live and have ever lived.There are layers which contain nothing but fish and (in
evolutionary terminology(sorry about that ) lesser lifeforms,
and higher lifeforms are NEVER found in layers equivalent or lower
than these. (I realise that the mammal thing was a little off
since early mammals emerged while dinos were still about).The point I was making was that the fossil record shows a sequence
of existence. It is consistent. It has been observed by independent
witnesses world-wide (and in the early fossil hunting error with
no mass-communications media they came to similar conculsions
about what this sequence meant).To test an hypothesis or assertion, we make a prediction based
upon that assertion and see if we can find evidence that refutes
it. This is (edited highlights of) scientific method.The creation ACCOUNT (and I stress ACCOUNT) states that all life
was created with a very short period (i.e 6 days of creation, animals
made toward the end of that).Animals die according to their lifespans (no argument
here I think), then ANY of the animals in creation could have
died at the same time as each other, or 'lower' forms after 'higher'.The conditions for fossilisation are particular. If burrial is required in 99.9999% of cases, then fossilisation can only occur
when an creature has been burried close to its time of death (otherwise carrion eaters or such would have taken it away).This LEADS directly to a prediction of NO sequence in the fossil
record. A lion could have died and been fossilised just as easily
as an early fish or T.Rex or ... whatever, and at the same time or earlier than any other animal because they all co-existed.This is contrary to the ACCOUNT of creation in the Bible, and so
this account MUST be inaccurate or (more likely) non-literal.I don't usually respond to personal comments, but I will point out
that in arguing against Creationism we ARE arguing against the Bible
accounts. There is no theory of creationism, except that the bible
is the literal truth of creation.I also AM aware of the context and content of this debate. Don't
confuse recent arrival on the forum with recent arrival to the
debate itself

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

​

This LEADS directly to a prediction of NO sequence in the fossil
record. A lion could have died and been fossilised just as easily
as an early fish or T.Rex or ... whatever, and at the same time or earlier than any other animal because they all co-existed.

​

This is contrary to the ACCOUNT of creation in the Bible, and so
this account MUST be inaccurate or (more likely) non-literal.

​

---

Sorry I missed a bit out here (OOPS ). I meant that the
prediction made by the biblical ACCOUNT is not born out
by the fossil record.

quote:

---

Originally posted by toff:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
If purely natural processes are shown to be enough to account for everything, the Creation account would fall just as sure as a house of cards would fall when struck by the wind of a fan. IOW, it would be falsified.

---

​

Let me try to make this crystal clear to you, since others have tried and failed. If purely natural processes are shown to be enough to account for everything, the creation account would NOT fall. Showing natural processes to have possibly created everything there is would NOT prove that they did so - only that they COULD do so. I can easily demonstrate that the train service in the area in which I live can easily account for my getting to work in a half an hour or so every morning. However, this does NOT prove that this is how I do it. Actually, I drive my car. In the same way, whether natural process can account for all that there is is irrelevant to creationism. Creationism, by its nature, is not falsifiable. It is not, therefore, science.

---

While I am clearly on the same side of the debat, and would agree that
creationsim is NOT science, I contend that it IS falsifiably to a
degree.Creationism is, fundamentally, based on the literal interpretation
of the Bible. It is for this reason that creationists argue
against evolution and other natural explanations for life, the
universie and everything.IF a literal interpretation of the Bible can be shown to not fit
the evidence of the real-world the doubt must be cast on the
creationsist contention.Then maybe the creationist community will begin a proper invesitgation
into the origins of life ... rather than simply stating that the
Bible says this, so its true.I have rarely seen arguments from creationists which support the
creation story ... they seem to prefer to attempt to under-mine
belief in a natural explanation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonetool:
Falsifying creation?
That would be based on which creation model. There are three
1. Young Earth Creationism
2. Old Earth Creationism, with no evolution
3. Evolutionary creationism, or theistic evolution.
YEC has been IMO completely falsified. There is not scientific evidence in its favor and HUGE evidence against it. For example, the fossil record absolutely proves that life did not appear all at once within the last 10,000 years, but arose gradually over time.
OECWNE at least respects the scientific evidence of an old earth. It can be falsefied only by showing that life on earth could not have arisen by any other method but evolution. While I beleive that there is strong evidence for evolution, Idont think that scientists can show that the Good Lord could not have just created these different species over time. All you could do is argue that it is strange that He would have done so in a pattern so suggestive of evolution!
EC/TE could be falsifield only if the ToE was disproven. HTH...

​

[This message has been edited by stonetool, 02-12-2002]

---

The debate I have been involved in here is concerned with
the ACCOUNT of creation. That is taking Genesis Ch1 literally.Falsifying creation itself is next to impossible. The only
way to do that would be to categorically show that there
is no God. I doubt that that is possible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
if they require burial most of the time, then would humans be able to affect that? for instance a human feels that he should bury the animal as they are also going into exctinction. would that affect anything? would it make a young earth more feasable?

---

No.Another aspect of the fossil record which refutes a young earth
is that there ate NO fossilised 'modern' animal.In another post TrueCreation mentioned non-fossil Dinosaur
remains as evidence of a young earth. A more straight forward
explanation of that is that Dinos didn't become extinct when we
thought they did (it's not unheard of to discover living
specimens of species thought extinct for millions of years).The converse of TC's argument IS compelling evidence for an
old earth, however. If all animals were made at the same time,
why did some fossilize (fish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs,
pterosaurs) and others not (birds, mammals, hominids) ?Human burial of remains would tend to INCREASE the variety of
individuals fossilised, and so we would expect to see MORE
diversity in fossilised remains.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i dont use it that way and know enough that it shouldnt be.

---

Hope you don't take this the wrong way, but, the above being the
case ... what DO you base your belief in creationsim on?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"And by what mechanism do you propose this? Haven't you been beaten up enough on this argument?"
--The mechenism of the Flood. I havent needed to break a sweat in the argument peter proposes against me, simply because he implies that the Creation account should show contrast towards the Fossil record.

---

Perhaps because you can't see where this is going yet I will agree, that the fossil record shows a burrial sequence, and
that existence sequence is inferred by evolutionists (like myself).As I understand it (please correct if wrong) your assertion is that
the burrial sequence in the fossil record has nothing to do
with the ACCOUNT of creation, only with the Great Flood.So again lets try to look at what one would expect to see from
the your interpretation of the flood.Prior to the flood ALL animals existed in roughly their current form.Apart from those animals taken aboard the Ark by Noah and his
family, all (presumably land) animals were killed in the deluge
or resulting global flood (a time span of roughly a year ...
flood waters abating by the 10th Month, then Noah opens the
Ark 40 days later to dry earth).During the time of the flood dead animals would sink to the bottom
(eventually), come to rest, and some would be buried.Some of these would be in conditions whereby fossilisation
would occur.Fossilisation is NOT a selective process. So long as the correct
conditions are prevalent, remains will be fossilised. ANY
animal could have become fossilised.Under these conditions we should expect to see NO SEQUENCE in
the burrial record, because the waters contained a number
of ALL animals and their death and subsequent burrial would be
related to the individual ability to survive in the water.What we see (and there are NO anomalies to the best of my knowledge)
is a sequence of burrial which shows increasing complexity of form
from the oldest burrials to the most recent.Fossilised remains are restricted in the orders of animals represented.There are NO fossilised lions, say. Fossilised ammonites ALWAYS
and ONLY occur in layers lower than dinosaurs despite ammonites
being aquatic and able to survive a flood.Before debating the specific examples (and they are off the top
of my head) think about what in the flood scenario could have
caused the consistent sequencing that IS SEEN in the fossil
record.Explain exactly how this sequence could occur by way of a flood.Explain why the animals considered by evolutionists to have emerged
more recently are NEVER found in a fossilised state, when other
animals which in biblical terms should have co-existed with them
do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Um, tell us, TC... When we have a flood what do we see floating down the river to the sea, at least once in a while?"
--Your going to see fish...Its all part of the mechenism for burrial in the flood.

​

"The problem is that you have NO credible diversions from the known fossil sequence. Oh, sure we can move one phylum or class back a Period or so, but no major departures."
--See above.

---

Mechanism for burrial in a flood?Why should burrial during a flood be anything other than
random ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"For example there are no clams in the early Cambrian. Why not? Were they more intelligent than the trilobites? Or faster?"
--I don't think we know proper anatomy in trilobites to figure this equation, or do we have a good knowledge on what trilobite chracteristics in anatomy are or were?

---

That's an evasion. I noticed you like to point out these little
debating tactics so I thought I'd join in The question is about the consistency of sequence in the fossil
record.This is exactly predicted by an evolutionary explanation for life
on earth.It is exactly contrary to the ACCOUNT of creation, mixed up in
a global flood and deposited at random on the flood bed.

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 02-18-2002]

I've just remembered your swimming pool.Try this.Empty out the water.
Fill the pool to a depth of, say, 1 metre with soil.
Place a variety of animal remains on the soil.
Deluge the soil until the pool is full.
Allow the water to subside (you may have to unclog your drain/filter).Dig down at five sites across the surface area of the pool and
note the sequences of the remains.I would suggest that there will only be remains in the upper layers,
and that there would be no order in depth of those remains.Untested hypothesis ... but I don't have a pool

quote:

---

Originally posted by toff:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Creationism is, fundamentally, based on the literal interpretation
of the Bible."
--No, faith is, Creationism has a basis under two classifications, faith-bible, and science (creation science).

---

​

No, it does not. Creationism's only support is the bible. So-called creation 'science' does not exist. It is merely creationism masking itself as a science in an attempt to gain some respectability outside fundamentalist circles. There is no such thing as creation 'science'.

---

Fair point I feel (but then TC was responding to me so I would
say that).Tell me the SCIENCE upon which creationism is based.My contention was that it was fundamentally founded in the
literal interpretation of the bible.If the bible didn't exist, what evidence would point to creation
at a single point in time. Without refuting conventional scientific
claims, and with NO reference to the bible, argue in favour of
Creation ... and then tell me that it is NOT founded in Biblical
belief.

No replies for a bit .... does that mean I win ??

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
No replies for a bit .... does that mean I win ??

---

Well?Any takers ... just wanted to boost the topic back up

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Perhaps because you can't see where this is going yet"
--Ohhhh, so were using battle tactics here, nice...

---

You started it

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"I will agree, that the fossil record shows a burrial sequence, and
that existence sequence is inferred by evolutionists (like myself)."
--Creationists too.

---

Creationists infer an existence sequence ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"As I understand it (please correct if wrong) your assertion is that
the burrial sequence in the fossil record has nothing to do
with the ACCOUNT of creation, only with the Great Flood."
--Never heard of anything else that has any grasp on reality.

---

OK ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"So again lets try to look at what one would expect to see from
the your interpretation of the flood."
--Lets!

​

"Prior to the flood ALL animals existed in roughly their current form."
--Emphesis on the 'rough'[ness].

​

"Apart from those animals taken aboard the Ark by Noah and his
family, all (presumably land) animals were killed in the deluge
or resulting global flood (a time span of roughly a year ..."
--Most would have been burried and died within the first couple months.

---

I take that as an agreement

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

"flood waters abating by the 10th Month, then Noah opens the
Ark 40 days later to dry earth)."
--Something like that.

​

"During the time of the flood dead animals would sink to the bottom
(eventually), come to rest, and some would be buried."
--Mabye half would have had to 'sink to the bottom and come to rest', while some would have been immidiatelly burried.

​

"Some of these would be in conditions whereby fossilisation
would occur."
--Anything that touched sea bottom...their gonna get fossilized unless protected by some force, ie a predator or something of the like.

​

"Fossilisation is NOT a selective process. So long as the correct
conditions are prevalent, remains will be fossilised. ANY
animal could have become fossilised."
--Yup.

​

"Under these conditions we should expect to see NO SEQUENCE in
the burrial record, because the waters contained a number
of ALL animals and their death and subsequent burrial would be
related to the individual ability to survive in the water."
--Note: God didn't keep all the animals out of the water and wait till it was flooded to throw everything back onto the earth to be burrial, thereby constituting randomness...

---

Not quite sure what you mean here. Are you agreeing that the
burrials would be random ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"What we see (and there are NO anomalies to the best of my knowledge)"
--Ofcourse there are no anomalies, Evolution will cooperate with anything found.

---

Not so. If a fossilised hominid were found in the jaws of an
Allosaurus evolution could NOT cope with that ... and I doubt
any modification of the theory could.By 'no anomalies' I meant that where fossils are found, the same
(broadly speaking) types of fossil are found in the equivalent
layers ... all around the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"is a sequence of burrial which shows increasing complexity of form
from the oldest burrials to the most recent."
--Basically.

​

"Fossilised remains are restricted in the orders of animals represented."
--presented for burrial you mean.

---

No, not presented for burrial. In the flood model ALL animals
(barring the Arkers) were presented for burrial within a one year
period starting with the deluge.I was getting more at the idea that only certain, 'older'
forms are represented in the fossil record. That's older
in a evolutionary interpretation, of course.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"There are NO fossilised lions, say."
--Because there were no lions preceeding the flood. For instance, Tigers and lions are related, along with the possible mountain lion and panther.

---

Is there then a single, fossilised proto-lion which you know of ?
The flood model would require it as evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Fossilised ammonites ALWAYS
and ONLY occur in layers lower than dinosaurs despite ammonites
being aquatic and able to survive a flood."
--The flood wasn't all that gentle...And thats because they all died out before another phase of the flood.

---

Another phase ... where's that come from ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

"Before debating the specific examples (and they are off the top
of my head) think about what in the flood scenario could have
caused the consistent sequencing that IS SEEN in the fossil
record."
--(thinx hard).

​

"Explain exactly how this sequence could occur by way of a flood."
--Ok, I'll quote myself from a bit ago:

There are many factors, intelligence, agility/menuverability(could it climb treas or have the ability to
menuver in the midst of chaos well), shape/structure (fur, density (muscle sinks and fat floats I
believe from because of density), lungs and air, etc), environment, habitat (did it live on the bottom
of the ocean, middle, top of the ocean, live on ground, could it fly, and if it could fly how long can it
stay in the air and when it is on the ground what is its relevance to menuverability (pterosaurs are
thought to 'waddle' simmilar to the way bats menuver on ground as is shown by pelvis structure),
also how can this animal adapt to quick changing environments, ie ice age or rapid climate changes
could have caused virtually all non-insulated animals to die quickly and be subject to quick burrial on
the next sediment deposits with little rustling around of the bodies. Hydrologic sorting plays a very
small part in the reason they are burried the way they are.

​

"Mechanism for burrial in a flood?"
--Yes, see above quote (from myself).

---

So you agree with my comment that burrial sequence would be
related to individual ability to survive the conditions.None of the animals would be able to completely survive the flood,
but some individuals could last longer than others.That's NOT species, that's individual animals. Some proto-lions
would be stronger than others and so survive longer, and be buried
later.Why (in this scenario) are there so few infant fossils?
Not eggs, mind you, but cubs/pups/kits whatever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Why should burrial during a flood be anything other than
random ?"
--Because of the conditions in events during the flood. To put it so the most basic mind could understnd (I'm not implying at all as an insult, just a very basic fundemental understanding), if you throw a clam in the water, and then throw any kind of bird in the water...in any number your not going to have randomness. When you contribute characteristics, intelligence, agility and the like as I have given above, these wide non-random figures will be contributed on a smaller scale than a clam and a bird within other types.

---

Yes ... if you place them in the water in a particular sequence,
then there is a sequence. You already said that's not what happened
though.If, on the other hand, you have an environment with a variety of
life, covering the major ecological niches required, and then deluge
it rapidly how does the OBSERVED sequence occur ?It's a difficult one to explain, because you are putting up the
kind of suppositions and scenario reasoning that you discount
when put forward as evolutionary explanations.In the flood scenario, strong intelligent animals would survive
longer than weaker, less intelligent animals.Many dinosaurs are thought to have been able to swim ... duck-billed
varieties spring to mind, and even T.Rex might have
been able to, and these animals are big and strong. Sure they
would starve to death eventually, but if they had metabolisms similar
to modern day crocodiles that could take over a year (big if
but there are prescedents for SOME animals to be able to survive
without ANY food for extended periods).The sequence of burrial evident in the fossil record shows increasing
complexity of form. In some layers there are a mixture of animals
which fit ecological niche concepts, some small, some large.This does not fit with what can be expected from a flood scenario.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"That's an evasion. I noticed you like to point out these little
debating tactics so I thought I'd join in"
--It is only true, unless you can point out the various characteristics as I have shown above, you cannot fit a trilobite into an equasion as an unknown factor.

​

"The question is about the consistency of sequence in the fossil
record."
--ok.

​

"This is exactly predicted by an evolutionary explanation for life
on earth."
--Who's to say thats the only explination.

---

I'm not saying it's the only explanation that fits, I'm saying
that evolution fits the fossil record data.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"It is exactly contrary to the ACCOUNT of creation, mixed up in
a global flood and deposited at random on the flood bed."
--Not the smartest thing to come to conclusions any-time this rapid, it signifies pre-conseived beliefs and ideas, which shouldn't be a factor in the scientific method.

---

This IS NOT a conclusion.I am exploring the flood scenario with you at the moment, in an
attempt to see how the Great Flood could have lead to the burrial
sequence evident in the fossil record.So far I cannot find a convincing explanation for that sequence
which is explainable by the flood scenario.Hopefully I have made clear my objections to the sequencing suggestions you have made.