Falsifying Creation

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. There is no doubt about that in the minds of learned Creationists.

---

While it may be true that many Creation acounts that demand that nature adhere to a particular narrow interpretation of Genesis, it is not at all true that if purely natural forces were shown to account for "everything" that ALL Creationist's or religious accounts would fall.God could have still made everything, and also made the natural mechanisms that everything is subject to.

[QUOTE] "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?
[/B][/QUOTE]Wow.I am surprised that even you would make such a claim, TC, without at least a prefunctory web search to cover yourself.We know a LOT about Trilobites because their fossils are so abundant. http://www.brookes.ac.uk/geology/8361/1998/kirsty/trilo.html#intro
http://24.114.7.13/kevin/Trilobites.htmlThis last link it to a very detailed Trilobite morphology: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/geology/8361/1998/kirsty/morph.html#General------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC, did you ever explain to us why flowering plants were more agile, intelligent or had better swimming skills than most of the dinosaurs? Ah, maybe they could climbe trees, very tall ones."
--Unfortunatelly, I am not as knowledgable in plant evolution or how it is found in the geologic column, as with other animalia organisms. Though I'll quote myself from another forum:

​

One characteristic I found significant is that flower petals and its outer and internal structures have a very non-polar coating that are fiber-like in these structures. Thus when you dip it in water this is the reason you see the glossy foily reflection. they are literally water-resistant, though not water 'proof', you will also find that it is almost impossible because of this characteristic to sink it unless it were to rot away and after a while loose its glossy coating, this is also simmilar in many types of insects, which is one of the reasons most can float on water and some glide. Obviously 'agility or intelligence' or anything of the like would be at all a factor, so you rely on characteristics.

---

TC, "flowering plants" doesn't mean "flowers". Petal composition really doesn't matter to the discussion. The point is, NO flowering plants are EVER found in the lowest layers. The whole plant. Not just flowers.All trees except conifers are flowering plants.
All grasses are flowering plants.
Cacti are flowing plants.How do you explain the fact that we have yet to observe a single instance of a flowering tree, a flowering grass, etc., in the lower layers of the geologic column?