|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying Creation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: First, are you saying that natural processes are NOT responsiblefor 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 ofGenesis. If, as in genesis, all creatures were created at (broadly speaking) the same time one would expect to find (and this has beenmentioned 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 orof 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 bystratum are equivalent. This alone falsifies the ACCOUNT of creation in Genesis.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: The proposal put forward in Genesis for the creation is thatall animal life was created 'as is' during the six day creation period. Fossils are created when animals die, and particular conditionsexists such that their remains are petrified (simplification). If ALL animals were created at the same time it follows that therewould 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 observationif the creation account were fact. Therefore the creation ACCOUNT is inaccurate. Whether or not the ACCOUNT of creation is accurate, inaccurate, orfalsified 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 ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I think the point being made is that no validation/falsification ofeither theory has any relevance to the other. They are BOTH theories of creation and the origins of life. Theyare 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 theproposals made with real-world observations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I'll skip to the bits that we disagree on The fossil record, regardless of how old the differentlayers 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 (inevolutionary terminology(sorry about that 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 sequenceof 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 basedupon 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 lifewas 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 argumenthere 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 occurwhen 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 fossilrecord. 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 sothis account MUST be inaccurate or (more likely) non-literal. I don't usually respond to personal comments, but I will point outthat 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'tconfuse recent arrival on the forum with recent arrival to the debate itself
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Sorry I missed a bit out here (OOPS prediction made by the biblical ACCOUNT is not born out by the fossil record.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: While I am clearly on the same side of the debat, and would agree thatcreationsim is NOT science, I contend that it IS falsifiably to a degree. Creationism is, fundamentally, based on the literal interpretationof 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 fitthe evidence of the real-world the doubt must be cast on the creationsist contention. Then maybe the creationist community will begin a proper invesitgationinto 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 thecreation story ... they seem to prefer to attempt to under-mine belief in a natural explanation.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: The debate I have been involved in here is concerned withthe ACCOUNT of creation. That is taking Genesis Ch1 literally. Falsifying creation itself is next to impossible. The onlyway to do that would be to categorically show that there is no God. I doubt that that is possible.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: No. Another aspect of the fossil record which refutes a young earthis that there ate NO fossilised 'modern' animal. In another post TrueCreation mentioned non-fossil Dinosaurremains 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 anold 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 ofindividuals fossilised, and so we would expect to see MORE diversity in fossilised remains.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Hope you don't take this the wrong way, but, the above being thecase ... what DO you base your belief in creationsim on?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Perhaps because you can't see where this is going yet I will agree, that the fossil record shows a burrial sequence, andthat existence sequence is inferred by evolutionists (like myself). As I understand it (please correct if wrong) your assertion is thatthe 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 fromthe 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 hisfamily, 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 fossilisationwould occur. Fossilisation is NOT a selective process. So long as the correctconditions are prevalent, remains will be fossilised. ANY animal could have become fossilised. Under these conditions we should expect to see NO SEQUENCE inthe 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 ALWAYSand 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 topof 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 emergedmore recently are NEVER found in a fossilised state, when other animals which in biblical terms should have co-existed with them do. quote: Mechanism for burrial in a flood? Why should burrial during a flood be anything other thanrandom ? quote: That's an evasion. I noticed you like to point out these littledebating tactics so I thought I'd join in The question is about the consistency of sequence in the fossilrecord. This is exactly predicted by an evolutionary explanation for lifeon earth. It is exactly contrary to the ACCOUNT of creation, mixed up ina global flood and deposited at random on the flood bed. [This message has been edited by Peter, 02-18-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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 andnote 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Fair point I feel (but then TC was responding to me so I wouldsay that). Tell me the SCIENCE upon which creationism is based. My contention was that it was fundamentally founded in theliteral interpretation of the bible. If the bible didn't exist, what evidence would point to creationat 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
No replies for a bit .... does that mean I win
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Well? Any takers ... just wanted to boost the topic back up
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: You started it quote: Creationists infer an existence sequence ?
quote: OK ...
quote: I take that as an agreement quote: Not quite sure what you mean here. Are you agreeing that theburrials would be random ? quote: Not so. If a fossilised hominid were found in the jaws of anAllosaurus 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: 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: Is there then a single, fossilised proto-lion which you know of ?The flood model would require it as evidence. quote: Another phase ... where's that come from ?
quote: So you agree with my comment that burrial sequence would berelated 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-lionswould 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: 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 oflife, 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 thekind of suppositions and scenario reasoning that you discount when put forward as evolutionary explanations. In the flood scenario, strong intelligent animals would survivelonger than weaker, less intelligent animals. Many dinosaurs are thought to have been able to swim ... duck-billedvarieties 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 increasingcomplexity 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: I'm not saying it's the only explanation that fits, I'm sayingthat evolution fits the fossil record data. quote: This IS NOT a conclusion. I am exploring the flood scenario with you at the moment, in anattempt 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 sequencewhich is explainable by the flood scenario. Hopefully I have made clear my objections to the sequencing suggestions you have made.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024