Falsifying Creation

"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."
--Great were getting somewhere atleast, that is because the biblical account of creation doesn't have anything to do with the point of burrial, thus the fossil record.------------------

"While I am clearly on the same side of the debat, and would agree that
creationsim is NOT science,"
--Atleast we can agree on something "I contend that it IS falsifiably to a
degree."
--Technically, but if your going to find potential falsification your not going to find it in creationism, its sort of a word defining a conjoined others. So pick at the leg of Creation-science, not creationism, theres nothing to pick at in creationism, Creation science is meaty, if I must use analogy."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)."It is for this reason that creationists argue
against evolution and other natural explanations for life, the
universie and everything."
--Funny how I've never seen myself resort to it."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."
--That sure would rip a leg off, you can't really survive with one leg. So I would invite discussion, I have been unable to find such a problem with scripture, and this seems to be the place to discuss it."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."
--Yeah mabye, though it was started a long time ago."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."
--Undermining natural explination? Who's resorting to that? As I stated earlier, we need to take a gander at what we are arguing.------------------

"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?"
--If this did not take place, or they missed one, then your going to have to look through pre-cambrian rock strata for it, as the Flood caused all them layers.------------------

"So you are admitting that the ACCOUNT of creation in the
Bible is NOT accurate, or at least NOT to be taken literally ?"
--See what your arguing, and your evidence supporting your argument. Your missing fundementals.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"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."
--Yes, but there also fish found above these layers, (obviously) indicating that the other life form, by whatever mechenism, was not able to be burried till then.

---

And by what mechanism do you propose this? Haven't you been beaten up enough on this argument?

quote:

---

"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."
--Not if you have a worldwide flood, fish are allready down there, a lion isn't stupid enough to head straight for the bottom.

---

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? 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. For example there are no clams in the early Cambrian. Why not? Were they more intelligent than the trilobites? Or faster?

"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."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."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?------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-17-2002]

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 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'.

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

"Well?Any takers ... just wanted to boost the topic back up "
--Hey thanx, I guess the thread got lost in the pile so I'm glad you gave it a nudge , It must have gotten lost while I wasn't able to post here a couple days ago. I'll get to it.------------------

"Perhaps because you can't see where this is going yet"
--Ohhhh, so were using battle tactics here, nice...
"I will agree, that the fossil record shows a burrial sequence, and
that existence sequence is inferred by evolutionists (like myself)."
--Creationists too."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."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."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..."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."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."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."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."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:

quote:

---

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.

---

--Note these arent all the factors, just the obvious ones to get discussion started."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."
--Might I quote from yourself:

quote:

---

Fossilisation is NOT a selective process. So long as the correct
conditions are prevalent, remains will be fossilised.

---

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

"No replies for a bit .... does that mean I win ??"
--Far from it. ------------------