Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Ephraim7 states: When biology is taught to our students in public schools, what are they required to learn? It is the theory of evolution, and any and all other explanations are excluded. Secular science is dogmatic about trying to establish evolution as an undeniable fact, and is not interested in accepting or exploring other possibilities, no matter how plausible they may be.ME: Evolution IS an undeniable fact, just as gravity and atoms are, and the Theory of Evolution, just as the Theory of Gravity and the Atomic Theory, explains the observational facts.Ephraim7 states: Lets look deeper into evolution. The theory does not take the responsibility of stating how life originated. It delegates that to the theory of the “Big Bang”ME: The Big Bang doesn't address how life originated in the slightest. The Big Bang occurred some 10 billion + years before the first signs of living metabolisms appeared on Earth.I won't bother quoting your gross misunderstandings of how the heavier elements formed nor how planets form around stars. But basically modern science has a pretty good understanding of how our Sun is a 3rd generation star and how heavier elements formed in 1st and 2nd generation stars (heck we can even SEE first generation stars through Hubble at the edge of our range about 13 light years away).What I have always wondered is why the Bible states the Sun and other stars (though it doesn't say the Sun is just another star which it is) were made a day after the Earth and even plants on it and why the Bible, allegedly containing anachronistic knowledge, fails to mention the other galaxies. Why do you suppose God made all these planets which are completely incapable of supporting life as we know it, or why did 'He' not design life to live on those planets?Ephraim7 states: Science concludes that since the simplest organisms of life appear at what is considered to be the earliest periods of time that Earth was inhabitable (maybe about 1 Billion BC), and the life forms found seems to become more complex and abundant as time progresses, that this constitutes the “fact” of evolution. Never mind that the theory allows for the fully formed species to be much more abundant, and the expected transitional forms are extremely hard to find, or are actually non-existent. If there were transitional forms, they should be just as easy to find, and abundant, as the other fossils.ME: Actually according to the fossil record prokaryotic life was already abundant by a billion years ago and was beginning to evolve into eukaryotic protozoans through processes of symbiosis coupled with natural selection. I have no idea what you mean by "the theory allows for the fully formed species to be much more abundant" but you are simply dead wrong about transitional forms being "non-existent" or even hard to find.Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

---

democrats are sometimes inept and presently lost but republicans are mean scientifically ignorant hypocrites, I know what lesser of two evils is the most rational choice.

addendum reply to off-forum correspondence between myself and Ephraim7Ephraim7 wrote: How do you know that all three types didn't exist at the same time? Evolutionists blindly forget the factor of escalating death. Suppose something caused the lower forms of life to die off, before the higher forms. How can you tell the difference?How can I tell the difference between what? I don't understand what you are asking, sorry. We infer, for example, that dinosaurs didn't exist at the same time as humans because there's a huge gab in the fossil record between the last known dinosaur fossil and the first signs of humans being around. Each layer of the geologic record took a great deal of time to solidify into rock containing its embedded fossils (we know this from many observational facts including how sometimes solid stone gets 'folded' and contained fossils can warp also by the way whole ecologies like deserts and swamps can be on top of one another in successive layers). If we have lower layers with a variety of lifeforms which then aren't in a group of midlayers and then we find different lifeforms in layers above these it is only logical to conclude the lower and upper forms didn't co-exist. What other conclusion would there be?Ephraim7 wrote: How does gas and dust breakdown into gold and
silver?All the elements were forged through the fusion which powers the stars, the heavier elements in second generation stars. When these stars go nova they spew the elements across the universe. This is basic cosmology.Cheers

Ephraim7 wrote: The difference between type A dying first, type B dying second, and type C dying third (and concluding "evolution"), and A dying first, and B dying second, then C dying last, with all three living at the same time. How can youtell the difference by looking at the (fossil) record of death? You are reaching that conclusion because you have not found human remains yet. Both are circumstantial evidence, and not a certainty.ME: Science relies only on what is not what isn't. If human remains ever show up from the Cambrian (or even any mammal bones in fact) then you might have something, I wouldn't bet the farm on it though.