Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I appreciate the question, but you really think that a cat giving birth to a dog would falsify Evolution? There would be evolutionists who would say, “look! This is an example of rapid speciation!” Besides, a cat giving birth to a dog is impossible, so you picked something you know can’t actually falsify your theory. I think you are mixing up your sciences a bit, in operational sciences testability and observations are a must. These theories must be falsifiable. However, because historical/origins sciences are not directly observable they are not truly falsifiable in that regard. They are more based upon circumstantial evidence that requires interpretation. I suppose if you really wanted to falsify creationism you could find Christ’s body and prove 100 percent that it is really his body. However, this would be about as probable as a cat giving birth to a dog. So evolution and creation are both just as difficult to falsify. Just ask any evolutionist how they would falsify their theory and you will get some very strange and unrealistic answers. My favorite was published in Scientific America and pretty much said that if Aliens came down and told us that Evolution didn’t occur then they could falsify it. I still believe they are both examples of historical science. So if your real beef with creationism is that it is too difficult to falsify, then you probably shouldn't be an evolutionist either.

Yes, a cat giving birth to a dog is impossible, not that you'd know why. But the fact remains that if a cat did give birth to a dog, that would falsify evolution, not that you'd know why.

Statler, even if we found Christ's body, it wouldn't prove or disprove the existence of God or the validity of creationism. It would only prove that Christ, the man, existed.

My beef with creationism is not only that it is not falsifiable, but that it is a lie promoted by liars. It really is that simple. By the way, there are several ways to falsify evolution. He are a few examples:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_disp.htm

How could evolution be proven false?

The foundational observations which support evolution are the ordered fossil record and radiometric analysis of the dates of rocks.

If the radiometric analysis of the age of rocks is valid, then two main beliefs of young-earth creation scientists are disproved. The rock layers were deposited over billions of years, not during the 150 days of Noah's flood.
That the earth is on the order of 4.6 billion years old, not many thousands of years old.

Still, if some convincing proof were discovered that the radiometric analyses are in error by about a factor of 500,000 or so, and that the earth is fewer than 10,000 years of age, then evolution would be disproved. There simply would not have been sufficient time for all of the new species to have evolved. Six specialists in geology, geochemistry and physics have formed the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) research group. They have been working since 1997 to disprove radiometric dating, to prove that the earth is young, and thereby disprove evolution. (To date, they have yet to find any evidence that radimetric dating is not a valid method of dating Earth materials.)

The most obvious feature of the fossil record is that there are a lot of fossils of clam-like species. If one focuses on the remaining fossils, it becomes clear that the fossils are sorted by geological age. Deep rock layers generally contain the remains of simple creatures; the upper layers have evidence of more complex animals. By studying the entire fossil record, one can determine in what order various species first appeared and when they apparently became extinct.

The sorting of fossils is complete. Dinosaurs have never been found in the same layer as trilobites; trilobites have never been seen together with human remains; dinosaur remains have not been found with human remains. And so on for perhaps a million other combinations. There are literally millions of pairs of species which have never been found together in the same rock layer. One simple example may clarify this. There is a thin layer of clay containing a high concentration of Iridium which was laid down between the Cretaceous and Tertiary rock layers -- apparently about 65 million years ago. 9 Because it is found in so many places around the world, it is a very useful date marker. There are thousands of species whose fossils are only found lower in the fossil record than this layer; there are thousands of species which are only found higher. This is overwhelming proof that the rock layers, and the species they contain, were laid down over long periods of time. In order to disprove evolution, it would be necessary for creation scientists to prove that all species co-existed together, and were somehow precisely sorted into layers by species without ever making an error. We are unaware of any efforts by young-earth creation scientists working in this area.
_______________

So get to work, Statler. Find us a bunny rabbit buried with Permian reptiles.

---

Lol, you say that creationism is not falsifiable but then you say you know it is a lie, which means you must have falsified it somehow. Self refuting argument! Look out!

Since biblical creationism views the bible as the word of God, finding the body of Christ would certainly falsify it because it would prove that the Bible is not inerrant. Creationists even admit this. So find the body.

As to your other points about dating, we have done exactly what you have said we'd need to do to falsify evolution, and yet you do not deny it happened. We have shown that when electrons are removed, radiometric decay rates accelerate by a factor of a billion. The very fact that nobody has ever successfully dated rocks of known ages means we should not trust the method with rocks of unknown ages because it cannot be trusted.

As for the fossil record moving from simple to complex, this has also been refuted because amoebas are just as complex as humans at a genetic level, but appear at the bottom of the fossil record.

The fact that dinosaurs have never been found in the same strata with humans does not prove they never co-existed. We know that whales and coelacanths co-exist today but they have never been found in the same level of strata either. So bad argument.

As for the bunny, beavers have been found in the same strata with dinosaurs in China, so that’s pretty close to bunnies

I love how you act like every animal that dies is fossilized. Not finding animals fossilized together is not evidence they didn't co-exist. We actually DO find species alive to day that pre-date your irridium layer. The common oak, maple, and ginkgo trees are all found well before the irridium layer and are still alive today. The fossil record does not expalin the sudden appearance of hundreds of different phyla suddenly. Bats appear suddenly in the record, and they are identical to bats today. You just ignore the evidence that does not fall in line with your dogma. Many evolutionists even say that the fossil record should not be used as evidence for evolution because it is interpreted using evolutionary theory.

---

I figured you'd take this way out. The evidence for a Creator is just as logical and sound as the evidence that the Pyramids were built by intelligent men.

Then you should have absolutely no problem creating a formal argument that necessitates his existence.

If you can achieve an argument that is both sound and valid I'm obliged to agree.

It's on you now.

I am skeptical that you'll accept even a sound argument.