Educate your YEC: Evolutionism IS falsifiable

Originally posted by RJHinds
...many good programmers work for [Microsoft] but they have never been able to produce anything close to that complexity.

I disagree. I often find Microsoft programs to be quite messy, indeed. 😛

Originally posted by RJHinds
Even human programming requires some intelligence to do it even at the most elementary level.

No, actually, it doesn't. Most of the code I 'write' is done either using copy/paste, or autogenerated by my IDE.

Originally posted by C Hess
I've also never heard of this one before. If you would be so kind as to start a new thread, with a link to an article on this, or maybe just explain why nitrate concentrations should've been high in early evolution and what we do find in soil samples from the time, I'd be most interested to read it.

This is old news, and I'm not at all surprised you haven't heard of it. Large deposits of nitrogen-rich minerals should be found in the earliest sediments of the Earth, because a prebiotic soup would have been rich in amino acids. Those deposits have never been located. In fact, the nitrogen content of early organic matter is relatively low... just .015%. Jim Brooks wrote in 1985 (Origins of Life): "From this we can be reasonably certain that there never was any substantial amount of 'primitive soup' on Earth when pre-Cambrian sediments were formed; if such a soup ever existed it was only for a brief period of time."

It's been nearly 30 years since 1985, and we still haven't found this crucial piece of evidence supporting the origin of life that so many evolutionists today are saying has nothing to do with the study of evolution. Saying abiogenesis has nothing to do with the study of evolution is BS, because you can bet your sweet bibby that if this evidence had been found you would have seen evolutionists waving papers in the air and proclaiming they had found evidence supporting evolution.

But they didn't find this crucial piece of evidence, and so we did not see any of them get all excited and waving papers in the air and yelling "Woo hoo, we looked for this evidence but it wasn't there... woo hoo!"

Originally posted by lemon lime
But they didn't find this crucial piece of evidence, and so we did not see any of them get all excited and waving papers in the air and yelling "Woo hoo, we looked for this evidence but it wasn't there... woo hoo!"

So basically what you thought was evidence that falsifies evolution, turns out to be a lack of evidence for one possible scenario of biogenesis? No wonder you were so reluctant to go into it in detail.
I feel I also have to point out that in general scientists are not nearly as concerned about creationism as you seem to think. In the world of science, creationism is just some minor crackpot idea being pushed by a few fundamentalists in the US. Its not something most scientists spend their time trying to disprove. As for evolution, it was accepted as part of mainstream science well over 100 years ago, so no, scientists are not getting all excited trying to find evidence for it.
So give an analogy, when an astronomer discovers a new supernova, he doesn't go 'woo hoo, I have just found more evidence against astrology!'. Yes, a large proportion of the first worlds population knows their star sign and checks the astrology section in the local paper, but it is not taken seriously in the scientific community.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So basically what you thought was evidence that falsifies evolution, turns out to be a lack of evidence for one possible scenario of biogenesis? No wonder you were so reluctant to go into it in detail.
I feel I also have to point out that in general scientists are not nearly as concerned about creationism as you seem to think. In the world of science, cr ...[text shortened]... astrology section in the local paper, but it is not taken seriously in the scientific community.

So basically what you thought was evidence that falsifies evolution, turns out to be a lack of evidence for one possible scenario of biogenesis?

Give me examples of other possible scenarios of biogenesis, because I'm not aware of any other than life spontaneously arising from natural forces. And taking cheap shots at creationism does nothing to validate or prove evolution... if evolutionists weren't worried about their theory failing they wouldn't bother with creationism.

And if they weren't worried over what ID could do to their theory they wouldn't feel the need to tie it directly to creationism. ID and creationism are not interchangeable. ID can be applied to archaeology, paleontology, forensics and a whole host of other disciplines that have nothing to do with creationism. This kind of dishonest and skewed reasoning on the part of evolutionists (who try to discredit anything that threatens their theory) borders on desperation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, actually, it doesn't. Most of the code I 'write' is done either using copy/paste, or autogenerated by my IDE.

Just what I thought. You don't do any real programming from scratch. But God did. 😏

Originally posted by C Hess
A name-change, that's all it is. And I only wish we didn't have to deal with, but ID-advocates are quite immune to critical thinking and so always attempts to hammer in the same old, debunked arguments ad nauseum. I don't even understand why I'm responding anymore. Well, that's not entirely true, I do know why I respond: because if I didn't there might be som ...[text shortened]... lalala, earth young, lalalala, evolution false, lalala.

ID: The intellectual fall of mankind.

Ideally, what you would need is a one world government where all information can be controlled. The information you want to be available will be made available, and the information you want suppressed is not made available. Then, in order to have absolute control over manipulating public opinion, it might be necessary to have the entire human race genetically modified to limit their ability to think and reason for themselves. But even then there would be no guarantee that everyone will believe everything you say... there would still be a remnant you would have no control over, so it would be necessary to identify the annoying free thinkers and cleanse them from society.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So basically what you thought was evidence that falsifies evolution, turns out to be a lack of evidence for one possible scenario of biogenesis? No wonder you were so reluctant to go into it in detail.
I feel I also have to point out that in general scientists are not nearly as concerned about creationism as you seem to think. In the world of science, cr ...[text shortened]... astrology section in the local paper, but it is not taken seriously in the scientific community.

Famous atheist Anthony Flew says he became a deist because of the integrated complexity in nature, especially with the discoveries concerning DNA. Some people are willing to admit their error in believing in Darwinian evolution by following the evidence where it leads.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Ideally, what you would need is a one world government where all information can be controlled. The information you want to be available will be made available, and the information you want suppressed is not made available. Then, in order to have absolute control over manipulating public opinion, it might be necessary to have the entire human race genetic ...[text shortened]... , so it would be necessary to identify the annoying free thinkers and cleanse them from society.

Shyte, that whole post of yours is just irony supreme. Well done. (If that's what you were going for, that is.)

Originally posted by lemon lime
Saying abiogenesis has nothing to do with the study of evolution is BS, because you can bet your sweet bibby that if this evidence had been found you would have seen evolutionists waving papers in the air and proclaiming they had found evidence supporting evolution.

No, I would bet my sweet bibby (whatever that is), they would have been waving papers in the air and proclaiming they had found evidence for that particular abiogenesis hypothesis. They wave papers in the air proclaiming they've found evidence for evolution, when they find evidence for, well, evolution.

Originally posted by C Hess
No, I would bet my sweet bibby (whatever that is), they would have been waving papers in the air and proclaiming they had found evidence for that particular abiogenesis hypothesis. They wave papers in the air proclaiming they've found evidence for evolution, when they find evidence for, well, evolution.

... that particular abiogenesis hypothesis.

I'm trying to imagine an abiogenesis hypothesis that is somehow different from life spontaneously arising through strictly natural forces.

Aliens seeding the planet doesn't work, because either the aliens themselves must have evolved or a previous race of aliens seeded their planet. Go back far enough and you'll find yourself approaching the big bang event, but I doubt anyone believes life could have started or existed within the singularity (or for quite some time after expansion began).

So maybe life evolved in some other universe and then pooped its way through a black hole into our universe? No, not likely. Possibly sonhouse could shed some light on this particular scenario... because, you know, anything is possible with science.

Oh good grief, I'm already running out of ideas for an alternate abiogenesis hypothesis, and so far I've only listed two. But I'll keep on trying.

I know... the first lifeforms were silicon based and not carbon based, but those early lifeforms quickly realized a carbon based system would be far less problematic, so they took a vote and decided to switch over to being carbon based, and used the silicon for other purposes... like for instance, for sandy beaches, where the carbon based lifeforms could hang out in their skimpy bikinis and contemplate on life, and ponder the question as to where they all came from, and stuff like that.

Originally posted by C Hess
No doubt you're talking about this:

http://m.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

That was a very informative article and it answered a big question for me... now I know how such a high level of preservation is possible for hundreds (or even thousands) of years.

But we aren't talking about hundreds (or thousands) of years, are we. We are talking about a minimum of 65.5 million up to a whopping 199.6 million years ago. So how long would a proposed level of preservation have to be to get those critical thinking skills of yours to kick in? A billion years? 200 billion years? Or is your capacity for gullibility limitless?

Originally posted by lemon lime
That was a very informative article and it answered a big question for me... now I know how such a high level of preservation is possible for hundreds (or even thousands) of years.

But we aren't talking about hundreds (or thousands) of years, are we. We are talking about a minimum of 65.5 million up to a whopping 199.5 million years ago. So how long wo ...[text shortened]... ick in? A billion years? 200 billion years? Or does your capacity for gullibility know no limit?

Actually, once the tissue is sufficiently isolated from atmospheric gases, it can survive an incredibly long time - it's like a solid container for preservation. You'll note that she points out how important it is to handle the tissue correctly once it's been exposed to the atmosphere again.

Originally posted by C Hess
Actually, once the tissue is sufficiently isolated from atmospheric gases, it can survive an incredibly long time - it's like a solid container for preservation. You'll note that she points out how important it is to handle the tissue correctly once it's been exposed to the atmosphere again.

Guessing is not science. 😏

Originally posted by C Hess
Actually, once the tissue is sufficiently isolated from atmospheric gases, it can survive an incredibly long time - it's like a solid container for preservation. You'll note that she points out how important it is to handle the tissue correctly once it's been exposed to the atmosphere again.

Yes, but this also brings up a new problem to consider. The dinos must have been quickly covered over. Something like sediment from a world wide flood, that could quickly cover the bodies and not allow bacteria to work on the fleshy inner parts of the bone before the chemically preserving action could take place. Oh dear, if you solve one problem it can open the door to another one.

But just to be clear, I'm still not convinced based on that one article that some degradation and decomposition could not have taken place over the span of millions of years. The article noted how drainage of the sandy soil could wash bacteria away from the bones... in spite of this cleansing action I find it very difficult to believe that these bones never came into contact with bacteria that could have affected the tissue over a period of 65 to nearly 200 million years.