Unrefuted creationist arguments

That one is unfalsifiable by science. But not unfalsifiable by theology. And it is Christian theology that falsifies that one.

Look at the website!!! I am not talking about Miller-Urey anymore. I am talking about getting living cells from non-living chemicals.

The data indicate that the primitive earth had very limited oxygen -- approximately 0.1% or so. Miller conducted other experiments where the atmosphere did have oxygen and was not reducing. The results were the same. I'll have to find the articles but the last issue of Reports of the NCSE had articles on this. You might be able to find the issue at www.ncseweb.org


That article was talking about Miller-Urey. I'm not doing that. Please go to the websites I posted. Protocells were formed in today's atmosphere and today's ocean!

Umm...I don't think anything is falsifiable by theology.

Actually, I'll amend that, because I'm really curious. How could any proposition be falsified by theology? Theology, unlike science, is a belief system. In science, you can say (for example) "the fact that masses tend to attract one another falsified that claim." But in theology, the best you could do would be (again, for example) "the christian belief that jesus rose on the third day falsifies that claim" - but christian beliefs are just that - beliefs, not demonstrated facts. If the theology is all that's falsifying it, then "but I don't believe in that particular belief" "unfalsifies" it - doesn't it? Or am I missing the point?

Actually theology is more of a subset of philosophy then anything. So it can deductively proove and disproove certain things. Sure sometimes (but not always) the premises are not as easy to accept (such as the Bible being inspired), so in those cases, yes, any conclusions made don't disprove anything, but if you hold the premises, the proof will follow.

That may seem like a pretty major limitation until you realize that science cannot proove anything either, simply because inductive reasoning can never lead to a conclusive proof. If we witness a phenomena a million times and it goes one way, it could always go another way on the million and first time. Unlikely, yes, but there's no way to proove that it won't happen. So you are holding an unverifiable premise here too: that inductive evidence is realible.

The point? I'm not saying that science is worthless. Rather I am saying that almost always when we use the word proof we mean proof when certain premises are held. Another way of looking at it is that the argument is valid, but we cannot be sure about the premises. It's more obvious when dealing with theology, since that often uses standard argumentative forms, but it is true throughout human experiences. Really, it's impossible to proove anything in the sense of knowing undeniably that a certain statement is conistent with reality (unless I'm missing something. It'd be foolish to say that I've absolutely prooved anything here. It'd kind of defeat the entire purpose of the spiel.)