SplitRock said it on a different thread but I'd like to start a new discussion on it.
All good scientific theory is falsifiable. For everything there is a hypothetical situation that would necessitate that scientists re-think or throw away the entire concept. A planet sized chunk of rock coming within a few thousand meters from earth without affecting it's orbit, or tides, would falsify the theory of gravity. J.B.S Haldane once famously said that rabbit fossils found in the Precambrian would falsify evolution.
This necessity for a hypothetical falsification is to keep worthless ideas out of science. Example, do I perceive in my mind colors differently from how you perceive them? If I were to look into your head, would your perception of the world be the same as mine, or would you see colors differently. There is no way to know because from childhood we are taught, "this is red" and "this is light" regardless of how we perceive it in our own mind. But this is a worthless concept because there is no way to disprove it. There is no way that one could actually tell whether or not someone models the world differently from you, so there is no point looking into it. The same can be said for the invisible pink unicorn or russels teapot, you cant disprove it exists, there is no conceivable way you could, and therefore the concept is useless in practical application.
So what about creationism is falsifiable? AV himself said that even if a complete fossil history of evolution beginning with protocells and ending with humans were to come up, he would still deny it on principle. So please tell us, what evidence could ever, hypothetically, no matter how fantastical (remember planet sized rocks a few thousand meters from earth), could possibly disprove creationism, because without that, for practical purposes we are required to regard it as worthless.
All good scientific theory is falsifiable. For everything there is a hypothetical situation that would necessitate that scientists re-think or throw away the entire concept. A planet sized chunk of rock coming within a few thousand meters from earth without affecting it's orbit, or tides, would falsify the theory of gravity. J.B.S Haldane once famously said that rabbit fossils found in the Precambrian would falsify evolution.
This necessity for a hypothetical falsification is to keep worthless ideas out of science. Example, do I perceive in my mind colors differently from how you perceive them? If I were to look into your head, would your perception of the world be the same as mine, or would you see colors differently. There is no way to know because from childhood we are taught, "this is red" and "this is light" regardless of how we perceive it in our own mind. But this is a worthless concept because there is no way to disprove it. There is no way that one could actually tell whether or not someone models the world differently from you, so there is no point looking into it. The same can be said for the invisible pink unicorn or russels teapot, you cant disprove it exists, there is no conceivable way you could, and therefore the concept is useless in practical application.
So what about creationism is falsifiable? AV himself said that even if a complete fossil history of evolution beginning with protocells and ending with humans were to come up, he would still deny it on principle. So please tell us, what evidence could ever, hypothetically, no matter how fantastical (remember planet sized rocks a few thousand meters from earth), could possibly disprove creationism, because without that, for practical purposes we are required to regard it as worthless.
