a proposition to allow creationism in Science class.
- Thread starter jjdoe
- Start date
Evolutionists..
1. List all falsifiabilities here
2. List all meaningful predictions here
3. Lists all forms of testability here
4. List controls here.
Please don't bore me with the latest fruit fly/peppered moth/finch beak retread. I want specifics on Single Common Ancestor.
1. List all falsifiabilities here
2. List all meaningful predictions here
3. Lists all forms of testability here
4. List controls here.
Please don't bore me with the latest fruit fly/peppered moth/finch beak retread. I want specifics on Single Common Ancestor.
Upvote
0
Here you go bevets,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
All summed up for you already. Haven't you read this yet?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
All summed up for you already. Haven't you read this yet?
Upvote
0
bevets said:
Manic Depressive Mouse said:
My position has always been that Science is incompetent to determine Origins.
http://www.christianforums.com/t68408
Do you intend to address my original post?
notto said:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
Do you intend to address my question?
Upvote
0
bevets said:
I did. Did you read what was provided? What is its weakest argument? What is it strongest? Please be specific.
It addresses each of the things you were looking for.
Do you care to address the actual topic of this thread? Perhaps you can start a new thread to get more information on why evolution is science and why it is taught in classes. This thread is a chance for creationists (such as yourself) to show us that creationism is science and why it should be taught.
Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
- Topic A is under discussion.
- Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
- Topic A is abandoned.
Upvote
0
notto said:
bevets said:
In the interest of having a civilized debate, I took it upon myself to at least give each site a cursory overview, while keeping in mind the criteria mentioned in the OP. I started with the first one:
In "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution", each of the evidences has at least one discovery that would falsify it. However, on scanning the link from bevets, I found not one mention of a discovery that would falsify creation. If it can't be falsified, it's not science, it's philosophy.
By the way, disproving evolution won't prove special creation.
Upvote
0
jjdoe said:
A falsifiability would be showing evidence for Evolution. For instance, if we find agenuine ape-man, then we can use that in science classes
As to predictions, how about these:
Baically any evidence against ALL naturalistic theories. For either there's no supernatural or there is. Some examples are young Earth, the fossil record (are the species linked?), and do we have no vestigial organs?
Testability: God wouldn't make any mistakes, so if we have one vestigial organ, Evolution is the probable cause. Yo would also be able to use about 16 different dating methods and see if the majority of them (10 would be a fair number) say the Earth is young or old. If you want dating methods, PM me. I probably can't find my way to any discussions. :-(
Upvote
0
What we need is for Creation to be taught in schools in a religion/philosophy class. Of course, it would have to be a comparative religion class, which sets out the various creation beliefs of a wide variety of religious groups.
But, the science class, it should be mentioned that science does not make any claim to hold "all truth" and should not be viewed that way. It is simply the process by which we discover the natural world, what has happened to it and how it works. Now, it could be mentioned that some hold that naturalism DOES explain all truth, but that this is a philosophical, not a scientific, conclusion. In fact, that naturalism would have to be taught along with the other philosophical/religious creation beliefs.
But only actual science should be taught in the science classroom. Nothing more, but not treating science as if it is anything more, either.
But, the science class, it should be mentioned that science does not make any claim to hold "all truth" and should not be viewed that way. It is simply the process by which we discover the natural world, what has happened to it and how it works. Now, it could be mentioned that some hold that naturalism DOES explain all truth, but that this is a philosophical, not a scientific, conclusion. In fact, that naturalism would have to be taught along with the other philosophical/religious creation beliefs.
But only actual science should be taught in the science classroom. Nothing more, but not treating science as if it is anything more, either.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Novaknight1 said:
Why do humans have tails? That's a major mistake right there. Some creationists account this to genetic mutations. However, genetic mutations do not account for this because humans tails are generally absorbed back in the developing human fetus. Either God really messed up giving and taking away fully functioning human tails, or God used evolution, or evolution is just true.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2
Plus, w/o any testability creationism falls flat
Upvote
0
Similar threads
