The Theory Of Creation

juvenissun said:

How could anything or any idea be "not testable"? Show me an example.

Click to expand...

Popular examples:
1. We are living in 'the matrix'

2. World was created last Wednesday and all memories and artifacts of the past are implanted.

Solipsism is a more interesting case as it can be tested by people that are not the solipsist, although it's a bit barbaric way of 'testing'.

juvenissun said:

OK, I got it now. Thanks.

Then why is ID or Creationism (are they the same?) not falsifiable?

How could anything or any idea be "not testable"? Show me an example.

Click to expand...

They are not quite the same although ID often serves as a cover for creationism.

Creationism has been falsified. Creationism is the assertion that the Genesis accounts are scientific and can be verified by scientific procedures. In fact, any scientific test of various elements of the Genesis account falsifies them as science. Humans did not appear on earth without a biological history only 6,000 years ago. All sea creatures did not appear on a single day before all land creatures. Plants did not appear before sea creatures and they did not appear all at once with fruits and seed already in the fruit.

The geological strata were not all laid down rapidly in a massive global flood.

All these things have been falsified.

Does this falsify creation or ID? No, it only falsifies the notion that the authors of Genesis were writing science.

ID for the most part accepts that Genesis is not science. It does not focus on specific statements in Genesis. In fact, it avoids the bible altogether.

It proposes strategies for detecting design in nature that has no natural cause--and therefore must come from an intelligence beyond nature.

And it has proposed a number of situations in which IDists claim design can be observed in biology.

It has not had a good record. Almost all (All?) its examples have been shown to be at best, not conclusive, and in some cases the natural evolutionary origin has been actually discoverd (blood-clotting cascade).

Furthermore, ID has not proposed any scientific method of testing out its ideas. So, without a way to test it, it is not falsifiable, and therefore not science.

We can't know it is scientifically valid until it can be tested.

Creation, defined as belief in a creator who transcends nature, also cannot be tested scientifically, for science can only test nature, not what transcends nature.

To some this is disappointing for it means we cannot verify scientifically that God exists. The flip side, is that we also cannot verify God's non-existence. Nothing in science is essentially godless--including evolution.

gluadys said:

Creation, defined as belief in a creator who transcends nature, also cannot be tested scientifically, for science can only test nature, not what transcends nature.

Click to expand...

If creation is defined as a belief, of course it could not be falsified. It is a definition.

Any better example of a non-falsifiable issue/subject/theory/etc. ?

RiemannZ said:

Popular examples:
1. We are living in 'the matrix'

Click to expand...

What is "the matrix"? Is it the idea described in the movie The Matrix? In that case, I can test the feature of death in the matrix.

2. World was created last Wednesday and all memories and artifacts of the past are implanted.

Click to expand...

I think this could be tested, even the test could be complicate and take a lot of background knowledge. I would start to ask: who did the implantation? Then I would like to test the existence of that identity.

Anything can be tested. So by definition, everything is falsifiable. So, creation is also falsifiable. Happy?

Oliver said:

The hypothesis that an entity which would be invisible, untouchable, etc... exists and has such and such properties (that noone can test). This would be an unfalsibiable hypothesis.

One such example is the invisible pink Unicorn: noone can test if it is pink, since it is (supposed to be) invisible.

Click to expand...

Pink is a visible light. Invisible to what? Dog? Lion?

Many things do not have to be tested. They are wrong by logic.

Everything can be tested, include the existence of God.

Tinker Grey said:

[pedagogical aside]

I wonder if EvC debate would proceed more smoothly if the word 'testable' was used in lieu of 'falsifiable'.

OTOH, perhaps something can be tested in various ways but lack the quality of falsifiability.

What do y'all think?

[/aside]

Click to expand...

Falsifiability is defined on testability.

The thinking is good, but made a definitional error. You may be able to make an argument by redefine the word "falsifiable".

juvenissun said:

Anything can be tested. So by definition, everything is falsifiable. So, creation is also falsifiable. Happy?

Click to expand...

There is no way in this world that you can possibly be a teacher or a research scientist in geology like you claim, juvie. You just say the most uninformed things. There's just no way. It blows my mind.

Of couse not everything can be tested. If I were to say to you that I had an inivisible, magic rock that could not be detected with any means known, you would have no way to test for its existence.

This is the most basic science philosophy.

I guess, based on this conversation, that falsifiable"really is the optimal word.

Tinker Grey said:

I guess, based on this conversation, that falsifiable"really is the optimal word.

Click to expand...

"Conversation" implies some sort of dialogue in which the participants reciprocate informed responses based on what the last person said. This isn't what's happening here.

*snort*

juvenissun said:

Pink is a visible light.

Click to expand...

Not really: pink is a color. And in the context of my post it is not "a visible light" but the property of an object.

juvenissun said:

Invisible to what?

Click to expand...

Invisible to anyone who does not really believe in Her Horny Highness. Only true believers in Her can see Her or hear the sound of Her Holy Hooves.

juvenissun said:

Everything can be tested

Click to expand...

Then explain us how you would test the existance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Mallon's magic rock.

Oliver said:

Then explain us how you would test the existance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Mallon's magic rock.

Click to expand...

"Invisible pink" is not a logical term. This is the test.

Mallon said:

Of couse not everything can be tested. If I were to say to you that I had an inivisible, magic rock that could not be detected with any means known, you would have no way to test for its existence.

Click to expand...

Of course it can be tested:

Describe to me how does the rock look like to you (suppose you can see it).

juvenissun said:

"Invisible pink" is not a logical term. This is the test.

Click to expand...

Of course it is logical: the Unicorn looks pink to the ones She chooses to appear to. At least that's what she told me in my dreams. Now tell me, how do I test if She exists of if She's just a figment of my imagination.

I think I've made my point. There's little point in continuing here.

But I will say this: If God were somehow testable through science, it would negate the need for faith. We would have no choice but to believe in Him because we would be left with no alternative. And yet the Bible clearly states that faith is fundamental to human experience (Matt 17:20, Eph 2:8, Heb 11:1-39). A proper, loving relationship with God is rooted in faith, so we must be free to either choose or reject Him. Therefore, I think juvie's position that "everything is testable" is not only wrong, but it's also unbiblical.

juvenissun said:

Pink is a visible light. Invisible to what? Dog? Lion?

Many things do not have to be tested. They are wrong by logic.

Everything can be tested, include the existence of God.

Click to expand...

How would you test for the existence of God?

Mallon said:

I think I've made my point. There's little point in continuing here.

But I will say this: If God were somehow testable through science, it would negate the need for faith. We would have no choice but to believe in Him because we would be left with no alternative. And yet the Bible clearly states that faith is fundamental to human experience (Matt 17:20, Eph 2:8, Heb 11:1-39). A proper, loving relationship with God is rooted in faith, so we must be free to either choose or reject Him. Therefore, I think juvie's position that "everything is testable" is not only wrong, but it's also unbiblical.

Click to expand...

Plus it also says "Do not put the Lord your God to the test..."

Oliver said:

Of course it is logical: the Unicorn looks pink to the ones She chooses to appear to. At least that's what she told me in my dreams. Now tell me, how do I test if She exists of if She's just a figment of my imagination.

Click to expand...

Ah, it is a dream. I could not answer this for you. Does a unicorn mean anything special to you? Does the pink color mean anything special to you? Or it is about her? There are a number of ways to test the meaning of a dream. May be you should see a psychiatrist if you are serious about it.

That is "one" way to test. There are others.

Mallon said:

I think I've made my point. There's little point in continuing here.

But I will say this: If God were somehow testable through science, it would negate the need for faith.

Click to expand...

There are many ways to test God. You may or may not get an obvious result. My point is that people said creation (or creationism) is not science because it can not be falsified. I say it is wrong. The purpose of science is to discover the truth, not to produce bunch of results that are destined to be wrong.

Melethiel said:

How would you test for the existence of God?

Click to expand...

There are many ways. One example is recorded in Judge 6:36