Falsifiability

[TBDude65]

If an idea is not falsifiable, then it cannot be proven to be factual.

Evolution is falsifiable, but has not been falsified. Genetics could have falsified evolution, but did not, further supporting it instead. The fossil record could have falsified evolution, but does not, further supporting it as well.

What is falsifiable about creation that has not been falsified?

 

[AV1611VET]

If an idea is not falsifiable, then it cannot be proven to be factual.

Don't you mean scientific?

What is falsifiable about creation that has not been falsified?

Nothing ... creation isn't scientific.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't you mean scientific?Nothing ... creation isn't scientific.

In other words it is in the lowly world of "not even wrong".

 

[USincognito]

I'd just note that "proof" is not part of scientific parlance.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Don't you mean scientific?Nothing ... creation isn't scientific.

Choice is the mechanism of creation. In principle you can just establish as fact that a choice is made.

For people we use our own experience to establish what is chosen.

For the rest of nature, I guess usually we look for variation in results from same starting conditions to establish something is free.

In science some quantum interpretations, and some information theory interpretations establish freedom as a reality of physics.

To find any evidence of choices made long ago in the universe would probably be a highly interpretative pursuit, doubtful it could be directly measured.

 

[xianghua]

What is falsifiable about creation that has not been falsified?

a cat evolving wings will falsify creationism. and yet we never seen such a thing.

 

[Larniavc]

a cat evolving wings will falsify creationism. and yet we never seen such a thing.

No it wouldn’t. An all powerful creator could easily do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

a cat evolving wings will falsify creationism. and yet we never seen such a thing.

You have that backwards. Creationism has no model so that observation would not negate it. Creationism is in the useless realm of "Not even wrong". Now if you mean wings in addition to its four legs that would likely disprove evolution.

 

[pitabread]

a cat evolving wings will falsify creationism. and yet we never seen such a thing.

Creationism is an unfalsifiable proposition based on the supernatural. Nothing can explicitly falsify it, since there are no bounds on the supernatural.

That's also why creationism can never be science. It can explain anything and everything via miracles.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's also why creationism can never be science. It can explain anything and everything via miracles.

Neat-o, huh?

 

[pitabread]

Neat-o, huh?

Not really. It's kinda useless in that respect. :/

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really. It's kinda useless in that respect. :/

Useless as far as not being able to use any of the information supplied to build a better mousetrap?

 

[pitabread]

Useless as far as not being able to use any of the information supplied to build a better mousetrap?

Creationism doesn't supply any information; that's the problem.

 

[xianghua]

Creationism is an unfalsifiable

as evolution.

 

[pitabread]

as evolution.

Incorrect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

as evolution.

This only confirms an almost total ignorance of the science that you are trying to refute. That makes it a rather daunting project for you.

 

[TBDude65]

I'd just note that "proof" is not part of scientific parlance.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

I mean proof in so much as something can be confirmed to be fact (like evolution, gravity, etc)

 

[TBDude65]

a cat evolving wings will falsify creationism. and yet we never seen such a thing.

How would a "cat evolving wings" falsify creationism? What is predicted (through creationism) that would predict anything related to a cat evolving wings?

 

[USincognito]

I mean proof in so much as something can be confirmed to be fact (like evolution, gravity, etc)

You're using proof in a colloquial sense. Go ahead and read that link I provided. Proof is only found in math and logic (and liquor). Because all scientific propositions must potentially be falsifiable with new data none of them, from hypotheses to theories, are ever considered proven.

 

[TBDude65]

You're using proof in a colloquial sense. Go ahead and read that link I provided. Proof is only found in math and logic (and liquor). Because all scientific propositions must potentially be falsifiable with new data none of them, from hypotheses to theories, are ever considered proven.

I understand what you're saying. We're not writing a thesis so I'm okay with using "proof" in a colloquial sense (I have a few research degrees under my belt, so I've had that part of the argument handed to me numerous times via a few seasoned scientists)