How can Creationism be falsified?

[AV1611VET]

How can Creationism be falsified?

It can't.

Falsifiability is an attribute of the scientific method, and the creation events that took place in Genesis 1 didn't use science.

What testable models, claims do Creationists make?

Why would Christian creationists even try?

Acts 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

 

[HitchSlap]

It can't.

Falsifiability is an attribute of the scientific method, and the creation events that took place in Genesis 1 didn't use science.Why would Christian creationists even try?

Acts 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

Sure it can; for instance creationists claim the earth is less than 10k years old. This claim is demonstrably false.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure it can; for instance creationists claim the earth is less than 10k years old. This claim is demonstrably false.

Cool.

I'll just claim my car is less than two days old.

This claim is demonstrability false.

Thus Ford Motor Company doesn't exist ... right?

Maybe you might want to read the OP again?

Creationism is more than just one or two separate claims.

If one is found false, it doesn't destroy the whole.

 

[HitchSlap]

Cool.

I'll just claim my car is less than two days old.

This claim is demonstrability false.

Thus Ford Motor Company doesn't exist ... right?

Maybe you might want to read the OP again?

Creationism is more than just one or two separate claims.

If one is found false, it doesn't destroy the whole.

But they've all been found false. Don't be so coy.

 

[AV1611VET]

But they've all been found false.

Oh, my.

Scientists must have worked overtime on that project, eh?

Falsifying things that aren't scientific in the first place?

Maybe they have too much time on their hands ... ya think?

 

[HitchSlap]

Oh, my.

Scientists must have worked overtime on that project, eh?

Falsifying things that aren't scientific in the first place?

Maybe they have too much time on their hands ... ya think?

Hardly a blip.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here's another... evolutionists have assumed that coal was formed over long periods of time

That's not part of evolutionary theory. However, observation of coal from peat to lignite, and on to anthracite coal, shows it takes a very long time in nature.

but laboratory tests have proven that coalification of wood can start to happen within a month of pressure and heat being applied to the wood.

I don't see heat being applied in nature. Peat very slowly changes to coal, even though peat is sufficiently coalified in a few years to burn.

 

[The Barbarian]

An organism early in the evolutionary model mutates successfully (even though this goes against natures observable pattern of eliminating mutations)

We have observed a lot of favorable mutations, so reality wins out over that opinion. Would you like to see some examples?

Considering the millions of times it supposedly took for the initial mutation to occur in the first place, do you think all of a sudden this newly mutated organism miraculously began reproducing successfully?

Most mutations don't affect mating. If they do, they generally don't persist.

And how did this model fare when it required two organisms to procreate to reproduce?

One with the mutation, and one without? Mendel showed that this is not a problem. If you thought about it, I think you'd realize why.

How long a time or is it statistically possible for tow identical mutations to occur so they can now produce this newly formed organism?

Not required. Do you understand why?

Seems like a fairy tale to me

In the sense that it doesn't correspond to reality. Those "problems" just don't exist.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

My apologies, the trial was not in Louisiana but in Arkansas. Refer to "McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education" (1982).

I have found and read the entire transcript of the deposition Dr. Gentry gave at that trial and I found no evidence of him , as you stated, "being found to be a liar".

Here is the link to the testimony... please enlighten us with the evidence of your claim.

Gentry Deposition

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

We have observed a lot of favorable mutations, so reality wins out over that opinion. Would you like to see some examples?

Are you going to provide specious adaptation as your examples? Not exactly mutatations necessary for the transformation from one genome to another.

Most mutations don't affect mating. If they do, they generally don't persist.

I would ask you if the mutated organism mating with one that is not, would reproduce that mutation in the subsequent generations? If not then you fall back to square one and have to wait for that same mutation to appear.

Lets be clear here, I'm not referring to specious adaptation but the kind of mutations that would cause a water living organism to change into one that can breath terrestrially, as an example.

One with the mutation, and one without? Mendel showed that this is not a problem. If you thought about it, I think you'd realize why.

Let's use examples to flesh this out. An aquatic organism mutates to enable terrestrial breathing... if this organism mated with another aquatic organism, would the offspring receive that mutation, thereby encoding it into the DNA?
The only evidence I could find of observable mutation recurring is in genetic defects that cause regression of the species... genetic defects. Affirming the 2nd law of thermal dynamics.

What mechanism, in your understanding, all of a sudden caused the inability of all the different kinds of the earth to not be able to procreate successfully. If they are but one mutation from another kind, then procreation would, at least in some instances, be possible... but this is not so.

There is zero evidence in nature or in the fossil record of one genus, family, order, class, phylum or kingdom ever mutating into another. Without this evidence, all you are left with is adaptation within a species... hardly evolution of a creative account.

 

[HitchSlap]

T. roseae.

Are you going to provide specious adaptation as your examples? Not exactly mutatations necessary for the transformation from one genome to another.





I would ask you if the mutated organism mating with one that is not, would reproduce that mutation in the subsequent generations? If not then you fall back to square one and have to wait for that same mutation to appear.

Lets be clear here, I'm not referring to specious adaptation but the kind of mutations that would cause a water living organism to change into one that can breath terrestrially, as an example.





Let's use examples to flesh this out. An aquatic organism mutates to enable terrestrial breathing... if this organism mated with another aquatic organism, would the offspring receive that mutation, thereby encoding it into the DNA?
The only evidence I could find of observable mutation recurring is in genetic defects that cause regression of the species... genetic defects. Affirming the 2nd law of thermal dynamics.

What mechanism, in your understanding, all of a sudden caused the inability of all the different kinds of the earth to not be able to procreate successfully. If they are but one mutation from another kind, then procreation would, at least in some instances, be possible... but this is not so.

There is zero evidence in nature or in the fossil record of one genus, family, order, class, phylum or kingdom ever mutating into another. Without this evidence, all you are left with is adaptation within a species... hardly evolution of a creative account.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

But they've all been found false. Don't be so coy.

Denying evidence instead of refuting it does not qualify as "all have been found false"

I recommend Robert Gentry's polonium halos in granite as one example where he has specifically asked for it to be scientifically falsified and no one has been able to since 1973.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

T. roseae.

Are you putting this forward as your "evidence"?

Lets see what Wiki has to say as a way to start this conversation...

Tiktaalik /tɪkˈtɑːlᵻk/ is a monospecific genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish) from the late Devonian period, about 375 Ma (million years) ago, having many features akin to those of tetrapods (four-legged animals).[1]

Tiktaalik has a possibility of being a representative of the evolutionary transition from fish to amphibians. It is an example from several lines of ancient sarcopterygian fish developing adaptations to the oxygen-poor shallow-water habitats of its time, environmental conditions which are thought to have led to the evolution of tetrapods.[2]

It and similar animals may possibly be the common ancestors of the broad swath of all vertebrate terrestrial fauna: amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.[3] The first well-preserved Tiktaalik fossils were found in 2004 on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada.

That's some serious conjecturous evidence you have there... care to try again?

Will archaeologists in the future find the remains of a 2 wheeled motorcycle and a 4 wheeled automobile and come to the same conclusion that obviously the car evolved from the motorcycle and adapted to it's new environment?

 

[HitchSlap]

Denying evidence instead of refuting it does not qualify as "all have been found false"

I recommend Robert Gentry's polonium halos in granite as one example where he has specifically asked for it to be scientifically falsified and no one has been able to since 1973.

Good god man, do you think this is our first rodeo.

Polonium halos - RationalWiki

 

[HitchSlap]

Are you putting this forward as your "evidence"?

Lets see what Wiki has to say as a way to start this conversation...



That's some serious conjecturous evidence you have there... care to try again?

Will archaeologists in the future find the remains of a 2 wheeled motorcycle and a 4 wheeled automobile and come to the same conclusion that obviously the car evolved from the motorcycle and adapted to it's new environment?

What are you talking about?!

T. roseae is a perfect example of a transitional, extinct species. One that Dr. Shubin used the ToE to correctly predict where he would and did find a "fishopod." Read "Inner Fish," you'll be slightly less ignorant going forward.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] are you talking about?!

T. roseae is a perfect example of a transitional, extinct species. One that Dr. Shubin used the ToE to correctly predict where he would and did find a "fishopod." Read "Inner Fish," you'll be slightly less ignorant going forward.

It is not proof of anything... they found a fossil of something that fit their idea of what a transitional organism is. Just as a car would fit someones idea of what a motorcycle would evolve into.

If that's you perfect example, I rest my case.

 

[HitchSlap]

It is not proof of anything... they found a fossil of something that fit their idea of what a transitional organism is. Just as a car would fit someones idea of what a motorcycle would evolve into.

If that's you perfect example, I rest my case.

Then you admit that Dr. Shubin used the predictive capabilities of the ToE to determine where he would successfully find a transitional "fishopod" that would have lived 375ma. Great!

Take all the rest you need to Google your next PRATT. If I have time tomorrow, maybe I'll respond.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Then you admit that Dr. Shubin used the predictive capabilities of the ToE to determine where he would successfully find a transitional "fishopod" that would have lived 375ma. Great!

Take all the rest you need to Google your next PRATT. If I have time tomorrow, maybe I'll respond.

Thank you for your benevolence... duly noted.

It still proves nothing.... if anything it's circular reasoning. I believe that X is true. I discover something new and claim it is X. Because I have now established by my ascertain that X is what I say it is, then my initial premise was true. Good thing real science doesn't operate that way.

How does anyone know that what they found wasn't just another species that died out and not related in any way to either fish or land dwellers. Is a crocodile a transitional species? They live between the land and the water...

Can I ask what determined that this fossil was a land and sea dweller in the first place? What characteristics determined it was transitional?

 

[Armoured]

 

[Jimmy D]

Not sure of your question but I'll try to slot something in to consider..

Evolution states (assumes) that the earth cooled slowly over millions of years. Yet there are polonium isotope halos captured within the bedrock of the earth, the granites, that could only be there if the granite cooled within minutes. Otherwise the off gassing of the polonium would have escaped the granite and not captured within the rock. Polonium has a very short half life....

"Evolution" states nothing of the sort.