How can Creationism be falsified?

[Speedwell]

I just LOVE this. It is so convenient for evolution not to have to prove anything and yet call it a fact. Not having to prove your theory and yet say it is a fact is having your cake and getting to eat it too. Is it because science is often wrong about something? I'm wondering if that's the reason why they don't have to prove anything. Or is it that they can't prove it so let's just say we don't have to. Then we can say whatever we want and when someone says "prove it" then we just get to say we don't have to cause it's science. Like I said, very convenient.

The only person in this conversation who is trying to confuse "fact" and "theory" is you. Evolution is a fact. Life has changed and diversified since it began. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain that fact. As for "proof," that is a property of deductive systems like logic and math (as has been pointed out). Science is an inductive system based on empirical evidence, so its conclusions are not susceptible of proof as are the deductive conclusions of math.

 

[The Barbarian]

I just LOVE this. It is so convenient for evolution not to have to prove anything and yet call it a fact.

All science is like that. Courts work like that, too. What they call "proof" is merely an inference from the evidence.

Not having to prove your theory and yet say it is a fact is having your cake and getting to eat it too.

If you think so, you know very little of science. No theory is ever proven. If you doubt this, show me a proof that protons exist. We know they do. Prove it.

Is it because science is often wrong about something?

It's because science is inductive. We can only infer the rules by watching the way things work. Hence Newton's theory of gravitation works pretty well, but he was unable to find relativistic effects that have to be considered under circumstances he would never have encountered. He wasn't wrong; his theory was incomplete.

I'm wondering if that's the reason why they don't have to prove anything.

It's like going to a certain fishing hole at a certain time of the year, knowing that fish will be biting there, if the weather is a certain way. You can't prove it, but you have enough data to be sure that you're right.

That's how science works.

Then we can say whatever we want and when someone says "prove it" then we just get to say we don't have to cause it's science.

No. If you publish a result, other scientists had better be able to reproduce those results, or you're in trouble. Such things can end careers, and have.

 

[xianghua]

Also: Evolution happens, we can observe it. That is that fact.

when you observe a creature that evolve into another creature from another family? (cat into a dog for instance). its just a belief. not a fact. even accordig to evolution we need milion of years to obseve such evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

when you observe a creature that evolve into another creature from another family? (cat into a dog for instance).

If a cat evolved into a dog, the theory of evolution would be in serious trouble. Over time, carnivores evolved and split into various families like cats and dogs. But of course, that takes a lot of time. When have you observed a seed grow into a 100 ft. redwood tree? Does that mean it doesn't happen? If you think so, we've found the problem.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

when you observe a creature that evolve into another creature from another family? (cat into a dog for instance). its just a belief. not a fact. even accordig to evolution we need milion of years to obseve such evolution.

Because that sort of evolution would falsify the theory of evolution.
I'm sorry but I really have to ask: do you actually know anything about the science you are arguing against?

 

[Skreeper]

Because that sort of evolution would falsify the theory of evolution.
I'm sorry but I really have to ask: do you actually know anything about the science you are arguing against?

I'm confident in making the claim that most creationists reject evolution because they just don't understand the science behind it.

 

[xianghua]

Because that sort of evolution would falsify the theory of evolution.

so we both agree that we cant observe evolution in action.

 

[xianghua]

When have you observed a seed grow into a 100 ft. redwood tree? Does that mean it doesn't happen? If you think so, we've found the problem.

we know it can happen because we can test the tree growth. we can see its growing every year. so its not the same case.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm confident in making the claim that most creationists reject evolution because they just don't understand the science behind it.

I don't think so. I think they reject evolution to protect their interpretation of scripture, an interpretation which they need to preserve special doctrine which is unique to their version of Christianity.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

so we both agree that we cant observe evolution in action.

... no! The scenario you proposed, of a cat producing a dog, is something that we wouldn't see and if we saw would falsify evolution.
But since we don't see that and we have both fossil and genetic evidence of evolution, then you are wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm confident in making the claim that most creationists reject evolution because they just don't understand the science behind it.

Eh, to be fair, it's more a half and half split.

 

[xianghua]

...
But since we don't see that and we have both fossil and genetic evidence of evolution, then you are wrong.

fossils cant prove evolution. neither genetics.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

fossils cant prove evolution. neither genetics.

... yes they can. By what authority can you say that they don't?

 

[Jimmy D]

so we both agree that we cant observe evolution in action.

POE?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

POE?

Or just very poor reading comprehension mixed with wishful thinking.

 

[bhsmte]

Or just very poor reading comprehension mixed with wishful thinking.

More than likely, just a strong psychological need, to manufature their own reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

the general morphology. including the skull.

When comparing species you use specific morphology of specific traits.

 

[Loudmouth]

like those ones?:

Limb design homology - creation.com

Yes. They originate from the same tissues through the same pathways, even if the steps in the pathways are shuffled.

 

[Loudmouth]

so even if all those traits created by a designer at once, you will still be able to say what is homologous and what is analogous?

The easiest test would be DNA. A designer could be an exact copy of a jellyfish gene into the mouse genome while leaving it out of the rat genome or any other mammal genome. Such a gene, with a 100% match to a jellyfish gene, would be really easy to find.

 

[Loudmouth]

what about "shared ancestry" part?

What about it? All of the evidence has demonstrated that shared features are due to common ancestry, so it is included in the definition.