How can Creationism be falsified?

[Jimmy D]

evolutionists have assumed that coal was formed over long periods of time 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.

"Evolutionists" assume nothing of the sort.

 

[Jimmy D]

Petrified trees have been found projecting upright through multiple layers of strata, supposedly representing millions of years of sediment deposits. Impossible for these trees to have survived that long to be slowly covered over.

How does this falsify Creationism?

 

[Jimmy D]

Consider this little scenario....

An organism early in the evolutionary model mutates successfully (even though this goes against natures observable pattern of eliminating mutations) after thousands or even millions of reproduction cycles over a long stretch of time. This mutated "new" organism then has to reproduce itself with this new mutated coding in it's DNA. 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? And how did this model fare when it required two organisms to procreate to reproduce? How long a time or is it statistically possible for tow identical mutations to occur so they can now produce this newly formed organism? Then consider that this seemingly impossible feat had to be repeated again and again for each mutation to evolve into something completely different to the point that you have millions of different genomes and families of animals, plants and minerals today.

Seems like a fairy tale to me, but I'm more practically minded than some....

How does this falsify creationism?

 

[Jimmy D]

How about the commonly held belief that the arctic cap ice is millions of years old based on the layering of the ice and being able to counts the "rings" to determine age.

Sounded good until a WWII squadron of 8 planes was left on a glacier in Greenland and when discovered 70 years later, was buried under 270 feet of ice.

Instead of repeating Creationist PRATTS why not discuss the topic of the thread?

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

If, against all the odds, you manage to show how the reams of empirical evidence observed and measured in the fields of biology, geology, astronomy etc etc is completely wrong you will have done nothing to establish the viability of creationism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How can Creationism be falsified?

What testable models, claims do Creationists make?

Funny. And incredibly optimistic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe this one?

Petrified trees have been found projecting upright through multiple layers of strata, supposedly representing millions of years of sediment deposits. Impossible for these trees to have survived that long to be slowly covered over.

"Impossible"..

Only if you refuse to inform yourself on how such fossils form

"Polystrate" Tree Fossils

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So far we've had 2 lines of thought:

1. EastCoastRemnant ignores the topic and spouts drivel and PRATTs about a whole pile of different scientific areas incorrectly claiming they are all "Evolution". Not a single mention of creationism.
2. AV claiming that creationism can't be falsified because it's beyond the realms of science.

I'll forgive AV as we all know that's his thing.

I think we can safely conclude - and I know this will come as a major surprise to some - that nobody here is prepared to defend creationism against science.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think we can safely conclude - and I know this will come as a major surprise to some - that nobody here is prepared to defend creationism against science.

Not without being forgiven ... right?

 

[Skreeper]

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.

You do know that this stuff is not news to scientists right? It has been refuted countless times yet creationists still continue to use it.

Let me just open the index to creationists claims and see if I can find it: An Index to Creationist Claims

Jackpot: Its claim number CF201.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

"Evolution" states nothing of the sort.

Maybe not to you but geologists would disagree...

 

[Armoured]

Maybe not to you but geologists would disagree...

Cite or retract.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How can Creationism be falsified?

What testable models, claims do Creationists make?

Science and the Bible go hand in hand. You need science to verify the Bible and you need the Bible to verify science. The Bible is a written history book that began when recorded history began. Usually in school you have a science class, a ancient history class and a Bible Study Class. These three classes do not conflict in anyway with each other. They agree and compliment each other.

 

[Armoured]

Science and the Bible go hand in hand. You need science to verify the Bible and you need the Bible to verify science. The Bible is a written history book that began when recorded history began. Usually in school you have a science class, a ancient history class and a Bible Study Class. These three classes do not conflict in anyway with each other. They agree and compliment each other.

Yes. Well known fact that Hindus can't science because they don't use the Bible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe not to you but geologists would disagree...

No, geology doesn't agree to that either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Usually in school you have a science class, a ancient history class and a Bible Study Class

In christian schools, perhaps.
In islamic schools, you'll get a Quranic studies class.
And in secular public schools, you'll get neither.

These three classes do not conflict in anyway with each other

Only in the minds of those who already believe it.
Depending on how they view their religious scripture, off course.

In case of mainstream catholics, who have no problems with mainsream science, i'll agree.

In case of YEC's - no, not so much

 

[Jimmy D]

Maybe not to you but geologists would disagree...

I doubt it, but my point was that the Theory of evolution does not state "that the earth cooled slowly over millions of years". The Theory of evolution pertains to the development and diversity of life on Earth.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Only in the minds of those who already believe it.

Show me the conflict between science and the Bible. You are right in that if you find a conflict it is only in your mind, not in the real world.

 

[Jimmy D]

Show me the conflict between science and the Bible. You are right in that if you find a conflict it is only in your mind, not in the real world.

So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Show me the conflict between science and the Bible. You are right in that if you find a conflict it is only in your mind, not in the real world.

Homo Sapiens didn't start out with 2 people.
No genetic bottlenecks in extant species = no biblical flood

As I said, it also kind of depends how you view the biblical stories.

If you consider the Adam and Eve bit literally, then evolution conflicts with the bible.
If you consider the Noah flooding bit literally, then genetics (and geology, physics, climatology, etc etc) conflicts with the bible.


To name just 2 examples.