How can Creationism be falsified?

[Loudmouth]

Then I'm Genghis Khan.

The Bible speaks of an expanding universe and electronic communications long before our Egyptian (worldly) scientists discovered/invented them.

Funny how no one noticed that until we had already made electronic communications and discovered the Big Bang.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Did you already forget that Newton's Law of Gravity is wrong?

Does that make gravity a lie because Newton did not understand the Law of Gravity? That seems to be your logic. If we do not understand it then it must not be true?

 

[Loudmouth]

Does that make gravity a lie because Newton did not understand the Law of Gravity?

No, it makes the man written laws of gravity a lie.

The Bible is also written by men.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Funny how no one noticed that until we had already made electronic communications and discovered the Big Bang.

Actually the Big Bang was a Kabbalah theory long before it became adapted for use by science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually the Big Bang was a Kabbalah theory long before it became adapted for use by science.

There were never any biblical scholars who claimed the Bible described an infinite universe, both in age and size?

 

[joshua 1 9]

The Bible is also written by men.

The Bible is a very exclusive club. Solomon for example wrote 1,000 books, only three of them were approved for the Bible. He is considered to be the most intelligent man that ever lived. Although he did not have the mind of Christ. No one in almost 2,000 years has written anything that can pass and be approved to qualify to be included in the books of the Bible.

 

[joshua 1 9]

There were never any biblical scholars who claimed the Bible described an infinite universe, both in age and size?

The Kabbalah is considered to be the oral tradition that goes along with the written word of God that we received through Moses. The Big Bang theory goes back at least to the time of Moses. Most likely back to Abraham and the Chaldeans. Even Job in the Bible gives us a lot of cosmetology. People like AV believe that everything goes back to Adam.

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny how no one noticed that until we had already made electronic communications and discovered the Big Bang.

Just like the book of Revelation.

Some things don't become clear until it's time.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

 

[Biologist]

The Bible is a very exclusive club. Solomon for example wrote 1,000 books, only three of them were approved for the Bible. He is considered to be the most intelligent man that ever lived. Although he did not have the mind of Christ. No one in almost 2,000 years has written anything that can pass and be approved to qualify to be included in the books of the Bible.

So is science. There are 7 million living scientists combing through 120 million volumes of literature hoping to discover even the tiniest of details all those that have come before have missed in their explanation of natural law. It's unimaginable how well the process of science works. It takes 4 months from identifying a virus in the field to the delivery of an entirely new vaccine in the field. It takes 18 months to develop new generations of computer processors, roughly doubling computing power and halving production cost. These processes work flawlessly because the moment a tiny overlooked detail is discovered thousands of scientists immediately begin researching and publishing about it. Some problems are very difficult and take a really long time to solve but every year hundreds of thousand of unique problems are solved, provably solved. Every year humanity gets faster computers and better medicine.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Every year humanity gets faster computers and better medicine.

This has not been a good year for Samsung because those faster processors need more power and the battery on the latest version of their note is catching on fire. It is nice that the battery charges faster though. I remember back when I was in college and taking a survey class we had to run our data into a computer the size of a room. Only I messed up my data and as they say garbage in garbage out. So I stood outside of the computer room and I would ask the people as they came out what their results were. They were glad to tell me because they wanted to know if their results were good or not. I knew not to duplicate anyones results so I just used an averaged number. Everyone aced our computer part of that class. Everyone turned in results that were in the acceptable range.

Science is a lot like that. Everyone has to get the same results and the results have to be in the same ball park. If someone comes up with data that is radically different then it is assumed to be wrong.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Science is a lot like that. Everyone has to get the same results and the results have to be in the same ball park. If someone comes up with data that is radically different then it is assumed to be wrong.

Actually no. Everyone doesn't have to get the same results. Using science we might think we know what results are expected (same ball park), but if somebody comes up with radically different results those results are examined to see if they really are significant or if there was a problem with the test. If they are significant then scientists will try to understand why and amend hypotheses accordingly. If there are aberrant they will be discounted. There are no assumptions being made.

Did you ever do the experiment at school where you had to toss a coin 100 times and record heads/tails? Teachers can always spot the kids who just made up results as they do not fit the expected model. And guess what? Every time they see odd results the kids admit they cheated.

 

[Biologist]

This has not been a good year for Samsung because those faster processors need more power and the battery on the latest version of their note is catching on fire. It is nice that the battery charges faster though.

That would be an engineering/software design problem. Science has known Li ion batteries have a voltage limit.

Also it's been a great year for Samsung, the stock has almost doubled in 12 months. But I suppose none of the success matters, since a single mistake by a careless engineer can make Samsung have a "bad year."

I remember back when I was in college and taking a survey class we had to run our data into a computer the size of a room. Only I messed up my data and as they say garbage in garbage out. So I stood outside of the computer room and I would ask the people as they came out what their results were. They were glad to tell me because they wanted to know if their results were good or not. I knew not to duplicate anyones results so I just used an averaged number. Everyone aced our computer part of that class. Everyone turned in results that were in the acceptable range.

Science is a lot like that. Everyone has to get the same results and the results have to be in the same ball park. If someone comes up with data that is radically different then it is assumed to be wrong.

You cheated in a freshman survey course and somehow that scales to science? On what shelf of your Alma mater's library are your results?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Here's another... 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.

Coal Formation

 

[Steve Petersen]

Here's another... 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.

"Polystrate" Tree Fossils

 

[Steve Petersen]

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.

CC200: Transitional fossils

 

[Steve Petersen]

By my count we have at least 2 creationists who have confirmed that creationism is unfalsifiable.

If it is not falsifiable, the scientific method doesn't work for creationism. Makes you wonder why creationists bother with a scientific approach to creationism at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it is not falsifiable, the scientific method doesn't work for creationism. Makes you wonder why creationists bother with a scientific approach to creationism at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Trying to argue against creationism with science is like trying to win the Daytona 500 on a snowmobile.

You wouldn't race them on their own turf, or they'll clean your clock.

 

[rjs330]

How, exactly, does saying that the accounts have two different human authors "proclaim Genesis false?"

I didn't say that stating there are two authors proclaims Genesis false. I am saying that stating that there are two different accounts is proclaiming Genesis false. Listen very closely. There are differences between Genesis 1&2. BUT the differences are NOT of the nature that show different accounts. It is not that Genesis 2 is a completely different account from 1 showing different orders of creation as such thus rendering one of the accounts non factual. The fact is Genesis 1 & 2 are actual factual accounts of what really occurred. One does not contradict the other.
Those that believe that are proclaiming that Genesis is false or innaccurate. The idea is to make Genesis an allegorical story. Fiction to make a point. It's baloney.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those that believe that are proclaiming that Genesis is false or innaccurate. The idea is to make Genesis an allegorical story. Fiction to make a point. It's baloney.

Genesis 1 is called a frame story.