How can Creationism be falsified?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
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?

There are no "specious adaptations." They are either adaptive or they aren't. However, you should be careful not to confuse adaptations that involve a new mutation, with those that do not.

Let's begin with bacteria, which over a period of time, evolved new enzyme systems.

Bacteria incidentally exposed to these insecticides have evolved mechanisms to degrade them so that they can use them as sources of nutrients to increase their rates of reproduction and proliferation. Within a few decades, entirely new catabolic pathways dedicated to insecticide mineralization have emerged. For example, at least three distinct metabolic routes have developed specifically for the catabolism of the insecticidal carbamate carbofuran (e.g. Behki and Topp 1993; Chaudhry et al. 2002; Yan et al. 2007). Many bacterial enzymes and pathways have been extensively characterized at the molecular level (Ellis et al. 2001; Scott et al. 2008; Gao et al. 2010), although it is very likely that we are just beginning to understand the extent of this catabolic diversity.
The evolution of new enzyme function: lessons from xenobiotic metabolizing bacteria versus insecticide-resistant insects

The insecticides did not exist prior to their development, so we know these bacteria evolved the new systems to take advantage of them.

Not exactly mutatations necessary for the transformation from one genome to another.

All mutations change genomes. That's what the word means. I thought you knew.

 

[KWCrazy]

You've only to read the two different creation accounts in G1/2.

How many times does it have to be explained to you that there are not two creation accounts before you stop repeating this falsehood?

 

[The Barbarian]

It is not proof of anything... they found a fossil of something that fit their idea of what a transitional organism is.

No, that's wrong. It fit the prediction that was made as to what a transitional form between fish and tetrapods would look like.

That's powerful evidence for a theory; theories that make accurate predictions are considered to be validated. However, there's an even more powerful result of these predictions; we never see a transitional form where there shouldn't be one.

No feathered mammals, no crabs with bones, etc. That is even more devastating to creationism than the existence of numerous transitional forms. As you might know, honest creationists have admitted the existince of these many transitionals, and have tried to explain them in a rational way.

Kurt Wise, in Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms very forthrightly admits their existence and expresses faith that there will be an adequate creationist explanation at some point.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Others simply pretend that they don't exist. The former approach is favored by God. Honesty counts.

 

[The Barbarian]

How many times does it have to be explained to you that there are not two creation accounts before you stop repeating this falsehood?

There are two accounts, although they only conflict if you try to force them into a literal history. Just two different approaches to the same thing, in figurative language.

 

[KWCrazy]

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.

News flash! An alternative explanation of a possible cause does not constitute a refutation, only a different opinion.

 

[Skreeper]

News flash! An alternative explanation of a possible cause does not constitute a refutation, only a different opinion.

Sure if you allow the possibility that God created this appearance of age, but that makes Gentry's argument unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

 

[KWCrazy]

There are two accounts, although they only conflict if you try to force them into a literal history. Just two different approaches to the same thing, in figurative language.

Try actually reading them.
Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. How does something become a creation account when it starts by saying the creation was complete? It doesn't. Genesis 2 deals with the creation of man which happened on day 6. It interacts with other things which had happened, such as: Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. This happened before man was created. "Of the field" means things that man would eat; like potatoes, corn, beans, or whatever the food source was at that time.

When someone claims there are two conflicting creation stories, we know they haven't read the Bible and don't know what they're talking about.

 

[KWCrazy]

Sure if you allow the possibility that God created this appearance of age, but that makes Gentry's argument unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

Evolution is unfalsifiable pseudoscience.
So there.

Actually, God created a mature planet, ready to support life. Why would He do otherwise? His intent was not to watch a world grow, but to create and have a relationship with man.

 

[Skreeper]

Evolution is unfalsifiable pseudoscience.
So there.

Actually, God created a mature planet, ready to support life. Why would He do otherwise? His intent was not to watch a world grow, but to create and have a relationship with man.

In matters on science I rely on actual scientists who know what they are talking about. Based on your posts I doubt you have ever attended a biology class.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are two accounts, although they only conflict if you try to force them into a literal history. Just two different approaches to the same thing, in figurative language.

Either that, or it's a frame story.

 

[The Barbarian]

I would ask you if the mutated organism mating with one that is not, would reproduce that mutation in the subsequent generations?

Yep. This was a question that vexed Darwin, because at the time it was thought that inheritance was like mixing paint. Mendel showed that it was more like sorting beads, and so new mutations would not be swamped by reproduction like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint. It doesn't work the way you seem to think it does.

It was the re-discovery of Mendel's work that made Darwin's theory successful.

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.

That wasn't the big step in the evolution of land animals. Fish were breathing air long before any of them stepped out on land. And they were walking about on the bottom of ponds long before their legs were capable of supporting their bodies out of water.

Would you like to learn about that?

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?

Yep. At least 50% of the offspring would have the mutation. Would you like me to show you why?

The only evidence I could find of observable mutation recurring is in genetic defects that cause regression of the species... genetic defects.

See above. Would you like to see some favorable mutations for humans?

Affirming the 2nd law of thermal dynamics.

Show me any process, required for evolution that violates the 2nd Law. Show your numbers.

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.

Reproductive isolation generally isn't sudden. It occurs gradually, in isolated populations of the same species. Leopard frogs, colonizing the northern US and Canada, after the ice age, are currently on the way to forming a separate species. Would you like to learn about that, and why it's very likely that they will become entirely reproductively isolated in the near future?

There is zero evidence in nature or in the fossil record of one genus, family, order, class, phylum or kingdom ever mutating into another.

The Institute for Creation Research disagrees with you. Without the evolution of new species, genera, and families, the Ark story cannot be literally true. Rock and a hard place.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution is unfalsifiable pseudoscience.
So there.

I'm afraid that such playground comments aren't going to have much of an impact.

Actually, God created a mature planet, ready to support life. Why would He do otherwise?

You're not getting it.
If God created the planet "fully formed" and "ready to support life" some 6000 years ago, then we would expect to see the atomic decay rates of a 6000 year period.
We would also not expect ice cores to exhibit +600.000 winter/summer cycles.

None of these things are necessary for the earth to be able to support human life.

So... either the story is wrong, or God went out of his way to make it look as if the story is wrong.

His intent was not to watch a world grow, but to create and have a relationship with man.

Lucky us...

 

[KWCrazy]

In matters on science I rely on actual scientists who know what they are talking about. Based on your posts I doubt you have ever attended a biology class.

I'm not impressed with the level of understanding you've displayed, so you opinion is given its proper (dis)regard.
There is no scientific explanation for the origination of anything.
The creation came about as a supernatural event directed by the Lord God.
Nothing in science can disprove that. Science doesn't study the supernatural.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no scientific explanation for the origination of anything.
The creation came about as a supernatural event directed by the Lord God.

Classic god of the gaps.

Nothing in science can disprove that.

Classic shifting of the burden of proof.

Science doesn't study the supernatural.

Because it is indistinguishable from the non-existant.

 

[KWCrazy]

I'm afraid that such playground comments aren't going to have much of an impact.

Tailor the comment to the audience.

If God created the planet "fully formed" and "ready to support life" some 6000 years ago, then we would expect to see the atomic decay rates of a 6000 year period.

Why?
Step back and examine the bigger picture. God doesn't want us to prove He exists. He wants us to come to him through faith. The Bible states that He is in secret.
He envisioned a mature planet and created it. Yes, many will be deceived and reject the notion the He exists. I think, as AV predicted, that even more evidence will come out showing that the universe has an eternal existence. The Bible predicts a great falling away.
Faith is a difficult thing. It was never meant to be easy.
The ones who can keep their faith when all the world is against them will be rewarded. The ones who follow the world will be destroyed.

It's really just that simple. If you saw a ghost you would believe in ghosts. If you saw an angel you would believe in angels and if you saw a demon you would believe in Hell. These things you will never see until your mind is capable of seeing them.

 

[Skreeper]

There is no scientific explanation for the origination of anything.

So you can just make stuff up? How about we start with the evidence and not with the conclusion?

The creation came about as a supernatural event directed by the Lord God.

You calling it creation is smuggling in the very thing you are trying to prove. Also where exactly is the evidence for that?

Nothing in science can disprove that.

We already know that your position is unfalsifiable. We don't have to prove your Woo wrong. You have to present evidence for your claim.

Science doesn't study the supernatural.

Correct, we currently have no method to confirm supernatural causation. And yet you still claim that it exists and is responsible for certain events.

 

[KWCrazy]

Classic god of the gaps.

There are no gaps.

Classic shifting of the burden of proof.

It's a statement of fact.
Science cannot account for origination, therefore origination occurred outside of man's understanding.
The thing is, if God can create the world, then God can destroy it as well. he can, and He will.

Because it is indistinguishable from the non-existant.

To you, maybe. Not to the millions of people who have had encounters with the supernatural.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why?

For the same reason that you start counting at 1 and not at 327.

Step back and examine the bigger picture. God doesn't want us to prove He exists

That much is obvious. In fact, the opposite seems true... he goes out of his way to make the facts of reality not align with his deeds.

He wants us to come to him through faith.

It's even worse, apparantly. He wants us to come to him, against better judgement. Not just through faith.

He envisioned a mature planet and created it.

I've already explained to you that "mature" planet in this case doesn't properly represent it. It's "mature" in the sense that it can sustain life and didn't go through the process of "maturing". But precisely because it supposedly didn't go through the process of maturing, why would we expect to see evidence of that process?

Atomic decay is a measure of aging.
A thing that is created "mature" / "fully grown" would merely be fully grown. It would not exhibit marks of aging.

The ones who can keep their faith when all the world is against them will be rewarded. The ones who follow the world will be destroyed.

So essentially, rationality will be punished and gullibility rewarded. Awesome.

If you saw a ghost you would believe in ghosts. If you saw an angel you would believe in angels and if you saw a demon you would believe in Hell. These things you will never see until your mind is capable of seeing them.

or until I'm hallucinating.

 

[AV1611VET]

Correct, we currently have no method to confirm supernatural causation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are no gaps.

ps: even if you stuff the gaps with your god, the gaps still remain, no matter what you think.

It's a statement of fact.
Science cannot account for origination, therefore origination occurred outside of man's understanding.

There was a time when science couldn't account for lightning, thunder, tides, sunset, eclipses, falling stars, the moon, species, desease,...

The thing is, if God can create the world, then God can destroy it as well. he can, and He will.

To you, maybe.

And to science. Which is why it can't be studied.
It's kind of hard to study those things which are indistinguishable from the non-existant.

Not to the millions of people who have had encounters with the supernatural.

Or with aliens! Don't forget the aliens!