How can Creationism be falsified?

[AV1611VET]

Creationism can't be falsified because it makes no predictions. When its claims are refuted, it falls back on the Godidit fallacy.

"Godidit" is a fallacy!?

Does that include the Resurrection as well?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

"Godidit" is a fallacy!?

Does that include the Resurrection as well?

I think it's against forum rules to provide an honest answer to that, isn't it?

 

[Queller]

Maybe not to you but geologists would disagree...

Do you actually think evolution and geology are the same thing?

 

[Queller]

Tailor the comment to the audience.

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.

Why did he create a planet full of history that never happened?

 

[Queller]

I just want to throw this out there. When uranium from Oklo, Gabon was set to be processed as nuclear fuel they noticed the ratio of isotopes was a bit off. That led them back to the source and analysis of the site showed that 1.8 billion years ago it has become a natural nuclear reactor and why the isotope ratios were different from what was expected.

I would love to see a Creationist explanation for this.
The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor

Come on. Don't you know that physical forces worked differently in the past? Light traveled millions of times faster and isotopes decayed at rates significantly different than they do today.





/sarcasm

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you actually think evolution and geology are the same thing?

Yes.

 

[Queller]

The biggest thing is to let Scripture interpret Scripture. In other words if you have difficulty understanding one particular passage find all the other passages on that subject that you can and it will mostly likely help. A good topical Bible is gold when it comes to that sort of thing.

How does Scripture interpret the the three different accounts of Jesus healing the blind near Jericho?

 

[AV1611VET]

How does Scripture interpret the the three different accounts of Jesus healing the blind near Jericho?

The say way It interprets the four different sayings placed on the Cross at Jesus' crucifixion.

You put all four of them together and make one saying.

 

[The Barbarian]

Newton's theory of gravitation is wrong in the sense that it doesn't account for relativistic effects. It's still a usable theory in most ways, and it can be corrected by adding relativity to analysis.

It's just that we rarely see speeds that would cause us to notice.

 

[KWCrazy]

Why did he create a planet full of history that never happened?

You're the one presuming it took billions of years and there was no flood. The Bible says that the world was essentially destroyed and rebuilt. It was designed to that all the resources we need could be found including energy sources not known to man at the time of Christ. This required placing pockets of oil , gas and coal where they may be found.

 

[AV1611VET]

This required placing pockets of oil , gas and coal where they may be found.

You're not going to get them to believe that though.

The only time they'll even come close to believing it is when they can accuse God of being deceptive, since oil is aged vegetation.

They'll even claim that creating raisin bread in an instant of time would be deception, since raisins are aged grapes.

 

[John 1720]

In sworn testimony before a court in Louisiana, he had to admit that he had falsified evidence. By the way in these forums I have seen all sorts of people, Christians or not, called liars.

A transcript of the trial is maintained here for all to view. You can scroll down to see Robert V. Gentry's entire testimony.

• McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project

This may make it a bit easier:

• Gentry Deposition

I didn't see where he admitted to falsifying data though.

Proven Liar
I don't make the rules here and I make no determination or judgment as to what is an infractions or not but, that said, I did agree to abide by the standards.
I noticed that under the term "flaming and goading" it stated.

Flaming and Goading

● Do not maliciously ridicule members or non-members, or groups of members or non-members. Constructive criticism is allowed, but abusive or inflammatory criticism is not allowed.​

Would I be guessing wrong in stating 'proven liar' might possibly be construed as an ad hominem attack on someone's character and person? Furthermore, might that be constituted as an abusive or inflammatory criticism? I'm not totally sure but believe we need to live in harmony with the standard and not just go by what others say and do. I'm sure policing the CF forum is no easy job. Things get by us but that doesn't change the standard.

I'm also not sure just saying that others do it all the time is a valid excuse to follow suit either.

• (i.e. If we witness a riot involving abuse and property damage that does not give us license to participate.)

Back in the 1st week of February we saw a proponent of human induced Climate change, a well known and respected scientist, claim that ocean temperature data for the last decade was not properly vetted (reports that it had been either falsified or collected by selective means in order to misconstrue the evidence were made). I believe that Congress has taken up the issue for investigation, as it should because it investment to curb climate change can cost billions. Now I'm not convinced one way or the other yet but believe we should wait until the facts are in before we declare someone lied, was negligent, or decide that the claimant was in error.

I not sure if we should label anyone a "proven liar" if they ever told a lie. The connotation is to close to pathological liar. Many of us, would wear that label if the standard was met just by telling a single lie.

• Mom: "Bobby did you eat the Girl scout cookies I just bought"?
• Bobby with chocolate all over his face and hands: "I dunno ma." - lie. #1
• Mom: "Are you lying to me Bobby."
• Bobby: "I would never lie to you mom." lie number #2

Conclusion:
Bobby is a "proven liar". Well maybe in the strictest sense that is true. However, if "proven liar" Bobby later becomes a nuclear research scientist with proven integrity shouldn't dismiss every claim he makes as being an intentional lie. That would be a hypocritical standard.

Of course I still don't see that RGV ever admitted to any falsification of his data in the transcript. Maybe you can find it there. I seem to find the complete opposite - (i.e. that he desired it to be validated and that he believed his data had debunked the former viewpoint. Science debunks science all the time - its historic. Science does require multiple validation to be accurate, we accept that and so did RGV

• Q. Okay. Do you also regard someone who looks at the geochronological evidence and draws the conclusion that the one singularity model is supported as having as valid a scientific base for his view as you have for yours?
• A. No. In my opinion, I have found evidence which falsifies the conventional viewpoint, until my evidence is shown to be demonstrably incorrect. -RGV

Regards, Pat

 

[KWCrazy]

You're not going to get them to believe that though.

I'm not trying to. Atheists are closed minded regarding the creation. They have this crazy idea that the physical world is all that exists and after death, dirt. Posting to them about religious matters is a waste of time. I post for the Christians who are bombarded with this evolution nonsense constantly; that they would have another voice of support reminding them that the word of God is true and the theories of man fall short.

 

[Loudmouth]

The idea of Newton's law is precisely the problem with science on this subject. Man's understanding is so limited. What we understand one day is tipped o its head the next. Only God's word is true. Let God be true and every man a.liar.

Man's understanding was even more limited when men wrote Genesis over 2,000 years ago. You delegitimize your own argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

So basically, those that believe in the evolution theory of an old age of the earth are correcting God in what He instructed mankind for a few thousand years.

Men wrote Genesis. Men interpret Genesis. It would seem to me that reality is correcting men's perceptions.

Do you believe God has to apologize to all those He deceived into thinking what He said, He meant?

Men said it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not trying to. Atheists are closed minded regarding the creation. They have this crazy idea that the physical world is all that exists and after death, dirt. Posting to them about religious matters is a waste of time. I post for the Christians who are bombarded with this evolution nonsense constantly; that they would have another voice of support reminding them that the word of God is true and the theories of man fall short.

We are open to evidence. Have any?

 

[Loudmouth]

You are correct my friend. Well said. Don't buy the, only scholars can know what the Bible really means, nonsense. I have a degree in Biblical Literature and have spent my whole life studying Scripture using Greek and Hebrew. I've discovered that while it helps to understand Scripture it is Not absolutely necessary to have that knowledge. Our translations are quite good and knowing Greek and Hebrew is an add on that helps but is not necessary.

The biggest thing is to let Scripture interpret Scripture. In other words if you have difficulty understanding one particular passage find all the other passages on that subject that you can and it will mostly likely help. A good topical Bible is gold when it comes to that sort of thing.

I find a map that has a 5 mile high mountain in the middle of Kansa.

I drive to Kansas and see that the entire state is flat.

Which is wrong? The map or the actual state of Kansas?

 

[AV1611VET]

Man's understanding was even more limited when men wrote Genesis over 2,000 years ago.

Interesting word choice.

None of my business, but did you feel compelled to [redundantly] point out 'when men wrote Genesis,' as compared to just saying, "... when Genesis was written"?

Or maybe you realize deep down that God wrote Genesis, and you're trying to convince yourself otherwise ... not rjs?

 

[JackRT]

I find a map that has a 5 mile high mountain in the middle of Kansa.

I drive to Kansas and see that the entire state is flat.

Which is wrong? The map or the actual state of Kansas?

The mountain was miraculously moved to Saskatchewan.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find a map that has a 5 mile high mountain in the middle of Kansa.

Was this map drawn by the same infrastructure organization that gives us seven different theories as to how we got our moon, Thalidomide was a pre-natal wonder drug, and Pluto was our ninth planet?