How can Creationism be falsified?

[USincognito]

the skull for instance.

@The Barbarian XH is referring to thylacines and dogs/wolves. They are wrong because they're going by superficial appearance.
Posts during March 2014 for LeonardosHeir

 

[USincognito]

true. if so its just a belief.

Wrong. A scientific theory is not the same as a belief. I realize English is not your native tongue, but you equivocate like some of the most masterfully dishonest Creationists I've ever encountered.

Its not something that we can prove.

Nothing is ever proven in science and the fact that you, and others, continue use "prove", "proof", "proven", etc. in a scientific context tells us you don't know as much about the subject as you think you do.
------------------------------------------
No such thing as scientific proof.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Dr. Jay Wile, Creationist
Science Can’t Prove Anything – Proslogion
After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?

Of course it hasn’t. In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.

Dr. Douglas Theobald, not a Creationist
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method
What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.

 

[pitabread]

My favorite falsification of YECism specifically is the existence of Egypt. Per YECist timelines, the Flood would have taken place during Egypt's 6th Dynasty. Yet the Egyptians apparently failed to notice their entire civilization was underwater...

 

[The Barbarian]

My favorite falsification of YECism specifically is the existence of Egypt. Per YECist timelines, the Flood would have taken place during Egypt's 6th Dynasty. Yet the Egyptians apparently failed to notice their entire civilization was underwater...

Inobservant varmints, weren't they?

 

[USincognito]

so how you can distinguish between an anaog trait and homologous one?

Most simply:
homologous - has the same internal structure as well as superficial similarity and the same gene pathways.
analogous - not the same internal structure and gene pathways with only superficial similarity.

in any case we assume evolution is true in both cases.

Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[USincognito]

the echidna is also very hedgeog-like:

"Very" hedgehog like?

Hedgehog - regular mammalian jaw and omnivorous.
Echidna - tiny mouth and toothless jaw and eats insects with it's sticky tongue.

Hedgehog - placental mammal with vagina separate from anus that gives birth to live young
Echidna - monotreme with a cloaca that lays eggs

Hedgehog - relatively large, visible external ears.
Echidna - more of a fold in the skin and not visible in most species.

You were saying?

 

[USincognito]

one of the The most important pieces of evidence of creation is the eclipse miracle---please watch this short video for familes

Care to explain, in your own words, how eclipses are evidence for creation (or Creationism, or whatever, lots of folks conflate the two)?

 

[The Barbarian]

You weren't paying attention:
I said "Evolution isn't evidence for homologies, homologies are evidence for evolution."

That's what your sources say.

according to this definition homologous traits do need a commondescent assumption:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)
No, that's wrong. It actually says:

"In biology, homology is the existence of shared ancestry between a pair of structures, or genes, in different taxa."

Notice it says exactly what I told you.

 

[xianghua]

"In biology, homology is the existence of shared ancestry between a pair of structures, or genes, in different taxa."

Notice it says exactly what I told you.

what about "shared ancestry" part?

 

[xianghua]

Most simply:
homologous - has the same internal structure as well as superficial similarity and the same gene pathways.

how do you know what gene pathways exist in Ichthyosaurs? if you dont know (and we dont know) then we cant conclude that his traits was analogous to the dolphin one.

analogous - not the same internal structure and gene pathways with only superficial similarity.

so those are anologous structures?:

Darwin's God: A Salamander Two-fer: Non Homologous Development and an ORFan

Nothing is ever proven in science

so you dont know if the earth is round?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

how do you know what gene pathways exist in Ichthyosaurs? if you dont know (and we dont know) then we cant conclude that his traits was analogous to the dolphin one.

Because if they were, the icthyosaurs' body structure would have more in line with a dolphin than a reptile.

so those are anologous structures?:

Darwin's God: A Salamander Two-fer: Non Homologous Development and an ORFan

Yet salamanders are amphibians.

so you dont know if the earth is round?

Now that was just a dumb comment from you. Mathematics deals with proof, science deals with evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

what about "shared ancestry" part?

As you learned, homology is evidence for shared ancestry. Shared ancestry is not evidence for homology.

so you dont know if the earth is round?

Of course. What we know to be true is much greater than that which we can prove.

 

[xianghua]

Of course. What we know to be true is much greater than that which we can prove.

so you are not sure if the earth is round? ok. i have nothing to add.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

so you are not sure if the earth is round? ok. i have nothing to add.

We have evidence that Earth is round and we have facts that the Earth is round.
We don't have proof that the Earth is round because proof only applies to mathematics! And alcohol.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asked if he's sure the Earth is round:
Of course. What we know to be true is much greater than that which we can prove.

so you are not sure if the earth is round?

I just told you I was sure it was round. We know many things that we cannot prove. Do you have anything to contribute besides attempts at deception?

i have nothing to add.

Pretty much what we thought. If you doubt this, prepare a logical proof that the Earth is round.

 

[xianghua]

We have evidence that Earth is round and we have facts that the Earth is round.
We don't have proof that the Earth is round because proof only applies to mathematics! And alcohol.

fact isnt a proof?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

fact isnt a proof?

Science doesn't use the term proof, only mathematicians and brewers. You're arguing the use of the laymen's definition of proof.

 

[The Barbarian]

Waiting for that proof that the Earth is round...

 

[rjs330]

Wrong. A scientific theory is not the same as a belief. I realize English is not your native tongue, but you equivocate like some of the most masterfully dishonest Creationists I've ever encountered.



Nothing is ever proven in science and the fact that you, and others, continue use "prove", "proof", "proven", etc. in a scientific context tells us you don't know as much about the subject as you think you do.
------------------------------------------
No such thing as scientific proof.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Dr. Jay Wile, Creationist
Science Can’t Prove Anything – Proslogion
After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?

Of course it hasn’t. In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.

Dr. Douglas Theobald, not a Creationist
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method
What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.

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.

 

[Skreeper]

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.

Maybe you can't read but Warden already gave you the reason science doesn't deal with proofs:

Science doesn't use the term proof, only mathematicians and brewers. You're arguing the use of the laymen's definition of proof.

Also: Evolution happens, we can observe it. That is that fact. The theory of evolution tries to explain that fact.
The same goes for gravity. Gravity is a fact, we can observe it. The theory of gravity tries to explain that fact.