What would falsify creationism?

[Kylie]

Just as the title says. What evidence could show that creationism was wrong? And I am talking hypothetical here (I've seen that some people here have trouble grasping that concept).

 

[Goonie]

Just as the title says. What evidence could show that creationism was wrong? And I am talking hypothetical here (I've seen that some people here have trouble grasping that concept).

unfortunately as rational wiki puts it "Creationism is not falsifiable as its proponents base the conjecture on a human text (the Bible) which provides accounts of creation and other events that cannot be tested by observation or experiment but are instead accepted as infallible truth."
Unless as in a joke from the Red Dwarf series this happens
'Newsreader: Good evening. Here is the news on Friday, the 27th of Geldof. Archaeologists near Mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is presently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read "To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitious and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental." The page has been universally condemned by church leaders.'
(This is a quote from ep. 2 of series 2 Red Dwarf)

 

[SkyWriting]

Just as the title says. What evidence could show that creationism was wrong? And I am talking hypothetical here (I've seen that some people here have trouble grasping that concept).

Creationism is the idea that a force outside of natural laws has had an impact on our reality.
The only way to test a theory or concept available to us is a "natural" set of tools.
So Creationism exists outside of the boundaries of the scientific method.
The Scientific Method can only examine that which is natural and duplicatable.

For example, if a scientist in a labcoat was able to instantly create an apple,
say, pull one out of a tabletop wormhole, he could say "There! That might be how God did it!"

 

[Larniavc]

There is no way to falsify creation because God is maximally potent. As there is nothing he could not logically do there is nothing that could exist that was not potentially his creation.

 

[Goonie]

Creationism is the idea that a force outside of natural laws has had an impact on our reality.
The only way to test a theory or concept available to us is a "natural" set of tools.
So Creationism exists outside of the boundaries of the scientific method.
The Scientific Method can only examine that which is natural and duplicatable.

For example, if a scientist in a labcoat was able to instantly create an apple,
say, pull one out of a tabletop wormhole, he could say "There! That might be how God did it!"

True a Theory of Abiogenesis would not rule out God, it would be like evolution one more mechanism.

 

[lesliedellow]

Just as the title says. What evidence could show that creationism was wrong? And I am talking hypothetical here (I've seen that some people here have trouble grasping that concept).

Nothing would falsify creationism, because so called "creation science" is just one huge effort at explaining away. The only thing it ever does is try to discredit evolution, and never does it come up with any genuine research of its own.

 

[juvenissun]

Just as the title says. What evidence could show that creationism was wrong? And I am talking hypothetical here (I've seen that some people here have trouble grasping that concept).

After you listed up items included in Creationism, then you can easily see on yourself what would it take to falsify them. How many items can you list? Just one which happened to be unfalsifiable?

Before you want to falsify anything, you need to understand it FIRST!

 

[whois]

Just as the title says. What evidence could show that creationism was wrong? And I am talking hypothetical here (I've seen that some people here have trouble grasping that concept).

i believe as soon as science proves abiogenesis, this would put to rest forever a notion of a god.
despite its best efforts, science has been unable to do that.
science doesn't even have a plausible scenario for how it could have happened.

 

[Goonie]

i believe as soon as science proves abiogenesis, this would put to rest forever a notion of a god.
despite its best efforts, science has been unable to do that.
science doesn't even have a plausible scenario for how it could have happened.

Not quite true, as I say even a theory of abiogenesis would still not rule it out as a gods mechanism of creation.

 

[driewerf]

Just as the title says. What evidence could show that creationism was wrong? And I am talking hypothetical here (I've seen that some people here have trouble grasping that concept).

Nothing. Because anything you will point at, will be answered with "God created it that way."
And lot's of biblical iteralists will proudly announce that nothing can falsify the bible, therefor showing
1) they don't understand anything of science, more precisely that falsifiability is an sign of strength, not waekness
2) definitely denying any access for creationism in the science class (to be honest, AV1611VET has advocated this many times).

 

[lesliedellow]

i believe as soon as science proves abiogenesis, this would put to rest forever a notion of a god.

It can probably be taken for granted that there will one day be a viable theory about how life got started in the first place, but that definitely will not be any reason for concluding that God does not exist. That would only follow if your only reason for believing in him in the first place was to plug a gap in the scientific world view. Your god would have been a god of the gaps, in other words.

 

[SkyWriting]

True a Theory of Abiogenesis would not rule out God, it would be like evolution one more mechanism.

Scientists should assume the same physical laws apply before life as after life began.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Scientists should assume the same physical laws apply before life as after life began.

What else do you assume?

 

[Goonie]

Scientists should assume the same physical laws apply before life as after life began.

They do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nothing would falsify creationism, because so called "creation science" is just one huge effort at explaining away. The only thing it ever does is try to discredit evolution, and never does it come up with any genuine research of its own.

It doesn't try to discredit evolution and your understanding of what it is all about is apparent. Most creationists accept evolution as defined but do not feel that evolution is a mindless, unguided, undirected process with no goals or plan.

 

[AV1611VET]

What evidence could show that creationism was wrong?

None: creationism ≠ science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

i believe as soon as science proves abiogenesis, this would put to rest forever a notion of a god.
despite its best efforts, science has been unable to do that.
science doesn't even have a plausible scenario for how it could have happened.

While I agree that science doesn't have a plausible scenario even if there was a way they could make "life" in the way in might have happened, it is not without the aid of intelligent input. Life has never come from non-living matter on earth that we have ever observed. We might use our intelligence from ad hoc knowledge to make it happen but that doesn't mean it could have happened without intelligence in the real world.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Most creationists accept evolution as defined but do not feel that evolution is a mindless, unguided, undirected process with no goals or plan.

What evidence do you have that evolution is anything other than a mindless, unguided, undirected process with no goals or plan? what could be guiding it? someone's imagination?
Other animals do not have Gods because they have no imaginations with which to imagine Gods.

 

[whois]

While I agree that science doesn't have a plausible scenario even if there was a way they could make "life" in the way in might have happened, it is not without the aid of intelligent input. Life has never come from non-living matter on earth that we have ever observed. We might use our intelligence from ad hoc knowledge to make it happen but that doesn't mean it could have happened without intelligence in the real world.

depends on how this life is created.
in order to be valid, it must be created from the elements in one continuous reaction.
in my opinion, if science accomplishes the above, it will completely smash the god scenario forever.

the big question is, will science ever accomplish such a feat.
currently, the prospects doesn't look good.
given the head start of the final functioning product, vast computing power, and an almost endless amount of research, science isn't even close to achieving this goal.

 

[Oncedeceived]

depends on how this life is created.
in order to be valid, it must be created from the elements in one continuous reaction.
in my opinion, if science accomplishes the above, it will completely smash the god scenario forever.

the big question is, will science ever accomplish such a feat.
currently, the prospects doesn't look good.
given the head start of the final functioning product, vast computing power, and an almost endless amount of research, science isn't even close to achieving this goal.

Which makes my point, even if they could get life to form, it would be from intelligent design. Intelligence is needed or it would happen in the real world. Even if conditions on the early earth were different, we don't know how they were and it would be from knowledge of how chemistry works to even succeed at the end goal.