What would falsify creationism?

[Dpierre]

Ow, I get it...
You are just being juvenile.

Great.

and are you always so acidic? Or just a bad day?

 

[DogmaHunter]

and are you always so acidic? Or just a bad day?

I don't know what "acidic" means.

But I'll freely admit that it annoys me when people waste my time with juvenile responses that have no relevance to the topic.

On forums, this type of behaviour is also known as "trolling".
You might want to read the forum rules.

 

[Dpierre]

I don't know what "acidic" means.

Theres always google....definitions right at the top. Its AMAZING

But I'll freely admit that it annoys me when people waste my time
.

You mean like lecturing on optical illusions as if no one knows about them?????

On forums, this type of behaviour is also known as "trolling".
You might want to read the forum rules.

I did. It told me calling people juvenile is flaming and not allowed. Have you read it?

 

[Dpierre]

P.S. I wasn't trolling either. I just wasn't taking you putting up an image as a comparison to what people see in creation as seriously as you wished

kind of a weak analogy

 

[Dig4truth]

No, they don't.
Evolution use the evidence. Creationism ignores it.
(by creationism, I mean the anti-science version, not the deist "some godlike thing triggered the big bang and then sat back and whatched it unfold").[/QUOTE
Empirical science doesn't state that at all.
Evolution doesn't state that at all.
Evolution explains the origins of diversity in life.
It starts with life existing, it doesn't explain the origins of life.
Yes, religions assert that.
No, empirical science doesn't state that at all.
Creationists might say that to set the stage to slip in their faith based beliefs, but science doesn't agree with that at all.
And evolution has evidence while creation only has "faith" and claims from the bronze age.
I'll go with the evidence based explanation.
Well, yes. Exactly like evolution predicts. Cats don't produce dogs.
First, the word "kind" has no meaning in biology.
Second, evolution is not a ladder. There is no "upward".
There is only survival and reproduction. There is a "more fit". Which doesn't necessarily mean "stronger, faster, smarter". What "fit" means is dictated by the environment at that moment.
Third, it is unguided because changes / mutations are random and natural selection doesn't look further then the current generation.


Only if you misrepresent what evolution is about, like you are doing in this post.



No, they aren't.[/11 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, [a]a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?]

No, they don't.

Evolution use the evidence. Creationism ignores it.
(by creationism, I mean the anti-science version, not the deist "some godlike thing triggered the big bang and then sat back and whatched it unfold").



Empirical science doesn't state that at all.



Evolution doesn't state that at all.
Evolution explains the origins of diversity in life.
It starts with life existing, it doesn't explain the origins of life.



Yes, religions assert that.



No, empirical science doesn't state that at all.
Creationists might say that to set the stage to slip in their faith based beliefs, but science doesn't agree with that at all.



And evolution has evidence while creation only has "faith" and claims from the bronze age.

I'll go with the evidence based explanation.



Well, yes. Exactly like evolution predicts. Cats don't produce dogs.



First, the word "kind" has no meaning in biology.

Second, evolution is not a ladder. There is no "upward".
There is only survival and reproduction. There is a "more fit". Which doesn't necessarily mean "stronger, faster, smarter". What "fit" means is dictated by the environment at that moment.

Third, it is unguided because changes / mutations are random and natural selection doesn't look further then the current generation.



Only if you misrepresent what evolution is about, like you are doing in this post.



No, they aren't.

If there were anything other than assertions I might be able to respond but there isn't.
There are some obvious mistakes you have made though; science using empherical observation has determined that life only comes from life. Unless you can demonstrate the opposite then you should correct your mistake. Any other opinions should be backed up with facts and not just dogma.

 

[klatu]

Having recently studied of over three hundred references to false teaching taken form both canonical, non canonical and recently discovered material, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Library, there must be in the world a great deal of deception and self deception pretending to be of Christ. The question of falsification then becomes now it is possible to distinguish between what is true and what is not! With so much warning, one might ask why such an insight is not part of any Christian teaching. As all tradition is theological, a very human intellectual process, the only thing which would falsify Creationism and a lot more besides would be a revelation able to demonstrate itself to be not of human intellectual origin. That amounts to a absolute and immutable proof of God. Such a radical idea in not inconsistent with scripture, only with tradition. No doubt that any 'judgement' which takes ever place will first and foremost have to sort this question out. And the gnashing of teeth should mean good business for dentists!

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).

 

[DogmaHunter]

If there were anything other than assertions I might be able to respond but there isn't.

Que?

Point out the assertions and I'll be happy to clarify.

There are some obvious mistakes you have made though; science using empherical observation has determined that life only comes from life.

Science can't make such an observation.
Science can't comment on things that are unkown.

The correct/clear formulation of your statement is as follows:
"life can not come from non-life".

How do you test that claim.

Empirical science observes life to come from life, yes.
That is a good justification to say that "life can produce life".
It is NOT a good justification to say "therefor, nothing else can produce life".

Do you understand the difference?

Unless you can demonstrate the opposite

No, I don't need to demonstrate the opposite of a claim to point out that the original claim is not in evidence.

That's what we call "shifting the burden of proof".

Any other opinions should be backed up with facts and not just dogma.

I'm not the one spouting dogma.
YOU are the one doing that, by pretending that something is "impossible" without actually being able to justify it.

What you are doing is appealing to all the evidence showing that life produces life, to make the statement that something else producing life is "impossible".
That is an argument from ignorance right of the bat.

The origins of life are unknown and under investigation.
To simply assert that it is "impossible" to come into being in a certain way, is just a bare assertions that you can not demonstrate.

 

[Dpierre]

The origins of life are unknown and under investigation.
To simply assert that it is "impossible" to come into being in a certain way, is just a bare assertions that you can not demonstrate.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander - to wit

To simply assert that it is "possible" to come into being naturally after many decades of failure to show a viable model, is just a bare assertions that you can not demonstrate.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To simply assert that it is "possible" to come into being naturally after many decades of failure to show a viable model, is just a bare assertions that you can not demonstrate.

Nobody is making such an assertion.
Hence why they investigate it first.

And by the way, you're not actually correct in that.

Life coming into being where there was no life before is not only "possible", it demonstrably happened.

Life didn't always exist on this planet.
Now it does.
Somehow, in some way, it came into being.

So however it happened, it surely happened.

 

[Dpierre]

Life coming into being where there was no life before is not only "possible", it demonstrably happened.

Life didn't always exist on this planet.
Now it does.
Somehow, in some way, it came into being.

So however it happened, it surely happened.

tell us when you are ready to put down the goal post so we can measure the distance for a world record. NO one said it didn't happen. focus pretty please...like I said

To simply assert that it is "possible" to come into being naturally after many decades of failure to show a viable model, is just a bare assertions that you can not demonstrate.

 

[DogmaHunter]

tell us when you are ready to put down the goal post so we can measure the distance for a world record. NO one said it didn't happen. focus pretty please...like I said

And like I said, nobody is making any truth-claims about this.
Which is why research takes place... to find out.

Good grief........

Do they expect a natural explanation? They sure do. And for rational reasons.
Do they claim certainty about that? No.

In fact, certainty is never really claimed in science.

It's also funny to me how you try to turn this around...
Theists are the ones who are making dogmatic truth-claims. Without evidence. Even in such a way that it is unfalsifiable.

The projection (and the irony) is through the roof.

 

[Dig4truth]

Perhaps a course in logic 101 might help.
As Dpierre referenced; you are just making assertions without any evidence.

When a theory becomes a law in science it is firmly established with empherical evidence and repeated testing. What you are trying to pass off as science is tantamount to saying that anything could happen even contrary to evidence because you cannot prove that it couldn't happen.

There is no proof in science but laws tend to be universal and have never been found to be violated. This is reasonable doubt and it takes evidence to challenge it, not just a make believe story.

 

[Zosimus]

It's kind of hard to disprove unfalsifiable concepts.
Not to mention that it is incredibly irrational to use that as an excuse to state that his concept is therefor a legit option.

It's not.

Unfalsifiable concepts are infinite in number and only limited by your imagination.

That's what I've been saying about the "natural selection" concept from the beginning. It's pretty irrational to use its non-falsifiability as an excuse to state that the concept is legit.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps a course in logic 101 might help.
As Dpierre referenced; you are just making assertions without any evidence.

What assertions would those be?

When a theory becomes a law in science it is firmly established with empherical evidence and repeated testing.

Theories and laws are different things. Theories don't become laws. Theories explain laws. We have the Laws of Gravity which are a group of mathematical equations that describe observations. We also have at least 2 theories of gravity which explain why we observe what we do (General Relativity and Quantum Gravity).

What you are trying to pass off as science is tantamount to saying that anything could happen even contrary to evidence because you cannot prove that it couldn't happen.

You are the one who claims that life can not come from non-life. It is your claim, so it is up to you to support it with evidence. That's how these things work.

Science doesn't know how life started. They state so openly. That doesn't require evidence because scientists are not making positive claims about how life could or could not come about from non-life.

There is no proof in science but laws tend to be universal and have never been found to be violated.

Newton's Laws of Gravity were violated. The best example was the precession in Mercury's orbit which Newton's Laws said should not be there. As it turned out, Newton's Laws were wrong, and they were replaced by the THEORY of Relativity. A law turned out to be wrong and was replaced by a theory.

This is reasonable doubt and it takes evidence to challenge it, not just a make believe story.

What evidence do you have that it is impossible for life to come from non-life?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's what I've been saying about the "natural selection" concept from the beginning. It's pretty irrational to use its non-falsifiability as an excuse to state that the concept is legit.

It can be tested and falsified by looking at Ka/Ks ratios as measured by comparison of genomes within and between species. If natural selection occurs, then you should see fewer non-synonymous mutations that one would expect from the rate of mutation, and that is EXACTLY what we see.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Special pleading.

And misunderstanding of causality.

Oh, tell me how I misunderstand causality.

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

Staff has decided that this thread will be permanently closed. Please note that General Apologetics -- where Christians are forced to debate the existence of God is not allowed here at CF.

Please note to also only respond to the content of the post and not address the poster themselves.

MOD HAT OFF​