What would falsify creationism?

[SkyWriting]

So, you are of the opinion that we can't subject you to a DNA test to see if your parents are your actual biological parents?

My dad had a lot of false teeth, so your odds are low.

 

[Loudmouth]

Or perhaps they were both in the same environment when they experienced horizontal gene transfer.

What mechanism of HGT would produce over 200,000 ERV's at the same base in the genomes of two species? All of the mechanisms we have seen produce random insertions within the genome which wouldn't produce the same insertion at the same base 99.9% of the time.

With past events, there is usually more than one possible explanation.

With creationists, they make stuff up as you have done here.

 

[Dpierre]

This is an interesting thread to see so many atheist etc saying nothing can falsify creationism.

While in other threads I have lurked in I see them saying that it already has been falsified

Pretty amusing duality. I think so at least

 

[bhsmte]

This is an interesting thread to see so many atheist etc saying nothing can falsify creationism.

While in other threads I have lurked in I see them saying that it already has been falsified

Pretty amusing duality. I think so at least

Did people say it was falsified, or that there is no evidence to support it?

 

[Dpierre]

Did people say it was falsified, or that there is no evidence to support it?

falsified actually but I might be coming from a more straightforward definition. I assume if someone says something is utterly false based on evidence they are saying its falsified.

Do you have another non duality based answer?

 

[bhsmte]

falsified actually but I might be coming from a more straightforward definition. I assume if someone says something is utterly false based on evidence they are saying its falsified.

Do you have another non duality based answer?

Well, technically, if something is unfalsifiable, there is no way to falsify it, from a scientific perspective at least.

I could tell you I was abducted by aliens last night, taken aboard their space ship and probed with instruments and then returned to my home. There is no way for you to technically falsify my claim, but I would imagine before you believed it, you would ask me to provide evidence of the same.

Whether there is objective evidence to falsify an unfalsifiable claim and whether there is objective evidence to support the claim, are two different things.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is an interesting thread to see so many atheist etc saying nothing can falsify creationism.

While in other threads I have lurked in I see them saying that it already has been falsified

Pretty amusing duality. I think so at least

For those who use reason and knowledge, creationism has been falsified. For those who rely on dogma and ignorance, no evidence can ever falsify creationism.

 

[Dpierre]

For those who use reason and knowledge, creationism has been falsified. For those who rely on dogma and ignorance, no evidence can ever falsify creationism.

Unfortunately there is no way for you confirm or falsify you are among the former and they are in the latter.

Relying on your own personal opinion won't make the grade

 

[Dpierre]

I could tell you I was abducted by aliens last night, taken aboard their space ship and probed with instruments and then returned to my home. There is no way for you to technically falsify my claim, but I would imagine before you believed it, you would ask me to provide evidence of the same.

Actually that depends on societal and historical reference. if there were a long history of most of the population experiencing those things I would find it rationally conceivable that something real was in fact taking place. You slanted your analogy by referencing something that is fringe rather than mainstream as belief in an intelligent designer.

I hope it was unintentional but in so doing your analogy was biased in that respect or at least infused a bias.

Anyway I have no intention of getting into a long debate on it. I was just amused at the duality between this thread and the countless others I have seen atheists making the exact opposite claim.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually that depends on societal and historical reference. if there were a long history of most of the population experiencing those things I would find it rationally conceivable that something real was in fact taking place. You slanted your analogy by referencing something that is fringe rather than mainstream as belief in an intelligent designer.

I hope it was unintentional but in so doing your analogy was biased in that respect or at least infused a bias.

How many people who have claimed to have experienced something, is irrelevant to whether the claim is falsifiable.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unfortunately there is no way for you confirm or falsify you are among the former and they are in the latter.

Relying on your own personal opinion won't make the grade

It's easy to confirm it. Those using reason and knowledge are able to address evidence and define what evidence is. Those using dogma and ignorance refuse to address the evidence and will avoid defining what evidence is.

For example, I can define what I would expect to see in a transitional fossil. Creationists won't do this because they know that any reasonable definition for "transitional fossil" will describe the fossils we already have, so they avoid addressing the fossil evidence.

 

[Jan Volkes]

As shown by the post above religions rely totally on ignorance, if a population is awake religions can not get a foothold.

 

[Dpierre]

How many people who have claimed to have experienced something, is irrelevant to whether the claim is falsifiable.

Actually how many people report an experience the more likely there is to be something to it. Doesn't mean its true but before you discount the majority for the minority it should take some digging into. Perhaps you forgot you posed a question to me about whether I would believe an abduction story. If I woke up tomorrow and everyone in my neighborhood reported they had been abducted would I be more likely to believe something had happened. Yes

You asked me a question about what I would believe and I told you. I've seen that many of you love to argue but you asked I answered the question you posed. Simple. I won't go on an on with it.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually how many people report an experience the more likely there is to be something to it. Doesn't mean its true but before you discount the majority for the minority it should take some digging into. Perhaps you forgot you posed a question to me about whether I would believe an abduction story. If I woke up tomorrow and everyone in my neighborhood reported they had been abducted would I be more likely to believe something had happened. Yes

You asked me a question about what I would believe and I told you. I've seen that many of you love to argue but you asked I answered the question you posed. Simple. I won't go on an on with it.

Cool.

Could you falsify my abduction story?

 

[bhayes]

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."

This is describing the theory of macroevolution, or species changing into other species like somehow all of life originated from a single cell. I don't understand this by the way. Life is more than just cells but even then it can't come from just a single cell.
If you switch macroevolution and creationism in your quote you would be describing what it is like today.

 

[Dpierre]

For example, I can define what I would expect to see in a transitional fossil. Creationists won't do this because they know that any reasonable definition for "transitional fossil" will describe the fossils we already have, so they avoid addressing the fossil evidence.

well okay that's interesting. So you determine yourself in the educated group because you don't avoid addressing issues? Shall we put that to the test? Creationists are not limited to the subject of evolution. There might be the creation VS evolution debate but that does not mean its limited to that scope. Many people are creationists because they see other reasons beyond evolution to believe such things.

Can you address the issue of the origin of life with evidence and a solution?

Can you address the beginning of order and law in the universe?

bearing in mind you defined yourself in the educated side of your equation by not ducking from addressing issue your answer should be illuminating.

 

[bhsmte]

well okay that's interesting. So you determine yourself in the educated group because you don't avoid addressing issues? Shall we put that to the test? Creationists are not limited to the subject of evolution. There might be the creation VS evolution debate but that does not mean its limited to that scope. Many people are creationists because they see other reasons beyond evolution to believe such things.

Can you address the issue of the origin of life with evidence and a solution?

Can you address the beginning of order and law in the universe?

bearing in mind you defined yourself in the educated side of your equation by not ducking from addressing issue your answer should be illuminating.

We go by the evidence we have in hand and when more evidence is available, it is factored in.

Are you one who clings to the thought, because science does not know everything, that it can't then know anything?

 

[Loudmouth]

well okay that's interesting. So you determine yourself in the educated group because you don't avoid addressing issues? Shall we put that to the test? Creationists are not limited to the subject of evolution. There might be the creation VS evolution debate but that does not mean its limited to that scope. Many people are creationists because they see other reasons beyond evolution to believe such things.

Can you address the issue of the origin of life with evidence and a solution?

Notice how you immediately switch the topic from transitional fossils.

As to the origin of life, I don't know how life started. However, we don't need to know how life started in order to determine if two species such as humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

Can you address the beginning of order and law in the universe?

I don't know how the universe came about either. However, not knowing how the universe came about does not prevent us from determining if two species share a common ancestor.

bearing in mind you defined yourself in the educated side of your equation by not ducking from addressing issue your answer should be illuminating.

Now that I have addressed those issues and taken a very non-dogmatic position, perhaps you could tell us what features a fossil would need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and an ancestor shared with chimps.

 

[Dpierre]

Cool.

Could you falsify my abduction story?

Possibly. I could find out if there were any witnesses to seeing you in bed the whole night, Get some doctors and tests done to see if they could affirm nothing had been stuck into you? When can you make your imaginary friends available to me and we'll have to make an imaginary appointment with the imaginary hospital. Lets work out the logistics!!

 

[Loudmouth]

This is describing the theory of macroevolution, or species changing into other species like somehow all of life originated from a single cell. I don't understand this by the way. Life is more than just cells but even then it can't come from just a single cell.

Have you forgotten that you started out as a single, fertilized cell? If a human can form from a single cell in just 9 months, why can't it happen over billions of years?