- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
Or perhaps they were both in the same environment when they experienced horizontal gene transfer.
With past events, there is usually more than one possible explanation.
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?
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?
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.
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Actually that depends on societal and historical reference.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.
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
Cool.
Could you falsify my abduction story?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?