What would falsify creationism?

[Dpierre]

So? That doesn't mean that one is reliant on the other as I already discussed.

Never said they were . You are so invested in your Evolution versus war you think no one can talk about abiogenesis except as your war sees fit.

The previous posts show otherwise. It seems that the poster is trying to rewrite history.

since he clarified long ago what he meant seems like you have some issues unrelated to the thread or topic

Still can't tell us how creationism is falsifiable?

Still haven't noticed you flopped with your Alleged falsification of Darwinism?

 

[Loudmouth]

Never said they were . You are so invested in your Evolution versus war you think no one can talk about abiogenesis except as your war sees fit.

They can talk about abiogenesis all they want. I'm not stopping them.

Also, the topic is about how creationism is not falsifiable. Any comments on the topic?

since he clarified long ago what he meant seems like you have some issues unrelated to the thread or topic

I clarified long ago that there is no way that what bhayes wrote could be construed to be talking about abiogenesis. bhayes clearly described reproducing single cells evolving into complex animals. If bhayes thinks that is abiogenesis, then bhayes doesn't know what abiogenesis or evolution are.

Still haven't noticed you flopped with your Alleged falsification of Darwinism?

And once again you deflect to avoid discussing the topic.

 

[Dpierre]

I know what is in those posts, and those posts were clearly describing evolution, not abiogenesis. Single cells evolving into complex animals is evolution, not abiogenesis.

People type one thing and mean different than what they write from time to time. A gracious human being after the poster has clarified what they meant moves on and accepts it. Only the angry bitter soul has to continue like he is the terminator sent back to kill John Connor as a child. Sky Net must survive!!

 

[Dpierre]

They can talk about abiogenesis all they want. I'm not stopping them.

How could you. you are on a christian site not Panda's thumb. No power to stop.

Also, the topic is about how creationism is not falsifiable. Any comments on the topic?

sure whenever you get the chip embedded in your shoulder and stop attacking believers here you could have a really civil discussion again. You up for it?

 

[Dpierre]

Welcome to CF, Dpierre!

LOL...... don't know if you were trying to tell me something with that timing but thanks mate

 

[Loudmouth]

How could you. you are on a christian site not Panda's thumb. No power to stop.

All I ask is that when you say you are talking about abiogenesis that you are actually talking about abiogenesis.

sure whenever you get the chip embedded in your shoulder and stop attacking believers here you could have a really civil discussion again. You up for it?

I've been up to it for the entire thread.

If creationism is falsifiable, then it should be able to make predictions of what we should and shouldn't see in the natural world. This would obviously include the fossil record and genomics as it relates to separate creation.

We are also told that separate creation means that chimps and humans were created separately. If this is so, what features would a fossil need to falsify his position? What shared genetic markers would falsify this position? Or is there no evidence in biology that could ever falsify this position?

 

[Dpierre]

All I ask is that when you say you are talking about abiogenesis that you are actually talking about abiogenesis.

Forum owners make the rules and its pretty clear all they ask is that you remain civil. If a poster clarifies his words (and even apologized which you didn't earn) then move on and stop attacking him. If you can't do that then you don't deserve to be asking anything and no adult here needs to take any of your own requests seriously.

Adults have jobs, family and limited time and if you behave like that then they have every right to believe their time regardless will be completely wasted engaging you in ANY discourse.

So you can either confirm to us you can act in a civil manner or you can huff and puff and whoever sees fit can ignore you. Your choice.

 

[Loudmouth]

Forum owners make the rules and its pretty clear all they ask is that you remain civil. If a poster clarifies his words (and even apologized which you didn't earn) then move on and stop attacking him. If you can't do that then you don't deserve to be asking anything and no adult here needs to take any of your own requests seriously.

Adults have jobs, family and limited time and if you behave like that then they have every right to believe their time regardless will be completely wasted engaging you in ANY discourse.

So you can either confirm to us you can act in a civil manner or you can huff and puff and whoever sees fit can ignore you. Your choice.

I asked some very civil and well thought out questions. Here they are again.

If creationism is falsifiable, then it should be able to make predictions of what we should and shouldn't see in the natural world. This would obviously include the fossil record and genomics as it relates to separate creation.

We are also told that separate creation means that chimps and humans were created separately. If this is so, what features would a fossil need to falsify his position? What shared genetic markers would falsify this position? Or is there no evidence in biology that could ever falsify this position?

 

[ScottA]

My young nephew "knows" this kid called "Johnny".

Only, this "johnny" is an imaginary friend.
You use the word "know", but it's not really a correct word.

You don't "know" this god like you "know" your mother, sister, friends or any other actually demonstrably real people.

When, for example, muslims or hindu's say that they "know" their gods, i'll assume that you won't believe that they are talking about actual gods, but rather things that they imagine or mistaken to be gods, right?

You are both right and wrong. I do not know God in the same way I know my family and friends...I know him better than that. And yet you are wrong by assuming, which makes it obvious that you do not know God is this way, and makes you opinion a disservice to the discussion.

You are also right about other knowing other gods. The thing about knowing the real God, is you then know who is not real, but a fill-good invention.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL...... don't know if you were trying to tell me something with that timing but thanks mate

 

[nomadictheist]

To respond to the topic in general, there is nothing that could disprove creation (hypothetically) except for a device that could reverse the flow of time, make us able to see God, and take us back to the time the world came into being.

As for the more recent topic about "knowing," DogmaHunter declares God to be unreal by stating that it's impossible to "know" Him as a demonstrably real person.

Well, that's an interesting thought.

How do you demonstrate the reality of somebody?

If I tell you that I know my mother, you'll most likely believe me. And even if you don't, there's no reason for you to assume my mother doesn't exist. Besides, your knowledge and experience tells you that in order for me to exist, my mother must also exist.

What about my sister? Let's just say (hypothetically) I have no pictures, written documentation, or any other "verifiable evidence" of my sister's existence. Can I still know her even if I can't demonstrate her existence to you? Could you, if you wanted, believe that there's no such person because of my lack of ability to demonstrate her existence to you?

See, what's termed "demonstrably real" means "able to be verified in a way that seems reasonable to me based on my personal knowledge and experience." Unfortunately, that precludes anything that the speaker has no personal knowledge or experience related to so long as he or she does not want to believe in its existence. Which also means that if, for whatever reason, he or she decided that all the books ever written about the Roman Emperor Nero, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and countless others were mere works of fiction, he or she could write each of these historical figures off as not being "demonstrably real" as well.

 

[crjmurray]

To respond to the topic in general, there is nothing that could disprove creation (hypothetically) except for a device that could reverse the flow of time, make us able to see God, and take us back to the time the world came into being.

Nooooot really. I believe AV has said something to the point that even if you were to show him life beginning on its own and the entire several billion year history leading up to now he still wouldn't disbelieve creationism.

 

[Dpierre]

I asked some very civil and well thought out questions.

The point is not whether you can ask questions civilly its legitimately (after you going after someone who even apologized) whether you can conduct yourself civilly when answers or a discussion arises out of those questions. Why is it so difficult for you to say yes I will be civil?

Obviously its too difficult for you so I choose to skip your questions entirely but will freely discuss issues with others here including atheists anything. Unless you wish to imply you are so special over them I need to duck your questions that should be fine and "its all good" with this thread and with me since i am not impressed with how you conduct yourself in adult conversation

 

[AV1611VET]

Nooooot really. I believe AV has said something to the point that even if you were to show him life beginning on its own and the entire several billion year history leading up to now he still wouldn't disbelieve creationism.

I can't remember if I did or not.

Sounds like something I would say though.

 

[AV1611VET]

To respond to the topic in general, there is nothing that could disprove creation (hypothetically) except for a device that could reverse the flow of time, make us able to see God, and take us back to the time the world came into being.

I still wouldn't believe it.

 

[crjmurray]

I can't remember if I did or not.

Sounds like something I would say though.

You agree with that, correct?

 

[Dpierre]

Nooooot really. I believe AV has said something to the point that even if you were to show him life beginning on its own and the entire several billion year history leading up to now he still wouldn't disbelieve creationism.

But one of the things I don't see really spelled out is what is meant by creationism because in a few posts I see it morphing into Existence of God issues. Yet in other parts o f this forum I see theistic evolutionist not included in Creationism.

Its a moving target so Its quite hard to nail down.. Now Biblical Creationism which I hold to at least to me can be falsified. I know a thing or two that just cant happen in the future and the Bible be correct so with the biblical part dead my own creationism would be invalid.

I do know some Christians called preterists that might disagree but then they don't take the Old testament seriously enough anyway and tend not to be Biblical creationists

So thats pretty close to falsification to me.

 

[Dpierre]

I still wouldn't believe it.

You are entitled AV. I don't care what the join date says with 3.4 million posts you were obviously here when God created the Earth.

 

[Jan Volkes]

You are both right and wrong. I do not know God in the same way I know my family and friends...I know him better than that.

Of course you know him better because he is in your head, you could not get closer than in your head.

You are also right about other knowing other gods. The thing about knowing the real God, is you then know who is not real, but a fill-good invention.

They think and feel exactly the same way about their God as you do about yours, for them their God is the Real God and yours is the feel good invention.
Standing on the outside looking in it's pretty obvious that all Gods are nothing more than feel good inventions.

Question.
If your God is not just a feel good invention how come you can get rid of it just by changing your mind?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

The reason you might have seen such a thing is because "creationists" come in many forms and colors.

And even when dealing with just a single creationist, goalposts are always all over the place.

It's a prime example of "I'm right, even when I'm wrong".