What would falsify creationism?

[Dpierre]

All people (and probably animals too) have the propensity to believe that this isn't a still image, simply by looking at it:

Believe me - You are deeply mistaken if you think that image never moves or is always stationary when I look at it

 

[AV1611VET]

The question would still have to be asked
is there or is there not a god. No one has evidence only personal experience.

What's holding you back from getting yours?

 

[Dpierre]

What's holding you back from getting yours?

PREACH!!

 

[Dpierre]

1. Modern medicine - Defeats creationisms on the fact that yes bacteria and viruses evolve.
That is why in general there is always a need to produce a new flu vaccine every so often.

I'm pretty sure the fishermen in the Bible saw different varieties of fish they ate

2. The human genome/dna - We are related to everything on the planet only thing is our dna
is slightly more different.

Thats probably why theres only word for life in genesis

3 4 and 5 , - only really listed just to disprove the young earth belief.

Theres no let their be earth in Genesis 1.

 

[Dig4truth]

I would suppose that creationism could be falsified the same way evolutionism could. Both views use the same evidence.

Since abiogenesis has already been discussed we could start there.

Empherical science states that life only comes from life. (The Law of Biogenesis)

Evolution states that life came from non-living matter.
Creation states that life came from a living intelligent Creator.

Empherical science states that complex specific information only comes from intelligence.

Evolution states that the complex codes such as DNA arose from non-intelligence.
Creation states that an all wise Creator programmed DNA to reproduce, repair and make changes to accommodate outside pressures.

Empherical science has only observed animals coming from the same kind of animals.

Evolution states that animals change kinds in an upward, unguided, more complex direction.
Creation states that kinds of animals reproduce after their kind.

If we were to go by just what science has observed then clearly evolution would be falsified. However, creation's tenants are supported by science.

 

[crjmurray]

I would suppose that creationism could be falsified the same way evolutionism could. Both views use the same evidence.

Since abiogenesis has already been discussed we could start there.

Empherical science states that life only comes from life. (The Law of Biogenesis)

Evolution states that life came from non-living matter.

No.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, it is not a mistake. In this situation, all the elements which need to be used are based on ad hoc knowledge that if not available would make it impossible to form life. No where on earth are we aware of life coming from non-living matter or chemicals. We do have ad hoc information that could aid us in producing life (theoretically) by using that information and knowledge on how chemicals react. However, chemicals do not react naturally in the way they would need to if they were to create life. So it takes intelligence to make it work if it ever works at all.
Once again it is your lack of knowledge in Biology that renders your argument inadequate.

No, it's again you with your anti-"controlled conditions" nonsense.

Throwing chemicals together in a controlled environment and having them form "living" things through normal chemical reactions would make it possible for life to come from non-life. It doesn't matter if those conditions ever existed on the earth or not.
It doesn't even matter if that specific reaction was the reaction that produced life on this planet.

What would be relevant is that it would be shown to be possible.

But off course, the "logic" you employ can be used against any and all scientific experiments. So you win every time, even when you lose.

If the outcome of the experiment doesn't agree with your a priori beliefs, you come back with this nonsense.

It's ridiculous.

No once, building freezers does not support "intelligent freezing".

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't need to ask anyone. God has no creator. It is in the natural world alone that cause and effect are present.

Special pleading.

And misunderstanding of causality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Reply to post #306 (sorry, but I lost the quote somehow in my reply).

I kind of like the description of the work of scientists in the new Evolution's Achilles Heels DVD, where it says that scientists are like a dog following a scent, zig-zagging along the way but only very occasionally getting things right. That's why their text books change so often and why the stuff we are told is true today is discarded later on.

Yea, learning new things is so horrid.
I mean, what are they thinking......investigating reality and expanding knowledge, building satelites, computers, the internet, cars, factories, medicine.....

They are so dumb...

/end-sarcasm.

I have another DVD, which is quite interesting. It's entitled "Artistic Ape Anecdotes: The Art of Deception?" The blurb on the back goes on, "Dr Batten deals with the claimed 'apeman' fossils in the evolutionary tree as promoted by the Smithsonian Institute and he shows the stories do not match the facts. The fossil patterns fit a post-Flood dispersal of apes and a somewhat later post-Babel dispersal of humans. Also shows how detailed illustrations are imaginatively created from fragmentary fossils."

I have a DVD that says Bush is a reptilian from the planet Niburu.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To answer your question. The "so many Gods" your referring to are basically demons that follow Satan in his rebellion against God. The Bible refers to: "Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe." So you have just done an effective job of showing that the Bible is true. I have studied some Greek Mythology and I have studied the Bible and I can assure you that there is no comparison. If your confused it is because you have not actually studied either mythology or the Bible.

People of other religions could just as easily say that about your religion and it wouldn't make a difference.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I did and do you know what science told me? If you eat right, exercise, control your stress and maintain healthy relationships you will stay healthy and you will not need a doctor.

You might want to change doctors.

Healthy people can't catch the flu?
Healthy people can't develop cancers?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Education is a problem for creationists.

Americans should be alarmed by these graphs.
I'm even alarmed by these numbers and I'm from Belgium.
I'm alarmed that +20% of my fellow citizens are not properly educated in biology.

Another interesting graph, btw, is how this correlates with societal health indexes as well as level of religiosity per country.

It's almost identical.

 

[DogmaHunter]

interesting graph.
question:
if you wanted to host a truly unbiased conference on evolution/creation, what country would you host it in?

It's impossible and nonsensical to hold such a conference.
One is science and the other is religion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you need to differentiate between the concept of creationism and the concept of creationism introduced in the Bible. Even if you could prove the Bible false, that would not refute the concept of creationism as a concept.

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Believe me - You are deeply mistaken if you think that image never moves or is always stationary when I look at it

It's called optical illusion.

It's a still image, not an animated gif.
It's a still image.

 

[Jan Volkes]

but evolution and creation are not.

That's because creation has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, creation must be finished before evolution can begin.

What baffles me is how people can convince themselves that what they want to believe is true just because they want it to be,
my brain will not allow me to do that, how can you fool yourself without you not knowing you're being fooled?
could it be split personality? do you keep your religion in a different part of your brain?
How can you fool yourself into thinking that the irrational is rational just because it's something you want to believe?
If my brain tells me something is untrue that's the end of it, I can not override that, how are you able to do it?

Think about it, you would never accept anything in your normal live on such flimsy evidence but you dedicate your life to something that has no evidence at all, that makes no sense?

 

[Jan Volkes]

Believe me - You are deeply mistaken if you think that image never moves or is always stationary when I look at it

Put your hand over most of the image and you will see that it doesn't move, the illusion only happens when you view most or the whole image, or fix your eyes on part of the image, our brains are playing tricks on us.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I would suppose that creationism could be falsified the same way evolutionism could. Both views use the same evidence.

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").

Since abiogenesis has already been discussed we could start there.
Empherical science states that life only comes from life. (The Law of Biogenesis)

Empirical science doesn't state that at all.

Evolution states that life came from non-living matter.

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.

Creation states that life came from a living intelligent Creator.

Yes, religions assert that.

Empherical science states that complex specific information only comes from intelligence.

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.

Evolution states that the complex codes such as DNA arose from non-intelligence.
Creation states that an all wise Creator programmed DNA to reproduce, repair and make changes to accommodate outside pressures.

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

I'll go with the evidence based explanation.

Empherical science has only observed animals coming from the same kind of animals.

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

Evolution states that animals change kinds in an upward, unguided, more complex direction.

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.

If we were to go by just what science has observed then clearly evolution would be falsified.

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

However, creation's tenants are supported by science.

No, they aren't.

 

[Dpierre]

It's called optical illusion.

It's a still image, not an animated gif.
It's a still image.

NO its not an optical illusion......mine moves when I scroll and adjust to get to see all of it. Like I said Believe me you are mistaken if you think that image never moves or is always stationary when I look at it

 

[DogmaHunter]

NO its not an optical illusion......mine moves when I scroll and adjust to get to see all of it. Like I said Believe me you are mistaken if you think that image never moves or is always stationary when I look at it

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

Great.