What would falsify creationism?

[AV1611VET]

I'm going to ask you to stop making vague comments and just answer the question of the OP

And here's the answer to the OP: nothing.

And as I have said here many times before:

Until people learn to understand nothing (i.e., nihilo), they won't properly understand anything, (i.e., creatio ex nihilo).

 

[asherahSamaria]

Compare:

Mark 10:38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

With:

Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

What is this cup He is talking about?

Death.That's bologna.

No one copied from anyone.

If so, where did Matthew & Luke get Jesus' genealogies?I won't. Read the next three verses.At one point in His ministry, Jesus sent His disciples out two-by-two.

Later, Jesus went to the same cities they did.

Phillip Keller, in his excellent book, A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23, points out that when a shepherd wants to increase his flock, he will take them to a mountainside, where there are wild sheep and disperse them.

Later, when he comes and calls his flock, some of the wild sheep will come trotting in with them.These are dispensational passages.

"This generation" [obviously] does not refer to the present audience, but to the generation in existence when all these signs come to pass.

If you stick to "this generation" being the generation being addressed, then I take it you are a preterist?

"What is this cup He is talking about?

Death" I see - so when he says cup he means death. If he says death does he mean cup - or some other random word?

"No one copied from anyone" You seem to be behind the times. It's accepted scholarship that Mathew and Luke copied from Mark - or should I say the anonymous authors that were given those names by the early Church.

"If so, where did Matthew & Luke get Jesus' genealogies" - Glossing over the fact that they contradict each other I've always wondered why these were important at all. After Joseph wasn't even supposed to be Jesus's father - however the inclusion of the geneologies suggest the authors were trying to convince the readership of some sort of history.


""This generation" [obviously] does not refer to the present audience, but to the generation in existence when all these signs come to pass."

Of course .. Obviously. If it says "this generation" then it doesn't mean "this generation" to the ones who were being addressed - it means something else entirely - how stupid of me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In this case, the OP is not a complete question. So I won't do that.

If I do, I would make response similar to others in this thread. They did not address the real question of the OP, which has, basically, no content.

Do you know what is included in Creationism? I don't. If you do, you may help to clear the question of the OP.

The OP merely asks if creationism is falsifiable and if it is, how it is falsifiable.
Sounds like a pretty complete question to me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And here's the answer to the OP: nothing.

And as I have said here many times before:

Until people learn to understand nothing (i.e., nihilo), they won't properly understand anything, (i.e., creatio ex nihilo).

Right, so according to you, it is unfalsifiable.

 

[driewerf]

What evidence could show that creationism was wrong?

None: creationism ≠ science.

And do you yhink it's a strength or a weakness, that nothing can falisify creationism?

 

[AV1611VET]

I see - so when he says cup he means death.

Yup.

If he says death does he mean cup - or some other random word?

Well, I don't think He meant the FIFA World Cup.

You seem to be behind the times. It's accepted scholarship that Mathew and Luke copied from Mark - or should I say the anonymous authors that were given those names by the early Church.

Ya ... heard that many times.

Don't believe it.

Glossing over the fact that they contradict each other ...

Either that, or one gives Joseph's line, while the other gives Mary's line.

I've always wondered why these were important at all.

Genealogies are very important to the Jews.

In fact, you couldn't serve in the Temple unless you could prove you were a Levite.

In addition, men served in the Temple by courses, according to what house you were from.

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

After Joseph wasn't even supposed to be Jesus's father -

He wasn't.

- however the inclusion of the geneologies suggest the authors were trying to convince the readership of some sort of history.

Well, they certainly convinced me.

Of course .. Obviously. If it says "this generation" then it doesn't mean "this generation" to the ones who were being addressed - it means something else entirely - how stupid of me.

Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians to those who misunderstood the second coming of Christ, thinking the believers whoe died before Christ's return will miss out on the resurrection.

Paul assures them that the dead in Christ will not only not miss the Rapture, but they will be going up first, ahead of those still alive.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Paul then writes 2 Thessalonians to those who were quitting their jobs and awaiting the Rapture, telling them that, if they don't work, neither should they eat.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

 

[AV1611VET]

Right, so according to you, it is unfalsifiable.

That is correct.

I can't say this enough -- the creation events have nothing to do with science.

Nothing at all.

Falsifying evidence is a scientific philosophy that does not apply in this case.

Let me repeat:

God did not use science to create this universe, and science can't say He did or didn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is correct.

I can't say this enough -- the creation events have nothing to do with science.

Nothing at all.

Falsifying evidence is a scientific philosophy that does not apply in this case.

Yep. Just like it doesn't apply to Zeus, graviton fairies and the undetectable 7-headed dragon in my garage.

 

[AV1611VET]

And do you yhink it's a strength or a weakness, that nothing can falisify creationism?

I think it is an absolute strength.

It forces one to take it on faith, and thereby weeds out those who try to think scientifically.

Scientists in Heaven are going to be about as useful as a four-dollar bill is now.

The priests in Jesus' day didn't like the idea of being put out of a job, and I assume the scientists of this dispensation feel the same way.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep. Just like it doesn't apply to Zeus, graviton fairies and the undetectable 7-headed dragon in my garage.

That is absolutely correct.

Anyone believing in those are going to have to do it by faith, not by science.

It's that simple.

It's amazing that children can understand this, but educatees cannot.

 

[Jan Volkes]

That is correct.

I can't say this enough -- the creation events have nothing to do with science.

Nothing at all.

None of the religious texts from any religion has anything to do with science, if you believe one you have no reason not to believe them all because they all have the same amount of evidence backing them, NONE, if you can prove one is true you can prove them all to be true.
Religions do more harm than good to humanity because they prey on the weakest in every society and make those societies weaker.
True believers should set up societies especially for believers then they could all worship their Gods in peace, I'm sure their Gods would look after them and provide for them, they could have Christmas every day.

 

[AV1611VET]

None of the religious texts from any religion has anything to do with science,

I'm sorry, Jan, I don't mean to be crass ... but do you really believe that?

If so, you guys wouldn't be begging, cajoling, and demanding evidence from us.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is absolutely correct.
Anyone believing in those are going to have to do it by faith, not by science.
It's that simple.

Indeed, it is that simple.
Me, I don't do "faith".
"Faith" is not a pathway to truth.
Science is a pathway of (at least) closing in on truth.

It's amazing that children can understand this, but educatees cannot.

I think you'll find that you are one of the very few who's honest enough to simply admit this.
Most other creationists will insist on having a scientifically viable model.

The whole Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate was literally about exactly that.

 

[Goonie]

I'm sorry, Jan, I don't mean to be crass ... but do you really believe that?

If so, you guys wouldn't be begging, cajoling, and demanding evidence from us.

Part of that is because often people of faith also claim science supports their beliefs in a young earth, and creation. When this happens of cause one demands to see the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you'll find that you are one of the very few who's honest enough to simply admit this.
Most other creationists will insist on having a scientifically viable model.

In my opinion, they are doing nothing more than exhibiting a lack of faith.

The whole Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate was literally about exactly that.

That is a debate that should never have happened.

It was nothing more than a waste of time and an affront to true Christianity.

(And yes, I watched it in its entirety.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Part of that is because often people of faith also claim science supports their beliefs in a young earth, and creation. When this happens of cause one demands to see the evidence.

Well, I don't want to play Devil's advocate here; but frankly I'm glad you guys do demand evidence from those who claim it's scientific.

We need to be put in our place as well.

I'll admit, I feel sorry for the likes of Ken Ham & Kent Hovind who, for some reason, think they're doing a service to the Faith by arguing in favor of scientific evidence for the creation events.

 

[Loudmouth]

depends on how this life is created.
in order to be valid, it must be created from the elements in one continuous reaction.
in my opinion, if science accomplishes the above, it will completely smash the god scenario forever.

That assumes that we need to disprove the god scenario to begin with. Even if we never know how life started, it doesn't prove that a deity did it. The god scenario requires just as much evidence as abiogenesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

the RNA world hypothesis is a failure.
mutations destroy it before it accumulates enough nucleotides for self sustenance.
this isn't due to lack of research, this is due to the extraordinary complexity of the problem.
as one famous scientist puts it:
"A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle."

When has the god scenario ever been a success?

 

[SkyWriting]

I am complaining about the content simply because it was not accurately recorded.

Then you may not complain about was did get written, because it's not accurate.

 

[Goonie]

Oops tablet error.

Well, I don't want to play Devil's advocate here; but frankly I'm glad you guys do demand evidence from those who claim it's scientific.

We need to be put in our place as well.

I'll admit, I feel sorry for the likes of Ken Ham & Kent Hovind who, for some reason, think they're doing a service to the Faith by arguing in favor of scientific evidence for the creation events.

Of cause if those of faith abandoned using science to justify their beliefs, this forum would be that bit more boring.