What would falsify creationism?

Loudmouth · Aug 10, 2015

In the end, we have creationists facing massive amounts of evidence that contradict their beliefs. What we get in turn amounts to a series of Omphalos theories where God or Satan fake the evidence.

We also get contradicting statements, such as the fundamental laws of physics changing in the past so that radiometric dating and starlight are not a problem, and yet they argue out the other side of their mouth that if those fundamental laws were just a tiny little bit different that the universe would vanish in front of us. We see flood theorists try and try to use only natural processes, but in the end they always have to retreat to a violation of the natural laws.

We also see more than one dogmatic position being taken by creationists. I have asked multiple creationists what features a fossil would need in order to be transitional between humans and an ancestor shared with chimps. I have yet to find a single creationist who can honestly answer that question. They will proclaim loudly that there are no transitional fossils, but what they really mean to say is that they could care less what the fossils are. No matter what a fossil looks like, they will not accept it as transitional.

What this means is that creationism is unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence is observed, creationists will still proclaim that God did it through non-natural means.

SkyWriting · Aug 10, 2015

Larnievc said:
That's what I mean by maximally powerful. He is the most powerful thing but he cannot subvert logic e.g. He could not sin or choose to become imperfect.But he could make anything is the material wold happen by fait and that means anything can be explained by "goddidit".

Accept He is not the god of this world. So, as you explained, He can't walk here.
Satan is the god of this world.

SkyWriting · Aug 10, 2015

Loudmouth said:
What this means is that creationism is unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence is observed, creationists will still proclaim that God did it through non-natural means.

Correct. Otherwise there would be no need for Faith.
If you read the book, you'd remember.
Complainers continue to argue against
topics they could research themselves.

28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

Loudmouth · Aug 10, 2015

SkyWriting said:
Correct. Otherwise there would be no need for Faith.

Why do you have to use faith to ignore evidence? I have always thought of faith as a belief held in the absence of evidence, not in contradiction to the evidence. Thomas may have doubted, but he stopped doubting when shown the evidence. Why can't creationists do the same? Why must they ignore the creation itself?

SkyWriting · Aug 10, 2015

Jan Volkes said:
You are the one who believes the Bible is true and accurate so you tell me. How do you know that the words attributed to Jesus record accurately what Jesus actually said? the truth is you don't know.

That is true of any past events.

... backward reasoning is particularly susceptible to bias.

Loudmouth · Aug 10, 2015

SkyWriting said:
That is true of any past events.

... backward reasoning is particularly susceptible to bias.

Not a scientific source.

All you are doing is re-affirming what has already been said. You have to ignore the evidence to hold on to your beliefs.

AV1611VET · Aug 10, 2015

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

No argument there!

asherahSamaria · Aug 10, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Yup.Well, I don't think He meant the FIFA World Cup.Ya ... heard that many times.

Don't believe it.Either that, or one gives Joseph's line, while the other gives Mary's line.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.He wasn't.Well, they certainly convinced 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.

I don't want to derail this thread but...

"Don't believe it" - not much of an argument. This isn't even a controversial view - Biblical scholars endorse it. It's completely obvious that they copied Mark.

You miss my point about the genealogies. Nobody believes that one was Marys - women's genealogies had no standing at the time (correction - extreme fundamentalists do). My point is why include Joseph's at all? He wasn't the father - according to the story. Unless you think he was and that the whole divine conception thing was just made up (join the club ) It's incontrovertible that the two unknown authors who were writing the stories just invented/heard/copied different genealogies for unknown reasons.

driewerf · Aug 10, 2015

AV1611VET said:
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.

Do you still argue that it is suitable for history class?
Because historians too work with evidence. Texts, documents, archeological findings etc. But evidence nonetheless.

AV1611VET · Aug 10, 2015

asherahSamaria said:
My point is why include Joseph's at all?

Because Jesus was fully human, as well as fully God.

In addition, it was to show that He came from the line of Abraham/David, as prophecied.

Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

This passage shows He was from the tribe of Judah, as prophecied.

Genesis 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

AV1611VET · Aug 10, 2015

driewerf said:
Do you still argue that it is suitable for history class?

Yes.

driewerf said:
Because historians too work with evidence. Texts, documents, archeological findings etc. But evidence nonetheless.

In that respect, the Bible is the only piece of evidence that should be used.

If you want to use a map and say, "Here is Smyrna," or "Here is Jerusalem," that's okay.

But it's far from scientific evidence.

asherahSamaria · Aug 10, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Because Jesus was fully human, as well as fully God.

In addition, it was to show that He came from the line of Abraham/David, as prophecied.

Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

This passage shows He was from the tribe of Judah, as prophecied.

Genesis 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

Again you miss the point. What's the point of including Joseph. Genealogies are there to show blood lines. Since Joseph was not the father - how can I put this delicately - Joseph did not inseminate Mary - there is no link at all. Unless you are suggesting deception?

AV1611VET · Aug 10, 2015

asherahSamaria said:
What's the point of including Joseph.

So Luke can make an important point:

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph,

Jan Volkes · Aug 10, 2015

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

At last you got something right.

ScottA · Aug 10, 2015

Jan Volkes said:
I don't think you know a God I think you only imagine you do.

I knew exactly what I was saying, Gods are nothing more than figments of people's imaginations, even tribes who knew nothing of other tribes invented their own Gods to protect them from unseen dangers, overcome problems they could not overcome and answer questions they could not answer, that's why thanks to science Gods have been in most cases made completely redundant.

Gods are consolations and pacifiers, a train wreck kills a hundred people and one survives, believers do not blame their God for killing the 100 they thank their God for not killing the one, there are very good reasons why people invented Gods.

My point was that, since you do not know God, you yourself would be the one imagining there is no God...because that is how imagination works. Those of us who unequivocally know God have nothing to imagine.

Jan Volkes said:
Can any religion answer this very simple question? Where were we before we were born?

Those who are "of" God, were "with" God. Those who are not "of" God, were created beings, and did not exist before birth.

fat wee robin · Aug 10, 2015

lesliedellow said:
Nothing would falsify creationism, because so called "creation science" is just one huge effort at explaining away. The only thing it ever does is try to discredit evolution, and never does it come up with any genuine research of its own.

So, if you believe in 'evolution' , does that mean that you think humanity started as a one cell organism and developed from there? How would this fit in with your Calvinist beliefs ?

SkyWriting · Aug 10, 2015

ScottA said:
Those who are "of" God, were "with" God. Those who are not "of" God, were created beings, and did not exist before birth.

What is that from?

SkyWriting · Aug 10, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Not a scientific source.

It may have dripped from a monkeys nostril, but it's still correct.

SkyWriting · Aug 10, 2015

asherahSamaria said:
Again you miss the point. What's the point of including Joseph. Genealogies are there to show blood lines. Since Joseph was not the father - how can I put this delicately - Joseph did not inseminate Mary - there is no link at all. Unless you are suggesting deception?

It has been demonstrated that geologies don't always include transfer of body fluids.
Some of them involve relationships.

SkyWriting · Aug 10, 2015

driewerf said:
Do you still argue that it is suitable for history class?
Because historians too work with evidence. Texts, documents, archeological findings etc. But evidence nonetheless.

Evidence often worthless and removed from court.
The Bible has been shown to more supported than in question.

Biblical Archeology: Sodom and Gomorrah
Does archeological data support the Biblical story?

What would falsify creationism?

Contributor

The Librarian

The Librarian

Contributor

The Librarian

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

a day at the Zoo

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Author: Walking Like Einstein

Newbie

The Librarian

The Librarian

The Librarian

The Librarian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency