What would falsify creationism?

[Larniavc]

And we are all aware of the vast amount of empty space, free of mass or energy, that exists.
Starting with "nothing"

It's quite hard to ever have nothing. Vacuum energy is always going to be present so the more no mass or energy in a given volume of space would necessarily mean more virtual particals zipping in and out of existance.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Then you may not complain about the content, if it's not recorded accurately.

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

 

[DogmaHunter]

Creationism is the idea that a force outside of natural laws has had an impact on our reality.
The only way to test a theory or concept available to us is a "natural" set of tools.
So Creationism exists outside of the boundaries of the scientific method.
The Scientific Method can only examine that which is natural and duplicatable.

For example, if a scientist in a labcoat was able to instantly create an apple,
say, pull one out of a tabletop wormhole, he could say "There! That might be how God did it!"

So, creationism is not falsifiable or supportable.

Cool. That puts it in the same spot as the potentially infinite amount of unfalsifiable and unsupportable claims.

That's the pile of claims labeled as "meaningless" and "useless".

 

[DogmaHunter]

After you listed up items included in Creationism, then you can easily see on yourself what would it take to falsify them. How many items can you list? Just one which happened to be unfalsifiable?

Before you want to falsify anything, you need to understand it FIRST!

Instead of wasting space with this vague post that doesn't move the thread forward one bit.... you could also simply answer the question being asked.

Why don't you?

How to falsify creationism?

 

[whois]

I've read a couple. Self replicating molecules like some kinds of enzymes would be subject to natural selection and thus evolution. And it's not that hard to get basic materials.

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."

 

[DogmaHunter]

i believe as soon as science proves abiogenesis, this would put to rest forever a notion of a god.
despite its best efforts, science has been unable to do that.
science doesn't even have a plausible scenario for how it could have happened.

I wonder if you could make a more blatant argument from ignorance if you tried.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What else do you assume?

He thinks it takes "faith" to assume that chemistry worked in the past.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It doesn't try to discredit evolution and your understanding of what it is all about is apparent. Most creationists accept evolution as defined but do not feel that evolution is a mindless, unguided, undirected process with no goals or plan.

Luckily, science doesn't really care about what people "feel" like.

 

[whois]

Have you got a valid scientific source to support this claim?

naturally occuring, as in finding them lying around like you would diamonds or salt.
these compounds must be manufactured in the lab.
OTOH they are readily found in life, manufactured by DNA and the resulting processes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So that would be bad for the other animals? Why just us?

Most animals are superstitious, just like humans.

Look up "the pigeon experiment" where they demonstrated that even pigeons are superstitious.

It's called "the false positive".
Beliefs in gods is no different.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Given the number of people who do believe our world exists, then likely it does.
The same goes for God.

lol, blatant argumentum ad populum.

 

[asherahSamaria]

Just as the title says. What evidence could show that creationism was wrong? And I am talking hypothetical here (I've seen that some people here have trouble grasping that concept).

I assume you refer to one of the Biblical creation stories?

The same evidence that would be needed to prove that the tribe of invisible flying pink pixies poked a hole in space/time fabric with the magic bon bon stick and hey presto - the universe was extruded.

Both claims are unsubstantiated and until something positive that was demonstrable was made evident, both have equal weight.

As does the one with the flying blue pixies, and the one with the green ones .. etc etc, ad infinitum

 

[juvenissun]

Instead of wasting space with this vague post that doesn't move the thread forward one bit.... you could also simply answer the question being asked.

Why don't you?

How to falsify creationism?

A student needs to figure out his question. Otherwise, he may think that he knows everything.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not talking about science, AV, I'm talking about evidence.

The earth came into existence ex nihilo by divine fiat on the first day of the creation week in 4004 BC.

Prior to the earth's existence, the amount of mass/energy in existence was zero.

On day one, the level of mass/energy was raised from zero to "one earth" (whatever amount that is).

What evidence would you expect was in existence then to support this act?

A boulder? a star? a cosmic microwave background?

If any of the above, this means that God would have had to have created this boulder, star, or CMB ex nihilo as well.

Meaning the amount of mass/energy was "one earth" plus "one boulder," "one star," or "one CMB."

This doesn't make sense.

That's like making a log cabin out of Lincoln Logs, then leaving extra logs around as evidence that you made a log cabin out of Lincoln Logs.

Or making a plastic army man, then leaving plastic lying around as evidence.

If you had a concrete patio put in, would you expect the cement mixer to pour concrete here and there around your yard as evidence of your patio?

 

[DogmaHunter]

A student needs to figure out his question. Otherwise, he may think that he knows everything.

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

 

[AV1611VET]

... did he promise that the rapture would come in his disciples lifetime?

No.

In fact, Jesus said they were going to die as well.

Mark 10:37 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:

See also:

John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
John 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
John 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
John 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

 

[asherahSamaria]

No.

In fact, Jesus said they were going to die as well.

Mark 10:37 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:

See also:

John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
John 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
John 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
John 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Maybe I'm misreading but where in those quotes does it say that the disciples were going to die before Jesus's return?
All of the following seem to disagree - though, of course, both Luke and Mathew just copied from Mark in the first place. Don't tell me this is a ...gasp ... contradiction?

Matt 16:28 There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Matt 10:23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Matt 24:34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Mark 13:30 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Luke 21:32 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe I'm misreading but where in those quotes does it say that the disciples were going to die before Jesus's return?

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.

All of the following seem to disagree - though, of course, both Luke and Mathew just copied from Mark in the first place.

That's bologna.

No one copied from anyone.

If so, where did Matthew & Luke get Jesus' genealogies?

Don't tell me this is a ...gasp ... contradiction?

I won't.

Matt 16:28 There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Read the next three verses.

Matt 10:23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

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.

Matt 24:34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Mark 13:30 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Luke 21:32 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

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?

 

[juvenissun]

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

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.

 

[Cearbhall]

Just as the title says. What evidence could show that creationism was wrong? And I am talking hypothetical here (I've seen that some people here have trouble grasping that concept).

That depends on how exactly you would define it. I assume you're referring to one of the Christian varieties. YEC? Gap creationism?