What would falsify creationism?

[Loudmouth]

When God says: Gen 1:31 "And Godsaw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." VERY GOOD means that creation did not have mistakes, errors, mutations or any such thing.

In common parlance, something is perfect if it has no mistakes, errors. Very good would indicate a few mistakes or errors.

As for mutations, they can increase fitness which would move it closer to very good.

He actually is returning for a church without spot, blemish or wrinkle. He will: "transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body." So we will no longer have to endure the weakness of the flesh.

So we've been told for 1,500 years. Don't expect us to take it seriously.

 

[whois]

Education is a problem for creationists.

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

 

[Loudmouth]

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

How do you determine if a conference is biased? Does an astronomy conference need 50% Geocentrists in order to be unbiased?

 

[Rygaku]

I don't even need to try hard at all to disprove creation period.
1. Modern medicine
2. The human genome
3. Age of the earth
4. Age of the sun
5. Age of the universe
6. Fossils
7. Finally all in all the creation story along with many parts of the bible is simply copy pasted mythology. To be specific the creation story was stolen from the Babylonian myths.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't even need to try hard at all to disprove creation period.
1. Modern medicine
2. The human genome
3. Age of the earth
4. Age of the sun
5. Age of the universe
6. Fossils
7. Finally all in all the creation story along with many parts of the bible is simply copy pasted mythology. To be specific the creation story was stolen from the Babylonian myths.

That is not the consensus of Historians.

 

[Rygaku]

That is not the consensus of Historians.

You don't need to drag history into it.
Over all the creation story itself is self defeating.

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.

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

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

 

[Zosimus]

You don't need to drag history into it.
Over all the creation story itself is self defeating.

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.

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

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

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.

 

[Rygaku]

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.

Let's throw about biblical creationism because scientifically its wrong.
But refuting a concept it would still fall short because again. The question would still have to be asked
is there or is there not a god. No one has evidence only personal experience.

 

[Zosimus]

Let's throw about biblical creationism because scientifically its wrong.
But refuting a concept it would still fall short because again. The question would still have to be asked
is there or is there not a god. No one has evidence only personal experience.

Your argument presupposes that the latest scientific theories are correct.

 

[Rygaku]

Your argument presupposes that the latest scientific theories are correct.

I never said they were correct considering science is always changing.

 

[ScottA]

Agreed, we know it was the big bang, we're trying to find out what created that.

A big bang is what you get when you do something fast instead of slow. Time is slow. Creation was not. That's your answer.

Here it is in scripture: 1 Thessalonians 4:16. When science and Christianity catch up on their understanding of Time...that will all be clear.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You don't need to drag history into it.
Over all the creation story itself is self defeating.

I disagree.

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.

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

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

1. Evolution does not defeat Creationism. It is not an argument of if evolution then no God and if no God then evolution.
2. Creationism is not anti-evolution.
3,4, and 5. Shows your ignorance and lack of understanding of creation and Creationism. I am not a YEC.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let's throw about biblical creationism because scientifically its wrong.
But refuting a concept it would still fall short because again. The question would still have to be asked
is there or is there not a god. No one has evidence only personal experience.

There is plenty of evidence but it is all considered illusion by materialist, naturalists and atheists.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I agree although I think science supports the majority of Biblical creationism.

 

[joshua 1 9]

In common parlance, something is perfect if it has no mistakes, errors. Very good would indicate a few mistakes or errors.

Actually in the Bible perfect is mature and in full bloom. When a tree produces its fruit.

 

[Jan Volkes]

perhaps you don't understand evolution. It's not undirected.

It's undirected in regards to a mind, evolution could be said to be just the way the mop flops, what works survives and reproduces and what doesn't work eventually dies.

 

[Jan Volkes]

I agree although I think science supports the majority of Biblical creationism.

If that's how you are able to believe it have it your way, forget the faith part because for believers that's never ever enough.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If that's how you are able to believe it have it your way, forget the faith part because for believers that's never ever enough.

I don't find it hard to believe at all and faith isn't required.

 

[ScottA]

It's undirected in regards to a mind, evolution could be said to be just the way the mop flops, what works survives and reproduces and what doesn't work eventually dies.

That's not evolution, that's natural selection.

Natural selection and creation are compatible, evolution and natural selection are also compatible, but evolution and creation are not.

 

[Dpierre]

In other words, we are back to the "logic" from which follows that ice at the north pole is the result of "intelligent freezing", because it takes intelligence to "build a freezer".

What s this poster talking about? Is this kind of like a secret hand shake thing? You got to be in the know to decipher?