Falsifying Creation

"It's patently obvious you have no clue about what you posted, do you? Take a look at your so-called "falsifications". The only way to falsify the examples you posted would be to prove evolution true in 100% of the cases."Actually, under these falsifications, you could falsify Creation by showing that evolution is POSSIBLE (100 percent), you wouldn't actually have to prove evolution.Then again, I think you evolutionists should take a step back and realize just how difficult it is to falsify YOUR theory. I can only think of two (very broad) ways:1. Show that it is NOT possible to explain life by natural means.
2. Show that the Earth is much younger than evolutionists claim.Neither of these falsifications are very realistic. If you can provide more falsifications for the ToE, please provide.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
Again, all I did was to provide potential falsications for the Creation account. Is that clear?

---

Actually JP, you started this thread by saying: "Can the Creation account be falsified? Yes, by showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that purely natural processes are responsible for all we observe."This is your argument which I rebutted. Maybe you should clarify by advising if you now retract this statement and wish to argue that creationism has a theory that can be falsified.Also, please clarify which version of creationism is the alternate to the theory of evolution. I'm sure that you will agree that certain evidence can support one form of creationism and contradict another.

The only reason evolution is hard to falsify is because we do not observe the potential falsifications. Indeed, you have been provided a list of them and not been able to identify any observations of these potential falsifications. IOW, if it is only required that evolution is possible to falsify creation, that would mean creationism has been falsified.Now, when you feel like providing specific observations that would falsify creation that aren't in relation to evolution let us know. Until then, it doesn't appear that creationism is falsifiable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"It's patently obvious you have no clue about what you posted, do you? Take a look at your so-called "falsifications". The only way to falsify the examples you posted would be to prove evolution true in 100% of the cases."

​

Actually, under these falsifications, you could falsify Creation by showing that evolution is POSSIBLE (100 percent), you wouldn't actually have to prove evolution.

​

Then again, I think you evolutionists should take a step back and realize just how difficult it is to falsify YOUR theory. I can only think of two (very broad) ways:

​

1. Show that it is NOT possible to explain life by natural means.
2. Show that the Earth is much younger than evolutionists claim.

​

Neither of these falsifications are very realistic. If you can provide more falsifications for the ToE, please provide.

---

Cobra: Unfortunately, as I pointed out to John Paul, comparing one theory to another is not falsification in the sense I posted in message 4 of this thread. Replace the word "validate" with "falsify" in the post, and you'll understand what I mean. The distinction is a false one John Paul came up with because he had no other argument.As to potential falsifications to evolution: I can think of lots and lots!!!! Let me know if you want some (this is a thread about falsifications for creationism, after all) - although you should be able to come up with better than those two. BTW: How is "showing evolution to be possible 100%" different from proving evolution?(Here's why the ones you proposed for evolution aren't true potential falsifications: 1) You can't prove a negative, so logically there is no way you can develop "negative" information like that. 2) Actually, #2 isn't bad. It would certainly cause some major revisions in things like natural selection, etc. I'm not sure what would be left of the ToE after this. It would have to be pretty powerful evidence, however, since it would also have to refute what we know of geology, physics, plate tectonics, Mendelian genetics, paleontology, astronomy, etc. That's a lot of science - but it could happen... You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Can the Creation account be falsified? Yes, by showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that purely natural processes are responsible for all we observe.

​

---

First, are you saying that natural processes are NOT responsible
for all we OBSERVE. i.e. the modern biological world ?Can the Creation Account be Falsified ?By the creation account I presume you mean the early part of
Genesis.If, as in genesis, all creatures were created at (broadly speaking) the same time one would expect to find (and this has been
mentioned elsewhere) fossils of all the variety of life
randomly distributed throughout the rock strata of the earth.This is regardless of the relative ages of those rock strata or
of the possibility of a global flood causing unanticipated
layerings.We consistently do NOT see this.In different parts of the world, the sequences of fossils by
stratum are equivalent.This alone falsifies the ACCOUNT of creation in Genesis.

"In different parts of the world, the sequences of fossils by
stratum are equivalent.This alone falsifies the ACCOUNT of creation in Genesis."
--How in the world does this falsify it? I don't see the relevance of your accusation of this being a valid falsification of the Genesis Creation account, for one, the Genesis 'creation' account cannot be attributed to being validated by the hierarchy of fossil succession in its burrial record. This attributes to a falsification of the Noacian Flood, but not creation. The initial creaiton, is simply based on faith, because it is based on the question of Origins, creationists ofcourse allready have their answer for for Origins. One of the few questions we answer with 'Goddidit'.------------------

"As to potential falsifications to evolution: I can think of lots and lots!!!! Let me know if you want some (this is a thread about falsifications for creationism, after all)"
--I would like a good thought-out list of falsifications for reference, think of as many as you can, we don't have to discuss them here, I would just like them on a side-note (sorry for straying off topic, but have been meaning to ask)------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RetroCrono:
[B]John Paul, I disagree. Dissaproving evolution will not prove creation and proving evolution will not dissaprove creation.B][/QUOTE]yeah i agree with retro's statement if anything one will be able to prove the other.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"In different parts of the world, the sequences of fossils by
stratum are equivalent.

​

This alone falsifies the ACCOUNT of creation in Genesis."
--How in the world does this falsify it? I don't see the relevance of your accusation of this being a valid falsification of the Genesis Creation account, for one, the Genesis 'creation' account cannot be attributed to being validated by the hierarchy of fossil succession in its burrial record. This attributes to a falsification of the Noacian Flood, but not creation. The initial creaiton, is simply based on faith, because it is based on the question of Origins, creationists ofcourse allready have their answer for for Origins. One of the few questions we answer with 'Goddidit'.

---

The proposal put forward in Genesis for the creation is that
all animal life was created 'as is' during the six day creation
period.Fossils are created when animals die, and particular conditions
exists such that their remains are petrified (simplification).If ALL animals were created at the same time it follows that there
would be NO sequence within the fossil record. Animals of varying
types would have died as their lifespan dictated (even if that were
much longer when they were first created than now).Sequences observable in the fossil record show, for example,
no mammals in layers below or equivalent to , say, dinosaurs.Sequence in the fossil record is contrary to the expected observation
if the creation account were fact.Therefore the creation ACCOUNT is inaccurate.Whether or not the ACCOUNT of creation is accurate, inaccurate, or
falsified has little bearing on whether there is a God who
actually created the world. I am not concerned with undermining
your faith, but if the creation is a matter of faith to you and
that's that ... why are you debating here ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
yeah i agree with retro's statement if anything one will be able to prove the other.

---

I think the point being made is that no validation/falsification of
either theory has any relevance to the other.They are BOTH theories of creation and the origins of life. They
are NOT necessarily contradictory in all areas (depending on your
branch of creationism/evolutionism).One theory says nothing directly about the other.To falsify either theory requires matching expected results of the
proposals made with real-world observations.

"The proposal put forward in Genesis for the creation is that
all animal life was created 'as is' during the six day creation
period."
--No doubt."Fossils are created when animals die, and particular conditions
exists such that their remains are petrified (simplification)."
--Actually, they are permineralized, but othewize you are basically correct."If ALL animals were created at the same time it follows that there
would be NO sequence within the fossil record."
--Assuming that the fossil record has anything to do with the creation account."Animals of varying
types would have died as their lifespan dictated (even if that were
much longer when they were first created than now)."
--No doubt, that doesn't mean that they would have been burried to reach permineralization."Sequences observable in the fossil record show, for example,
no mammals in layers below or equivalent to , say, dinosaurs."
--Actually they are found in the region where dinosaurs are exhibited in the fossil record, though they become dominant thereafter."Sequence in the fossil record is contrary to the expected observation
if the creation account were fact."
--But the creation account has nothing to do with the Fossil Record?"Therefore the creation ACCOUNT is inaccurate."
--See above."Whether or not the ACCOUNT of creation is accurate, inaccurate, or
falsified has little bearing on whether there is a God who
actually created the world."
--Whew, were not lost yet!"I am not concerned with undermining
your faith, but if the creation is a matter of faith to you and
that's that ... why are you debating here ?"
--thats a very good question, indeed, mabye you should ask yourself that question sometime?------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"The proposal put forward in Genesis for the creation is that
all animal life was created 'as is' during the six day creation
period."
--No doubt.

​

LUD:...though quite innacurate.

​

"Fossils are created when animals die, and particular conditions
exists such that their remains are petrified (simplification)."
--Actually, they are permineralized, but othewize you are basically correct.

​

LUD: we all agree here but i know it cant last...

​

"If ALL animals were created at the same time it follows that there
would be NO sequence within the fossil record."
--Assuming that the fossil record has anything to do with the creation account.

​

LUD:But it does in a way...lets keep reading.

​

"Animals of varying
types would have died as their lifespan dictated (even if that were
much longer when they were first created than now)."
--No doubt, that doesn't mean that they would have been burried to reach permineralization.

​

LUD:actually,premineralisation depends on the environemental conditions that prevailed where the animal as i understand it and burrial in certain substance is often necessary to achieve this. If i'm wrong about this,someone correct me.

​

"Sequences observable in the fossil record show, for example,
no mammals in layers below or equivalent to , say, dinosaurs."
--Actually they are found in the region where dinosaurs are exhibited in the fossil record, though they become dominant thereafter.

​

LUD:But the point is that despite some rare exceptions,the fossil record is quite consistant...nothing,then small critters from the cambian explosion,dinos,and THEN birds and mammals. In that context,the weight of evidence does not support the creation accounts...

​

"Sequence in the fossil record is contrary to the expected observation
if the creation account were fact."
--But the creation account has nothing to do with the Fossil Record?

​

LUD: yes it does if the fossil record tends to demonstrate that certain types of animals appeared and were gone LONG BEFORE other type of animals came about. The creation account is quite specific on this...BIRDS THAN ANIMALS,all of em in 2 days.

​

"Therefore the creation ACCOUNT is inaccurate."
--See above.

​

LUD:you too,TC...

​

"Whether or not the ACCOUNT of creation is accurate, inaccurate, or
falsified has little bearing on whether there is a God who
actually created the world."
--Whew, were not lost yet!

​

LUD: We never were anywhere near being lost...Evolutionists dont claim that there is no God...they just explain that he probably did not work the way teh Bible describes.

​

"I am not concerned with undermining
your faith, but if the creation is a matter of faith to you and
that's that ... why are you debating here ?"
--thats a very good question, indeed, mabye you should ask yourself that question sometime?

​

LUD:If i may be permited to answer this as well,i come here because i get many things from the debates. The absolute worst thing that can happen to science is to become complacent. Sometimes,debating the "other side" so to speak allows certain faults in your logic to appear that you may have missed otherwise and it gives you the opportunity to re-evaluate your conclusions to see what you may have missed. True,this may mean that you might change your mind completely about the issue you're debating if the fault discovered in your logic was a fatal one but most of the time,it just re-inforces your earlier position because you come back after adressing the problems with an even greater understanding of the hypothesis you are defending in a debate. Does that answer your question...at least as far as i'm concerned?

​

---

"LUD:...though quite innacurate."
--Oh, then what else could it be other than 'as is'?"LUD: we all agree here but i know it cant last..."
--Yeah, too bad isn't it "LUD:But it does in a way...lets keep reading."
--In what way was that, ok lets keep reading then."LUD:actually,premineralisation depends on the environemental conditions that prevailed where the animal as i understand it and burrial in certain substance is often necessary to achieve this. If i'm wrong about this,someone correct me."
--Your correct, though I don't see what is the contrary towards my statement, I was making aware that things that die, don't always get permineralized (fossilized), 99.999% of the time, it requires burrial."LUD:But the point is that despite some rare exceptions,the fossil record is quite consistant..."
--That depends on what your view of consistancy is, obviously in its own logical way, there is no way it could not be consistant, but if you are refering to how people determine where you will find a creature, it requires minor and major refinement constantly."nothing,then small critters from the cambian explosion,dinos,and THEN birds and mammals. In that context,the weight of evidence does not support the creation accounts..."
--Again, it has nothing to do with the account of creation, I was hoping you would give me a reason why it does, as I would hope even the most anti of anti-creationists should realize this as basic (for young earth arguments). And again Dinosaurs are found along with mammals (smaller mammals that supposedly evolved with the dinosaurs) int he Fossil record."LUD: yes it does if the fossil record tends to demonstrate that certain types of animals appeared and were gone LONG BEFORE other type of animals came about."
--which, might I add, is a major assumption, and is based on interperetation, not fact."The creation account is quite specific on this...BIRDS THAN ANIMALS,all of em in 2 days."
--Yup, and its also specific in its own little way on the flood, 'Everything ourside of the ark perished'."LUD:you too,TC..."
--Thanx, lets run through it again (no YEC theory has anything to do with the creation account within the record of fossils)."LUD: We never were anywhere near being lost...Evolutionists dont claim that there is no God...they just explain that he probably did not work the way teh Bible describes."
--Takes alot more faith than is needed to believe that the bible isn't accurate. Like I explained above, so this statment isn't too relevant if you regard it as a sortof conclusion from the previous."LUD:If i may be permited to answer this as well,i come here because i get many things from the debates."
--Likewize, thats a good thing."The absolute worst thing that can happen to science is to become complacent."
--I don't see that happening."Sometimes,debating the "other side" so to speak allows certain faults in your logic to appear that you may have missed otherwise and it gives you the opportunity to re-evaluate your conclusions to see what you may have missed."
--Thats the main reason I am here, and forgive me Peter if I was a little sarcastic, just make sure you know the basics of the theory your arguing with, unless of course you were arguing with someone else, but don't argue with the bible, argue with the theory."True,this may mean that you might change your mind completely about the issue you're debating if the fault discovered in your logic was a fatal one but most of the time,it just re-inforces your earlier position because you come back after adressing the problems with an even greater understanding of the hypothesis you are defending in a debate."
--Amen "Does that answer your question...at least as far as i'm concerned?"
--As far as I am concerned, yes.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"LUD:...though quite innacurate."
--Oh, then what else could it be other than 'as is'?

​

"LUD: we all agree here but i know it cant last..."
--Yeah, too bad isn't it

​

"LUD:But it does in a way...lets keep reading."
--In what way was that, ok lets keep reading then.

​

"LUD:actually,premineralisation depends on the environemental conditions that prevailed where the animal as i understand it and burrial in certain substance is often necessary to achieve this. If i'm wrong about this,someone correct me."
--Your correct, though I don't see what is the contrary towards my statement, I was making aware that things that die, don't always get permineralized (fossilized), 99.999% of the time, it requires burrial.

​

"LUD:But the point is that despite some rare exceptions,the fossil record is quite consistant..."
--That depends on what your view of consistancy is, obviously in its own logical way, there is no way it could not be consistant, but if you are refering to how people determine where you will find a creature, it requires minor and major refinement constantly.

​

"nothing,then small critters from the cambian explosion,dinos,and THEN birds and mammals. In that context,the weight of evidence does not support the creation accounts..."
--Again, it has nothing to do with the account of creation, I was hoping you would give me a reason why it does, as I would hope even the most anti of anti-creationists should realize this as basic (for young earth arguments). And again Dinosaurs are found along with mammals (smaller mammals that supposedly evolved with the dinosaurs) int he Fossil record.

​

"LUD: yes it does if the fossil record tends to demonstrate that certain types of animals appeared and were gone LONG BEFORE other type of animals came about."
--which, might I add, is a major assumption, and is based on interperetation, not fact.

​

"The creation account is quite specific on this...BIRDS THAN ANIMALS,all of em in 2 days."
--Yup, and its also specific in its own little way on the flood, 'Everything ourside of the ark perished'.

​

"LUD:you too,TC..."
--Thanx, lets run through it again (no YEC theory has anything to do with the creation account within the record of fossils).

​

"LUD: We never were anywhere near being lost...Evolutionists dont claim that there is no God...they just explain that he probably did not work the way teh Bible describes."
--Takes alot more faith than is needed to believe that the bible isn't accurate. Like I explained above, so this statment isn't too relevant if you regard it as a sortof conclusion from the previous.

​

"LUD:If i may be permited to answer this as well,i come here because i get many things from the debates."
--Likewize, thats a good thing.

​

"The absolute worst thing that can happen to science is to become complacent."
--I don't see that happening.

​

"Sometimes,debating the "other side" so to speak allows certain faults in your logic to appear that you may have missed otherwise and it gives you the opportunity to re-evaluate your conclusions to see what you may have missed."
--Thats the main reason I am here, and forgive me Peter if I was a little sarcastic, just make sure you know the basics of the theory your arguing with, unless of course you were arguing with someone else, but don't argue with the bible, argue with the theory.

​

"True,this may mean that you might change your mind completely about the issue you're debating if the fault discovered in your logic was a fatal one but most of the time,it just re-inforces your earlier position because you come back after adressing the problems with an even greater understanding of the hypothesis you are defending in a debate."
--Amen

​

"Does that answer your question...at least as far as i'm concerned?"
--As far as I am concerned, yes.

---

I'll skip to the bits that we disagree on The fossil record, regardless of how old the different
layers in which fossils are found may be, indicates a sequence
of demise within the animals that live and have ever lived.There are layers which contain nothing but fish and (in
evolutionary terminology(sorry about that ) lesser lifeforms,
and higher lifeforms are NEVER found in layers equivalent or lower
than these. (I realise that the mammal thing was a little off
since early mammals emerged while dinos were still about).The point I was making was that the fossil record shows a sequence
of existence. It is consistent. It has been observed by independent
witnesses world-wide (and in the early fossil hunting error with
no mass-communications media they came to similar conculsions
about what this sequence meant).To test an hypothesis or assertion, we make a prediction based
upon that assertion and see if we can find evidence that refutes
it. This is (edited highlights of) scientific method.The creation ACCOUNT (and I stress ACCOUNT) states that all life
was created with a very short period (i.e 6 days of creation, animals
made toward the end of that).Animals die according to their lifespans (no argument
here I think), then ANY of the animals in creation could have
died at the same time as each other, or 'lower' forms after 'higher'.The conditions for fossilisation are particular. If burrial is required in 99.9999% of cases, then fossilisation can only occur
when an creature has been burried close to its time of death (otherwise carrion eaters or such would have taken it away).This LEADS directly to a prediction of NO sequence in the fossil
record. A lion could have died and been fossilised just as easily
as an early fish or T.Rex or ... whatever, and at the same time or earlier than any other animal because they all co-existed.This is contrary to the ACCOUNT of creation in the Bible, and so
this account MUST be inaccurate or (more likely) non-literal.I don't usually respond to personal comments, but I will point out
that in arguing against Creationism we ARE arguing against the Bible
accounts. There is no theory of creationism, except that the bible
is the literal truth of creation.I also AM aware of the context and content of this debate. Don't
confuse recent arrival on the forum with recent arrival to the
debate itself

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

​

This LEADS directly to a prediction of NO sequence in the fossil
record. A lion could have died and been fossilised just as easily
as an early fish or T.Rex or ... whatever, and at the same time or earlier than any other animal because they all co-existed.

​

This is contrary to the ACCOUNT of creation in the Bible, and so
this account MUST be inaccurate or (more likely) non-literal.

​

---

Sorry I missed a bit out here (OOPS ). I meant that the
prediction made by the biblical ACCOUNT is not born out
by the fossil record.