But isn't creationism really falsifiable?? I view it as such. For example, all one would have to accomplish would be to show that abiogenesis could, and probably did, occur. You would glean my attention rather quickly.
When we weigh the probabilities against amino acids forming to produce even a single protein (I can back this up with Roger Olsen’s calculations if anyone wishes me to bore them to death) and then ponder the astronomical odds against the first cell forming on its on from a primordial ooze, I can’t comprehend that any free thinker could actually contemplate any other theory than creationism seriously.
What if Dembski’s Explanatory Filter did NOT show design in a flagella in a ratio of about 1:10125? That would certainly begin to give me at least some faith in the possibility of abiogenesis.
What if I could show evidence, agreeable to all interested parties, that the Second Law would NOT have prevented complex macroevolution?
The list really grows fairly long in very tangible reasons of why I must choose creationism over the other possibilities.
The mind of the evolutionist has always fascinated me. I like them as people, they have great minds, usually a great sense of humor, but how they cannot seem to take the probability math seriously that suggests creationism is the leading probability of our existence completely escapes me.
™ Version 4.2