Jeptha writes:
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.
What would then stop you from claiming that god used abiogenisis to create life? An allpowerful being can do ANYTHING and that is exactly why creationism is not falsifiable.
Jeptha writes:
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.
How did Roger Alsen calculate those odds? All of these types of calculations I have seen have based on unfounded assumtions and were therefore invalid.
Then also if you think that a finite cell has [some huge number] odds agains forming, what do you think the odds of an infinite being would be? Rationally, assuming these calculation are valid, you have to accept that ANY finite structure has FAR more chance of arrising than ANY infinite being.
Jeptha writes:
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.
Evidence against one 'theory' is not evidence for another.
Jeptha writes:
What if I could show evidence, agreeable to all interested parties, that the Second Law would NOT have prevented complex macroevolution?
A creationist finally realised that the SLOT doesn't prevent evolution. I congratulate you.
Jeptha writes:
The list really grows fairly long in very tangible reasons of why I must choose creationism over the other possibilities.
When evaluating a theory it is best to look for evidence supporting or refution that theory. Theories don't win by default. So, do you have any supporting evidence for creation?
Jeptha writes:
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.
We don't take it seriously because it is flawed.Even if it we not, the probabilities against and infinite being would be far greater, making any finite object or creature infinitely more likely.
------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
™ Version 4.2