Is the TOE falsifiable and if it was, would it advance Biblical Creationism

Well, let us review the sequence here.When I said the Bible is to be believed, you responded that therefore I would no longer try to prove anything based on it, as if the word "belief" were some magic formula that discredited it.So I answered that if one believes something, and that includes you, one believes it is the truth.And I'd say further that if you believe it is the truth, then you treat it as the truth and you argue for it as the truth against those who don't believe it.EVERYTHING is based on belief. You believe in evolution although I'm sure you don't know even 1% about it and mostly rely on what you've heard.Same with believing the Bible. I believe it is the truth and I defend it as the truth.Nobody believes ANYTHING except what they are prepared to defend as the truth. THE truth. WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. THAT kind of truth. That's the kind of truth you ascribe to the ToE and it's the same kind of truth I ascribe to the Bible. This is what we are arguing about, me trying to convince you, you trying to convince me. This is what debate is about.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think you got my purpose crossed.when I said it was in response to something you said.
when asked if the fact that nothing about the past can be known included the bible, you said yes. which would mean that the flood can't be known, that the wars can't be known, that everything in any way historical in the bible might not have really happened.But you do belief they happen, in fact you KNOW they happened. It is all true. which makes your statement that nothing about the past can be known, including that which is in the bible, contradictory.I know a lot more about evolution than just 1% of it. I don't know all of it, true, but . . .I'm glad you sorted out the contradiction with the end of your post, though. Which means that the past can be known. which means that the bible can be proved, not just believed. actually, this whole thing is screwed up. my fualt, partially. let's start from the beginning.faith writes to which rickJB responds with to which Faith responds which is when I enter the picture.
what you have said, so far, amounts to this.
nothing about the past can be known, including what's in the bible, and the bible is to be believed, not proved.So I state that either you will stop trying to prove the flood and whatnot, or that you screwed up, and meant to say that the bible is true.If the later is the case (which it is:) that means that things about the past can be known.which makes your statements contradictory. That's what I was getting at.this latter part makes more sense, no?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

and how exactly will they use accepted dating methods to arrive at very different dates then what science has come to using several different dating methods to come to one conclusive time period?The hammer was tacky. But it is a example of creationist fraud.

What hypothesis?What sense?You have no evidence - only a collection of contradictary opinions. Why should anyone pay attention to YEC ad-hoc attempts to redefine or criticise scientific fields which they have not studied?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

That's not quite right. We were talking about what can be PROVED, and I said the past can't be. You asked if the Bible can be and I said no, it is to be believed not proved. But believing it is knowing it to be true. So really what I'm saying is that the Bible is really great evidence for the past, whereas by comparison nothing empirical is reliable evidence at all. I think there's still a misundersatnding here. I don't see any contradiction. I'm saying that things about the past can be known through a reliable written report, and certainly through the Bible which is the most reliable written report ever, as opposed to physical evidence. This reflects what was demonstrated in the hypothetical case of human and dinosaur fossils being found together, that can be rationalized to fit into the ToE just fine, as can all kinds of finds of that sort. Since it's all in the past, all explanations are quite rubbery. There is no way to arrive at a reliably true explanation.

No that is NOT what was demonstrated. In the example it was GIVEN that the current TOE would NOT allow that. A new model would be needed to explain the evidence if found.However, if that evidence was found, it would add no weight or support to Biblical Creationism.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The point was that the ToE as a whole would not be challenged. You do understand that creationism challenges it as a whole.

Of course it would be challenged. If widespread evidence of current critters was found mixed in say the Cambrian layers then it would absolutely challenge the TOE. A completely new model would be needed to explain that. Well, right now Biblical Creationism is just some fantasy. It really doesn't challenge anything. Until it presents models that explain the observed reality better than any existing models, it is a non-starter.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There are people who believe the book of Mormon. And I presume that believing the book of Mormon is knowing it to be true. So that makes the Book of Mormon really great evidence for the past. I guess the Koran is also really great evidence for the past. Maybe Grimm's Fairy Tales is also great evidence for the past.

Niether the Koran nor Grimm's makes claims about the past. The Bible does. So does the Book of Mormon, so go ahead and believe it if you want, but it doesn't mention the Flood or the Kinds.

obvious Child: Not my problem. But if what they say is true they will be able to do it. They have reality going for them, after all. They have to believe that the scientific measurements in so far are at best misleading and at worst illusions. A few years of committed, thorough research by honest Bible-believing people like themelves should yield a bonanza of evidence that will cut through the evolutionist lie like a hot knife through butter.(You might want to turn on your irony meter.)
No doubt. I meant it was a tacky thing for someone to do.And tacky of me, to make the pun.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.

---

Archer

Have you ever read either the Qur'an or Grimm's Fairytales? The Qur'an certainly makes claims about the pastm describes Adam and Eve, the Garden, the naming of the animals.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

the contradiction lies hereNothing about the past can be proven, including what's in the bible, and yet, the bible is great evidence to prove the past.now do you see it?cause that's pretty much what you said.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

So just making claims means that it is correct? This makes it somehow valid?That it doesn't matter one whit that those claims don't match the facts?Making claims is not the test of truth.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Since when?A common creationists tactic is to redefine evolution without microevolution, and then declare their own proxy wrong and therefore the real one wrong. That's not challening it as a whole. Furthermore, virtually every creationist claim aganist evolution deals with non-related issues, such as abiogenesis and the origin of matter.