Falsifying Creation

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. Start with the 'big-bang', then go for the nebula hypothesis (complete with the Earth/ Moon system formation). From there bring on life and be able to show that random mutations culled by natural selection can lead to the diversity of life we observe today.Some of the falsifications are talked about here:True OriginsThese are two of the falsifications presented there:[7] The creationary postulate that complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems are potentially inherent and complete in original populations as created and manifested over time through genetic variation and natural selection would be falsified by the demonstration that natural processes alone are unequivocally capable of producing these phenomena, were such a demonstration possible. The evolutionary postulate that complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems have increased over time, starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, on the other hand, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data indicating that natural processes alone are unequivocally incapable of producing these phenomena.[8]The creationary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information were inherent and complete in the original populations as created, and that the sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation would be falsified by the demonstration of an unequivocal, empirically verifiable increase in new genetic information over time. The evolutionary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information have increased over time starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data pointing only to a net decrease in available genetic code, and the emergence of no unequivocally new genetic information.Now, let the whining begin...------------------
John Paul

So creationism is not a theory built on positive evidence, but upon the impossibility of evolution? Again, you fundamentally misunderstand science.Creationism, if it were science, would have to be built on a series of tests that are confirmed, but are potentially falsifiable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Some of the falsifications are talked about here:

​

True Origins

​

These are two of the falsifications presented there:

​

[7] The creationary postulate that complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems are potentially inherent and complete in original populations as created and manifested over time through genetic variation and natural selection would be falsified by the demonstration that natural processes alone are unequivocally capable of producing these phenomena, were such a demonstration possible.

---

Instead of typing this amorphous claim, why don't you provide what specific kinds of observations would falsify creation. The above is not a falsification of creationism, but a misunderstanding of science in requiring some sort of direct experiment.

quote:

---

The evolutionary postulate that complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems have increased over time, starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, on the other hand, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data indicating that natural processes alone are unequivocally incapable of producing these phenomena.

---

Full bibliographic citations to the growing body of empirical data. [QUOTE] [8][b]The creationary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information were inherent and complete in the original populations as created, and that the sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation would be falsified by the demonstration of an unequivocal, empirically verifiable increase in new genetic information over time. [/QUOTE]So how would one observe this specifically? What kind of evidence would this be present in?

quote:

---

The evolutionary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information have increased over time starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data pointing only to a net decrease in available genetic code, and the emergence of no unequivocally new genetic information.

---

Exactly how are you defining information and how is the mutation that allows bacteria to digest nylon not a addition of new genetic information according to that definition?

quote:

---

Now, let the whining begin...

---

Sorry pal, you started that a long time ago.

JP, is this now a "Creation of the Gaps" to go along with a "God of the Gaps"?As you will be aware, no scientific knowledge is proved absolutely. However you now challenge science to prove evolution absolutely so that there are no remaining gaps for creation to fit into. A clever tactic but it becomes ever more restrictive over time. Remember when the absence of transitional fossils leading to modern whales provided "evidence" for their creation? That "evidence" has closed remarkably over time.A scientific theory requires evidence to support its initial formulation and testable predictions to justify itself. It does not rely on the failure of a competing theory as verification. And, if evolution were to be contradicted by future evidence which caused it to be discarded, which form of creationst theory would be proved by default? Young earth creationism? Old earth creationism? Gap creationism? They are each fundamentally different from each other.

The author of this silliness either deliberately or through ignorance has completely misunderstood the idea of falsification in science. Falsifiability means that it must be possible, paradoxically, to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false. This requirement leads to the logic that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false, and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it. If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then whatever evidence exists doesn’t matter. It would be utterly pointless to even look at the evidence, because the conclusion is already known. The claim is thus invulnerable to any possible evidence. Note: this doesn’t imply that the claim is true. On the contrary, it implies that the claim is completely meaningless. It is logically impossible for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim there is ALWAYS some kind of evidence, which if discovered, would make the claim false. In short, every true claim is falsifiable. Welcome to science.The second major fallacy committed by the author relates to his attempt to force the proponents of the competing hypothesis to invalidate or falsify his claim for him, by showing that theirs is completely true in all possible cases. In other words, yours cannot be proven 100%, therefore mine is true. Let me see if I can make this clear:
YOU CANNOT VALIDATE A THEORY BY DEMANDING THAT THE ADHERENTS OF AN OPPOSING THEORY PROVE THEIRS. YOU CAN ONLY VALIDATE A THEORY BY PROVIDING POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR YOURS. That plain enough for you?The two paragraphs you cited, along with your spurious demand that we prove the ToE, do NOT provide any potential falsification of creationism.

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-31-2002]

John Paul, I disagree. Dissaproving evolution will not prove creation and proving evolution will not dissaprove creation. Why won't those damn creation ministries see this?A possible scenario would be how I got home. I could have gone by push bike or car. Both just as possible as each other. But which one did I use to get home?An origins matter is exactly the same. How did everything get to the point we observe today? I could build upon a number of possible scenarios. But which one was it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
John Paul, I disagree. Dissaproving evolution will not prove creation and proving evolution will not dissaprove creation. Why won't those damn creation ministries see this?

​

A possible scenario would be how I got home. I could have gone by push bike or car. Both just as possible as each other. But which one did I use to get home?

​

An origins matter is exactly the same. How did everything get to the point we observe today? I could build upon a number of possible scenarios. But which one was it?

---

John Paul:
You are free to disagree. If purely natural processes are shown to be enough to account for everything, the Creation account would fall just as sure as a house of cards would fall when struck by the wind of a fan. IOW, it would be falsified. There is no doubt about that in the minds of learned Creationists.Origins is a historical science, as such is highly speculative and based upon one's worldview as much as it is upon evidence. No one has been able to give me a logical reason why origins matters at all. Go figure.------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now, let the whining begin...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
Sorry pal, you started that a long time ago.John Paul:
And it is still all you do.The Creation is falsifiable. Don't bitch at me just because you can't falsify it.------------------
John Paul

Q:
YOU CANNOT VALIDATE A THEORY BY DEMANDING THAT THE ADHERENTS OF AN OPPOSING THEORY PROVE THEIRS. YOU CAN ONLY VALIDATE A THEORY BY PROVIDING POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR YOURS.John Paul:
Who said anything about validation? I posted on the topic of falsification. Is that clear enough for you?------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:
JP, is this now a "Creation of the Gaps" to go along with a "God of the Gaps"?

​

As you will be aware, no scientific knowledge is proved absolutely. However you now challenge science to prove evolution absolutely so that there are no remaining gaps for creation to fit into. A clever tactic but it becomes ever more restrictive over time. Remember when the absence of transitional fossils leading to modern whales provided "evidence" for their creation? That "evidence" has closed remarkably over time.

​

A scientific theory requires evidence to support its initial formulation and testable predictions to justify itself. It does not rely on the failure of a competing theory as verification. And, if evolution were to be contradicted by future evidence which caused it to be discarded, which form of creationst theory would be proved by default? Young earth creationism? Old earth creationism? Gap creationism? They are each fundamentally different from each other.

---

John Paul:
Again, all I did was to provide potential falsications for the Creation account. Is that clear?As for whales- the transitionals only appear as such in the minds of evolutionists. Without genetic analysis to substantiate those claims any interpretation of the fossil record is directly related to one's worldview.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Q:
YOU CANNOT VALIDATE A THEORY BY DEMANDING THAT THE ADHERENTS OF AN OPPOSING THEORY PROVE THEIRS. YOU CAN ONLY VALIDATE A THEORY BY PROVIDING POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR YOURS.

​

John Paul:
Who said anything about validation? I posted on the topic of falsification. Is that clear enough for you?

---

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.Perhaps you would care to provide a different interpretation of:

quote:

---

would be falsified by the demonstration that natural processes alone are unequivocally capable of producing these phenomena, were such a demonstration possible

---

and

quote:

---

would be falsified by the demonstration of an unequivocal, empirically verifiable increase in new genetic information over time

---

In other words, prove ToE true or creationism isn't false. Nice try.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b]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. [/QUOTE]IOW, prove your theory 100% and mine will go away.
Following this (il)logic, the Pink Jovial Unicorns and the Leprechauns in Labcoats on Vega ‘postulates’ stands on equal ground with YECism.As long as the ToE is not unequivocally PROVEN 100%( IOW beyond the scope of science) , the creationary postulate, the Pink Jovial Unicorns and the Leprechauns in Labcoats on Vega postulates are working explanations for the diversity of life on earth.Well why should we stop there? We can toss in any old half-baked notion and claim until the ToE is proven as fact & trooth — my Aunt Hilda is God, cousin Roscoe is the devil and Martha Stewart designed my knee caps.Science in ACTION ~! a thing of beauty forever.

quote:

---

Start with the 'big-bang', then go for the nebula hypothesis (complete with the Earth/ Moon system formation). From there bring on life and be able to show that random mutations culled by natural selection can lead to the diversity of life we observe today.

---

IOW, my (unreasonable) conditions will be impossible to meet (like Hovind’s)
soheads ‘fairy tales’ win and tails science loses.

quote:

---

Some of my scientific misconceptions are talked about here:

​

Crude Origins

​

These are two of the falsifications presented there:

​

[7] The creationary postulate that blah blah blah would be falsified by the demonstration that natural processes alone are unequivocally capable of producing these phenomena,

---

Erroneous presumption.
How can science ever eliminate EVERY other possible hypothesis ? even hypotheses that haven’t yet been offered ?
Yet more evidence that JP despises science to the point that he’s not interested in how it REALLY operates.

quote:

---

were such a demonstration possible.

---

Yeah ! A pre-emptive safety clause.
IOW — I realize my conditions are unrealistic, unreasonable, anti-scientific and impossible to meet. YECism wins because I have redefined science for all civilization.

quote:

---

The evolutionary postulate on the other hand, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data indicating that natural processes alone are unequivocally incapable of producing these phenomena.

---

And this after a YECie website published a list of YEC arguments that shouldn’t be voiced due to their frequent refutation. Yeah, we can see what is ‘growing’, alright.

quote:

---

[8]The creationary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information were inherent and complete in the original populations as created, and that the sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation would be falsified by

---

wait a minute. Point of order.
Upon what evidence is this initial ‘ postulate ‘ based ? that we are now being asked to falsify ?
What was that first epiphany that lead to the formation of the creationary postulate ? ..ya know, like the apple that fell on Newtons’s head lead to the postulation of Gravitational theory?Any evidence at all ?? None ??Because I’m betting that YECism could have been refuted WAY before any creationary postulation was proposed and refined. For instance, -if- YECism requires a global flood occurring in past 5000 years, Bzzzzzzt.It’s already refuted by the evidence.So what was that first spark of inspiration that led someone to say:
We need ‘The creationary postulate ‘ to explain why no explanation is possible !

quote:

---

would be falsified by the demonstration of an unequivocal, empirically verifiable increase in new genetic information over time. The evolutionary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information have increased over time starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data pointing only to a net decrease in available genetic code, and the emergence of no unequivocally new genetic information.

---

Gee, I’d like to hear about ANY fact or proposition that is scientifically ‘unequivocal’. Only God could be so sure about anything. Why would anyone presume science can establish unequivocal truth ?
Sounds like another misunderstanding & misapplication of scienceNow, let the dodging begin...

ROTFL--yes, that is perhaps true, but it isn't from a test of the creation theory. It should have potential falsifications that are clearly identifiable from the model itself. Please provide. You started the thread after all.

You have to provide a falsification of the creation model. To do so you would have to have testable hypotheses. To falsify the creation model, you must have a model. Simply saying another theory if proved true (terribly unscientific by the way) would disprove creationism gives one no way to judge creationism. The same statement would be true if the Raelians were demonstrated to be correct. It isn't a falsification, it is a silly word game. Now get cracking and stop whining.

But we have it. See new thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
If purely natural processes are shown to be enough to account for everything, the Creation account would fall just as sure as a house of cards would fall when struck by the wind of a fan. IOW, it would be falsified. There is no doubt about that in the minds of learned Creationists.

---

While it may be true that many Creation acounts that demand that nature adhere to a particular narrow interpretation of Genesis, it is not at all true that if purely natural forces were shown to account for "everything" that ALL Creationist's or religious accounts would fall.God could have still made everything, and also made the natural mechanisms that everything is subject to.