[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 science
Now, let the dodging begin...
™ Version 4.2