Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,470 Year: 3,727/9,624 Month: 598/974 Week: 211/276 Day: 51/34 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying Creation
toff
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 141 (4204)
02-12-2002 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by John Paul
01-31-2002 9:41 AM


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.

Let me try to make this crystal clear to you, since others have tried and failed. If purely natural processes are shown to be enough to account for everything, the creation account would NOT fall. Showing natural processes to have possibly created everything there is would NOT prove that they did so - only that they COULD do so. I can easily demonstrate that the train service in the area in which I live can easily account for my getting to work in a half an hour or so every morning. However, this does NOT prove that this is how I do it. Actually, I drive my car. In the same way, whether natural process can account for all that there is is irrelevant to creationism. Creationism, by its nature, is not falsifiable. It is not, therefore, science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 01-31-2002 9:41 AM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Peter, posted 02-12-2002 6:44 AM toff has not replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 141 (4476)
02-14-2002 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by KingPenguin
02-14-2002 12:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
the bible was never meant to be a scientific journal, and thats all i have left to say.

A very familiar cop-out. Creationists often cite the bible as scientific 'evidence' for something: it is only when their arguments are demolished that they fall back on "Anyway, the bible wasn't meant to be a science text." If they remotely intellectually honest, after saying such a thing, they would never again bring up anything in the bible in an attempt to demonstrate something scientific. Invariably, they do anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by KingPenguin, posted 02-14-2002 12:30 AM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by KingPenguin, posted 02-14-2002 10:02 AM toff has not replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 141 (4924)
02-18-2002 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by TrueCreation
02-17-2002 9:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Creationism is, fundamentally, based on the literal interpretation
of the Bible."
--No, faith is, Creationism has a basis under two classifications, faith-bible, and science (creation science).

No, it does not. Creationism's only support is the bible. So-called creation 'science' does not exist. It is merely creationism masking itself as a science in an attempt to gain some respectability outside fundamentalist circles. There is no such thing as creation 'science'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by TrueCreation, posted 02-17-2002 9:53 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Peter, posted 02-18-2002 10:26 AM toff has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024