Falsifying Creation

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.

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.

The only reason evolution is hard to falsify is because we do not observe the potential falsifications. Indeed, you have been provided a list of them and not been able to identify any observations of these potential falsifications. IOW, if it is only required that evolution is possible to falsify creation, that would mean creationism has been falsified.Now, when you feel like providing specific observations that would falsify creation that aren't in relation to evolution let us know. Until then, it doesn't appear that creationism is falsifiable.