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

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