• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What would refute creationism?

leroy

Well-Known Member
Ok. What experts in biology agree with your claim? I don’t care about your beliefs. I want to know what experts say. If you can’t find experts agreeing with you why would we care about your opinion?
Scientists say that they don’t know how the building blocks organized in the correct order.



Analogies aren’t facts and a coherent explanation of the facts.
The point of an analogy is to explain a point. … is my point clear? Care to explain it with your own words
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ok lets go steo by step

I succeded in providing a hypothesis and explain what would falsify it….agree?

No. You failed and several people explained to you how you failed.
As far as I underststood my burden is to

1 explain what I mean by SC (apparently my definition was not good enough)

2 explain how can I test if something is SC

Is there any burden that I have to deal with?

Your understanding is wrong. The problem is that you are using claims as tests. And your "hypothesis" is woefully underdeveloped.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Scientists say that they don’t know how the building blocks organized in the correct order.

Well that might be a mistake on your part. What makes you think that there is a "correct order"?
The point of an analogy is to explain a point. … is my point clear? Care to explain it with your own words


And that is another problem. You can't seem to come up with a clear point.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Your ink analogy would only indicate humans were the writers of letters, words and sentence, not by some invisible powerful supernatural entities called Designer, Creator or God, or that of spirits, angels, demons, fairies, etc.

Humans do exist, physically, but not any of these supernatural beings. If you think Designer or God are responsible for writings, then show some evidence that they either exist.

And it is octopuses, squids and other cephalopods that create ink naturally.
The only point that I made is that words and sentences indicate an intelligent designer, because there is nothing in the known laws of nature that “forces” ink to produce words and sentences…………. There are many possible combinations in which ink can exist and only few would resemble meaningful words and sentences.


Do you agree with this point?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No. You failed and several people explained to you how you failed.


Your understanding is wrong. The problem is that you are using claims as tests. And your "hypothesis" is woefully underdeveloped.
ok so I am suppose to



1 explain what I mean by SC (apparently my definition was not good enough)

2 explain how can I test if something is SC

3 develop my hypothesis better


is there anythign else that you would add?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ok, semantics, what words should I have used?

Perhaps "functioning order". One thing that appears from studying abiogenesis is that there appear to be several possible pathways to life.

What is unclear about my point?

Well since your so called hypothesis does not explain anything I would say everything about it is unclear.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ok so I am suppose to



1 explain what I mean by SC (apparently my definition was not good enough)

2 explain how can I test if something is SC

3 develop my hypothesis better


is there anythign else that you would add?
Just start all over. It was not even a real attempt.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Your efforts to avoid having direct on topic conversation with me are amazing .......one wonders, if you are not interested in conversation with me, why did you tag me on the OP?
No, The fault is yours. You have as of yet to develop a hypothesis. As usual you are blaming others for your failure here.

You keep trying to use your claims as tests. It does not work that way. You are trying to find evidence for your claims. You are using a type of circular reasoning. You were corrected by several and then quit because they could see that you are not going to get it. I am a bit more stubborn and have hope for others.

And I tagged you because in the thread that this one copies to an extent you asked a very good question. Too bad that you did not learn from the answers. I thought that it would be a good exercise for you to attempt to do the same, but I may have been a bit too optimistic there.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No, The fault is yours. You have as of yet to develop a hypothesis. As usual you are blaming others for your failure here.

You keep trying to use your claims as tests. It does not work that way. You are trying to find evidence for your claims. You are using a type of circular reasoning. You were corrected by several and then quit because they could see that you are not going to get it. I am a bit more stubborn and have hope for others.

And I tagged you because in the thread that this one copies to an extent you asked a very good question. Too bad that you did not learn from the answers. I thought that it would be a good exercise for you to attempt to do the same, but I may have been a bit too optimistic there.
Ok so I am expected to

1 develop the hypothesis

2 support the hypothesis with more than just claims

3 provide potential falsification


Anything else ?

Can you please summarize exactly your expectations on what I am suppose to do ?
 

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
This kind of debate will never go anywhere. The reason I believe is quite simple...so long as the only "science"acceptable is that of fundentally humanistic origins, the possibility of a creationist putting forward sound science is always considered absurd and indeed stupid.
When a Young Earth Creationist asks questions that shake the very core of humanism, and the universal answer given"we don't know yet" appears to adequately carry more weight despite the obvious problem that leaves... If the very foundation of all humanism and it's scientific model refuses to accept God as an answer to the first moments of the big bang, then the rest of a YEC debate is simply pointless.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If humans claim one word by a humans man thought is O...science.

Science as said by a human to count in light. O
G spin of O spirit held cooling in a mass.
O split cooling by heat DD to cooled O upon O the same body...cooling.

You have to exist...think claim where hot and cold exists. Right in the place you talked about it.

Then as you exist you are the theist first place a man human.

Yet in nature two humans live.

You then thesis back. Yet you are in highest position now.

What is back?

Heat only.

What is forward?

A woman human. Sex. Microbial bodies sperm ovary. As now is highest now. As two adult humans healthy exist.

You hence say I must react. No reaction exists yet.

0 zero coldest. You react by numbers. So numbers and a heated reaction occur. Out of nothing of your claim to theory.

You cause each nation to be attacked by O spin. Earth God the planet. O in the spin and time.

One by one each two in life gets attacked.

As if you theoried for only one survivor as one human the theist. About a God.

It was your fault man the whole time. You lied until the theory reactions to destroy us two by two is gone.

Your idea is just back to single cells as science is beginning then end itself.

As light is a constant.

It was always a possessed attacked human consciousness affected by heavens causes above to agree as one self only.

Reasoned. Although you arise from baby body to child to man adult...microbial bodies of man woman are still the future.

Is how wrong you personally the human always were.
 

Messianic Israelite

Active Member
Kudos for @leroy for coming up with a very good thread about evolution. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and therefore has to be testable.

In the same vein this is a thread where we would like to hear creationists try to explain what would refute creationism? And please no glib answers. What you this thread requires you to do is to come up with a hypothesis for creationism and tell us what test based upon the hypothesis's predictions would refute it.

If you can think up of a proper model and a proper test then you can claim to have evidence for creationism. In case people forgot:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

To claim to have evidence for a scientific idea one first needs a testable model. Some hints, concepts that ha were known before the formation of the test do not count as a valid test. What you are doing then is forming an ad hoc explanation. Evolution has a bit of an unfair advantage here because so many concepts that we now know to be true could have refuted the theory when it first came out. We are able to use those as evidence. Since we know more now than we did in Darwin's day that means some of your tests may not be valid.

I know. It seems unfair, but nothing stopped creationists from making tests in the past. I do not think that they should be able to make ad hoc explanations simply because the scientists on your side never did a lick of work.
Hi Subduction Zone. Good evening. Curious. Macroevolution has never been observed. How can you say it is testable? It amazes me. Why spend so much time arguing against Creationism, when you don't have a leg to stand on yourself. All that arguing against Creationism is going to do, is erode your belief in the Bible and ultimately erode your reasoning to keep the Biblical Laws. without which, you won't be in the Kingdom of Yahweh.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hi Subduction Zone. Good evening. Curious. Macroevolution has never been observed. How can you say it is testable? It amazes me. Why spend so much time arguing against Creationism, when you don't have a leg to stand on yourself. All that arguing against Creationism is going to do, is erode your belief in the Bible and ultimately erode your reasoning to keep the Biblical Laws. without which, you won't be in the Kingdom of Yahweh.
Actually macroevolution has been observed quite often. Why would you think otherwise? And even if it was never observed we can still easily test it.

If you want answers you really should apologize for your false claims here. Sometimes I have little patience with the ignorant.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This kind of debate will never go anywhere. The reason I believe is quite simple...so long as the only "science"acceptable is that of fundentally humanistic origins, the possibility of a creationist putting forward sound science is always considered absurd and indeed stupid.
When a Young Earth Creationist asks questions that shake the very core of humanism, and the universal answer given"we don't know yet" appears to adequately carry more weight despite the obvious problem that leaves... If the very foundation of all humanism and it's scientific model refuses to accept God as an answer to the first moments of the big bang, then the rest of a YEC debate is simply pointless.
Creationists have never asked such questions. Plus you are using a strawman argument. Just because someone accepts reality does not necessarily mean that they don't believe in God.

You seem to be making a common creationist error. Just because your version of God has been refuted does not mean that God has been refuted.
 

Messianic Israelite

Active Member
Actually macroevolution has been observed quite often. Why would you think otherwise? And even if it was never observed we can still easily test it.

If you want answers you really should apologize for your false claims here. Sometimes I have little patience with the ignorant.
Hi Subduction Zone. Good evening. What are my false claims?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ok so I am expected to

1 develop the hypothesis

2 support the hypothesis with more than just claims

3 provide potential falsification


Anything else ?

Can you please summarize exactly your expectations on what I am suppose to do ?
Roughly yes. So far you have not even finished step one.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Roughly yes. So far you have not even finished step one.
Ok lets start with point

My hypothesis is that life was caused by an intelligent designer.


Why aren't you accepting this statement as a hypothesis ? Why do you think the statement fails to be a hypothesis ? , you could argue that the statement is wrong, but it would still be a hypothesis.

should we move to point 2 ?
 
Top