What would refute creationism?

[Subduction Zone]

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.

 

[exchemist]

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.

To be honest, I don’t see the point of this. Creationism is not a scientific idea but a religious one, so asking creationists to work by the rules of science is never going to get any traction.

I suppose you could try this with ID creationism, though, as that tries to dress itself up in the clothing of science. But ID is more or less on its way out, now that Johnson is dead and Dembski sacked and discredited. ID now reminds me of cold fusion research: a handful of cranks trying to keep a zombie idea animated.

 

[John53]

After many years of trying I've realised that there is nothing that can change a persons mind if they believe it to be true.

 

[Brian2]

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.

I suppose by "creationists" you mean Young Earth Creationists who say that life forms did not evolve from one form to another.

 

[Heyo]

I suppose by "creationists" you mean Young Earth Creationists who say that life forms did not evolve from one form to another.

That's up to you.

To claim to have evidence for a scientific idea one first needs a testable model.

There are Old Earth Creationists. If you are one of those, formulate your hypothesis and then state the test that could falsify it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's up to you.

There are Old Earth Creationists. If you are one of those, formulate your hypothesis and then state the test that could falsify it.

Well, it depends on how you view science as either methodological or philosophical in the end.

In the jargon of base axiomatic assumptions about what the world is, none of these can be tested and that includes naturalism, materialism and physicalism.

Further your version of science is not the only one on the books, so someone could use another one and claim science for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be honest, I don’t see the point of this. Creationism is not a scientific idea but a religious one, so asking creationists to work by the rules of science is never going to get any traction.

I suppose you could try this with ID creationism, though, as that tries to dress itself up in the clothing of science. But ID is more or less on its way out, now that Johnson is dead and Dembski sacked and discredited. ID now reminds me of cold fusion research: a handful of cranks trying to keep a zombie idea animated.

The reason is that creationists far too frequently try to claim that their ideas are scientific. Some.of them crave the sobriquet of scientific so much that they have created their own fake peer reciew.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose by "creationists" you mean Young Earth Creationists who say that life forms did not evolve from one form to another.

Young, Old, I do not care. Give us your model and tell us what reasonable test, based on predictions from your model could possibly refute it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

After many years of trying I've realised that there is nothing that can change a persons mind if they believe it to be true.

Aww. You old sour puss. I guess I have a bit more faith in mankind than you do.

 

[John53]

Aww. You old sour puss. I guess I have a bit more faith in mankind than you do.

I put it down to the headaches from smashing my face into the corner of the computer desk.

 

[Twilight Hue]

After many years of trying I've realised that there is nothing that can change a persons mind if they believe it to be true.

I agree with that. Sometimes it just has to run it's course.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I put it down to the headaches from smashing my face into the corner of the computer desk.

Don't I know it. And even though far too often my faith is refuted I still believe that there may be a scientifically honest creationist out there . . . somewhere .. .

 

[Colt]

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.

I don't know of anything that would refute creationism. If science has been able to falsify ultimate universe reality, then let's use that formula? Do finite scientist have a hypothesis that they use to disqualify infinite reality?

1:7.5 "Ultimate universe reality cannot be grasped by mathematics, logic, or philosophy, only by personal experience in progressive conformity to the divine will of a personal God. Neither science, philosophy, nor theology can validate the personality of God. Only the personal experience of the faith sons of the heavenly Father can effect the actual spiritual realization of the personality of God." Urantia Book 1955

 

[exchemist]

The reason is that creationists far too frequently try to claim that their ideas are scientific. Some.of them crave the sobriquet of scientific so much that they have created their own fake peer reciew.

In my experience this applies solely to the ID crowd. For the rest, they know no science and have no interest in scientific credentials for their ideas, preferring to quote scripture instead.

ID was a unique experiment in trying to apply a veneer of science to creationism, so that it could be introduced into school science teaching and thereby inculcate Christianity in children by the back door.

 

[wellwisher]

One way to refute the more materialist versions of Creation, is to theorize that Genesis is not talking about material type creation, but is talking more about an advancement the human brain's operating system that occurs about 6000 years ago.

The result was natural instinct becomes repressed; fall from paradise, as a new type of consciousness appears; ego, with will and choice apart from natural instinct. The creation of the universe would be more of a metaphor for this awakening of a secondary center of consciousness with a new world view.

The Bible dating for this change is set at about 6000 years ago. This coincides with carbon dating and the invention of written language and the appearance of the first sustainable civilizations, both of which would have had profound impacts on natural living. The natural selection assumptions of modern science evolution would now be replaced, by unnatural manmade environments and unnatural selection based on human ego-centric subjectivity; have and have nots, based on imagination instead of instinct.

Nobody fully accepts evolution extrapolated into social Darwinism, since this is not natural selection. This direction is manmade, based on that same ego-centric change in the neural operating system that is spoken of by those who first observed it. They attempted to explain it and write it down using the new invention of written language. This theory is sort of a bridge between science and religion. In the beginning was the word, God; source of the creative impulses.

In modern times, the inventions of computers and the internet have had a profound impact on how people deal with reality; fake news and virtual reality. The invention of written language which made civilization sustainable; record keeping, would have had an even more profound impact in a very short period of time. Laws carved into stone would cause repression. They would also populate a secondary neural matrix for thinking; human language, which now would become rapidly developed. From this unnatural neural matrix new explanations for reality would also appear, which like will and choice apart from instinct, would allow humans to leave the natural cause and affect of instinct; innovation and perversion.

Religion appears with this change to help maintain balance between the original center of consciousness; inner self, and the new secondary center; ego. that has lost its way and tries to return the ego to paradise.

 

[Yerda]

Nothing. For any piece of evidence you can point to a creationist can just say, God did that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I bet we get at least 100 posts ... again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In my experience this applies solely to the ID crowd. For the rest, they know no science and have no interest in scientific credentials for their ideas, preferring to quote scripture instead.

ID was a unique experiment in trying to apply a veneer of science to creationism, so that it could be introduced into school science teaching and thereby inculcate Christianity in children by the back door.

The US and Australia both have YEC at organizations that pretend to be science based. You might be likely in the UK. The two biggest ones I can think of are AiG and ICR, Answers in Genesis and the Institute of Creation Research. Both have fake journals where they try to mimic the look of real peer reviewed journals. You guys are lucky.

When it comes to ID we have the Discovery Toot, oops I mean the Discovery Institute though to be fair the first name is far more accurate. They were the organization that supplied the materials that led to the Dover Trial. They are Seattle based. But in financial troubles the last I heard.

There are far too many others. We have far too many such organizations here. Those are only the three largest..

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know of anything that would refute creationism. If science has been able to falsify ultimate universe reality, then let's use that formula? Do finite scientist have a hypothesis that they use to disqualify infinite reality?

1:7.5 "Ultimate universe reality cannot be grasped by mathematics, logic, or philosophy, only by personal experience in progressive conformity to the divine will of a personal God. Neither science, philosophy, nor theology can validate the personality of God. Only the personal experience of the faith sons of the heavenly Father can effect the actual spiritual realization of the personality of God." Urantia Book 1955

I did not ask for excuses. The question of the OP is only about reliable evidence. You could have just admitted that you have no reliable evidence. I would have politely accepted that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One way to refute the more materialist versions of Creation, is to theorize that Genesis is not talking about material type creation, but is talking more about an advancement the human brain's operating system that occurs about 6000 years ago.

The result was natural instinct becomes repressed; fall from paradise, as a new type of consciousness appears; ego, with will and choice apart from natural instinct. The creation of the universe would be more of a metaphor for this awakening of a secondary center of consciousness with a new world view.

The Bible dating for this change is set at about 6000 years ago. This coincides with carbon dating and the invention of written language and the appearance of the first sustainable civilizations, both of which would have had profound impacts on natural living. The natural selection assumptions of modern science evolution would now be replaced, by unnatural manmade environments and unnatural selection based on human ego-centric subjectivity; have and have nots, based on imagination instead of instinct.

Nobody fully accepts evolution extrapolated into social Darwinism, since this is not natural selection. This direction is manmade, based on that same ego-centric change in the neural operating system that is spoken of by those who first observed it. They attempted to explain it and write it down using the new invention of written language. This theory is sort of a bridge between science and religion. In the beginning was the word, God; source of the creative impulses.

In modern times, the inventions of computers and the internet have had a profound impact on how people deal with reality; fake news and virtual reality. The invention of written language which made civilization sustainable; record keeping, would have had an even more profound impact in a very short period of time. Laws carved into stone would cause repression. They would also populate a secondary neural matrix for thinking; human language, which now would become rapidly developed. From this unnatural neural matrix new explanations for reality would also appear, which like will and choice apart from instinct, would allow humans to leave the natural cause and affect of instinct; innovation and perversion.

Religion appears with this change to help maintain balance between the original center of consciousness; inner self, and the new secondary center; ego. that has lost its way and tries to return the ego to paradise.

And again, I appreciate this but try to cut down on the nonsense. This thread exists to see if creationists can generate any scientific evidence at all for their beliefs.

To do so you must first make a.model of creationism. The model needs to be falsifiable if you want to claim to have scientific evidence for creationism. That is how.science works.