What would refute creationism?

[blü 2]

So it is the idea of creation that you see as a scientific hypothesis.
But it is a faith, just life the idea that the universe has always existed in one form or another is a faith and not something that is testable or falsifiable.

The question is, how are we best able to explore, describe, understand and explain the world external to the self?

And the answer I favor is the science answer ─ explore the universe from greatest to teensiest by the methods of reasoned enquiry, which in the case of the physical sciences means empiricism and induction. What are the facts as best we can discern them? How might they work? Can we test our ideas on how they work? Will others get the same results?

One nice thing about this approach is that it gives an objective test for truth.

How would you prefer to do it?

 

[Aupmanyav]

What would refute creationism?: Does it need refutation? It requires existence of a God for which there is no evidence. Creationism is a non-starter.

 

[Heyo]

Easy. The Cambrian Explosion.

If there is a creator, the prediction is that we would see most life forms appear suddenly in the fossil record without obvious precursors. (Stress on “obvious”, since there was life before it.)

That’s exactly what we observe.

To falsify, find those obvious precursors.

You might want to watch this video. It explains one possible solution for the Cambrian "Explosion":

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Easy. The Cambrian Explosion.

If there is a creator, the prediction is that we would see most life forms appear suddenly in the fossil record without obvious precursors. (Stress on “obvious”, since there was life before it.)

That’s exactly what we observe.

To falsify, find those obvious precursors.

So you accept that humans and other mammals, insects, lizards, starfish, birds and other dinosaurs, crabs,... evolved from the soft bodied sea-dwelling creatures that originated during the cambrian explosion?

Do you think that that then fits the creation narrative?



Also, please explain how that specific "prediction" naturally flows from the creation model. This will require you also to clearly define what the creation model actually is.

 

[leroy]

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.

Well “creationism” is a very wide concept, what exactly do you mean by “creationism” are you talking about young earth creationism as exposed by people like Ken Ham and Kent HOvind?

I´ll say that there is not a “thing” that would falsify young earth creationism, but rather one can make a cumulative case that makes YEC unlikely to be true,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well “creationism” is a very wide concept, what exactly do you mean by “creationism” are you talking about young earth creationism as exposed by people like Ken Ham and Kent HOvind?

I´ll say that there is not a “thing” that would falsify young earth creationism, but rather one can make a cumulative case that makes YEC unlikely to be true,

I know. And that is why this could be useful to creationists. If you had followed the thread you would have seen that it was open to all sorts of creationism..

Creationists could try to clean up their act and present a united front. But so far no one has presented a working model.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Creationism is irrefutable.
Why?
"Es ist nicht einmal falsch."
(It's not even wrong.)
Thank you, Herr Pauli.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well “creationism” is a very wide concept, what exactly do you mean by “creationism” are you talking about young earth creationism as exposed by people like Ken Ham and Kent HOvind?

@Subduction Zone made clear in the OP, and further clarified in the rest of the thread, that you are free to chose which flavor of creationism you wish to present.

This is why he didn't include a specific flavor of creationism in the OP, but just asked in general to present your model and then provide a reasonable test for said model.

So it matters not if you are a YEC, an OEC or a cdesign proponentsists or a Last-thursday-ist.
Present whatever model you support and then tell us what test could be done to confirm or falsify that model.

 

[leroy]

Kudos for @leroy fo
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.

Both YEC and “old earthers/evolutionists” make tests, both succeed and failed in some tests and both make ad hoc explanations for why they failed.

For example based on current decay rates one can calculate the strength of the magnetic field in the past, and conclude that millions of years ago the field would have been too strong for life to exist. (this would be the test)

And given that the results are inconsistent with an old earth , you have to invent ad hoc excuses (maybe the field reverses for some unknown reason)

The only difference is that on average YEC have failed more; which is why one should prefer “old earth” models.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creationism is irrefutable.
Why?
"Es ist nicht einmal falsch."
(It's not even wrong.)
Thank you, Herr Pauli.

I know. I am a terrible person that is trying to give creationism a promotion.

But I think the creationists are on to me. For some odd reason they seem to think that not even wrong is preferable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Both YEC and “old earthers/evolutionists” make tests, both succeed and failed in some tests and both make ad hoc explanations for why they failed.

For example based on current decay rates one can calculate the strength of the magnetic field in the past, and conclude that millions of years ago the field would have been too strong for life to exist. (this would be the test)

And given that the results are inconsistent with an old earth , you have to invent ad hoc excuses (maybe the field reverses for some unknown reason)

The only difference is that on average YEC have failed more; which is why one should prefer “old earth” models.

If you have a model and it fails tests it is a failed model.

 

[leroy]

I know. And that is why this could be useful to creationists. If you had followed the thread you would have seen that it was open to all sorts of creationism..

Creationists could try to clean up their act and present a united front. But so far no one has presented a working model.

But so far no one has presented a working model.

Well evolutionists havent ether,............we simlply dont know how to get a modern eye, from a bunch of skin

But that is ok,scientists are looking for an explanation and someday the might have an answer.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know. I am a terrible person that is trying to give creationism a promotion.

But I think the creationists are on to me. For some odd reason they seem to think that not even wrong is preferable.

I think that after 200K posts on RF, I've finally
convinced everyone that I'm not a creationist.
The last argument wherein a poster claimed that
I am was recently quelled. Wouldn't my being
an atheist be strongly counter-indicative?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well evolutionists havent ether,............we simlply dont know how to get a modern eye, from a bunch of skin

That's already been reasonably addressed in
great detail of so many incremental stages.
Here's a really brief overview...
Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

 

[leroy]

If you have a model and it fails tests it is a failed model.

That is an oversimplification on how science works, nobody drops a model just because it fails a test, (otherwise you would have to drop evolution, the big bang, and pretty much everything else)

For example you will not drop evolution and the tree just because you found a gorilla fossil that is 6 million years older than predicted (https://phys.org/news/2016-02-gorilla-fossil-humans-million-years.html) ……… you would simply add this to the list of incorrect predictions and trust that incorrect predictions are statistically insignificant compared to the correct predictions ………..science is not as rigid as you seem to believe, one doesn’t drop complete scientific models just because they failed a test


As I said YEC fails, not because they missed a test, but because the ratio between fails and succeeds is heavily inclined towards the failures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well evolutionists havent ether,............we simlply dont know how to get a modern eye, from a bunch of skin

But that is ok,scientists are looking for an explanation and someday the might have an answer.

What are you talking about? After all these years you still don't know your claim is false? Within the last month I saw a poster supply you with several articles that explained just that to you.

 

[leroy]

@Subduction Zone made clear in the OP, and further clarified in the rest of the thread, that you are free to chose which flavor of creationism you wish to present.

This is why he didn't include a specific flavor of creationism in the OP, but just asked in general to present your model and then provide a reasonable test for said model.

So it matters not if you are a YEC, an OEC or a cdesign proponentsists or a Last-thursday-ist.
Present whatever model you support and then tell us what test could be done to confirm or falsify that model.

Well that is easy, the discovery of a natural mechanism that can create life from none life, would refute ID.. (or the idea that life was created by an ID)

What would falsify your claim that life came from none life naturally?..................who is ready for 100 posts without a direct answer?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is an oversimplification on how science works, nobody drops a model just because it fails a test, (otherwise you would have to drop evolution, the big bang, and pretty much everything else)

For example you will not drop evolution and the tree just because you found a gorilla fossil that is 6 million years older than predicted (https://phys.org/news/2016-02-gorilla-fossil-humans-million-years.html) ……… you would simply add this to the list of incorrect predictions and trust that incorrect predictions are statistically insignificant compared to the correct predictions ………..science is not as rigid as you seem to believe, one doesn’t drop complete scientific models just because they failed a test


As I said YEC fails, not because they missed a test, but because the ratio between fails and succeeds is heavily inclined towards the failures.

Not just a test. I have never seen a creationist model that does not fail multiple key tests.

But you seem to be aware of some that do not.

Reread the OP and post one along with some tests.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that is easy, the discovery of a natural mechanism that can create life from none life, would refute ID.. (or the idea that life was created by an ID)

What would falsify your claim that life came from none life naturally?..................who is ready for 100 posts without a direct answer?

Sorry, that is a fail on your part. Right now the evidence indicates that abiogenesis is possible. A model must explain. Why is life arising on its own impossible?

 

[leroy]

What are you talking about? After all these years you still don't know your claim is false? Within the last month I saw a poster supply you with several articles that explained just that to you.

Ok I will save us both hours of our time, and simply include this in the list of unjustified assertions. // once you show that your assertion is true, I will remove it from the list