What would refute creationism?

[Quintessence]

Creationism is inherently non-falsifiable because it involves the concept of gods, which are also inherently non-falsifiable since gods are attributive (e.g., something is a god because a person or culture deems it so based on their cultural criteria) rather than descriptive (e.g., there is an objective cultural criteria for what constitutes a god and it is such and such).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

What advancement in human brains?

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.

This is false. Natural selection is still at work. Humans developing tech is no more a "replacement" of natural selection then a chimp fashioning a termite catching stick is.

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.

Which would make the advent of writing a selection criteria for success in survivability.

This did not happen overnight. And civilization is a lot older then 6000 years btw.
Knossos on Crete for example. Just one example of many. First settlements there date as far back as 9000 years. That's way off of your 6000.

There are even much older sites as well.

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.

You forget to mention what would falsify your model. Or what your falsifiable model even is to begin with. You know.... the whole point of the thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creationism is inherently non-falsifiable because it involves the concept of gods, which are also inherently non-falsifiable since gods are attributive (e.g., something is a god because a person or culture deems it so based on their cultural criteria) rather than descriptive (e.g., there is an objective cultural criteria for what constitutes a god and it is such and such).

I am going to disagree because there are different beliefs about god. So there are going to be different varieties of creationism. One can form a hypothesis of creationism that is based on what we observe. Just like evolution the hypotheses of that were based on what we observe, not on directly observing evolution.

We have a strong theory of evolution because weaker hypotheses were eliminated. Eliminating the weak and wrong hypotheses in evolution did not refute it. This thread is to see if any creationists can come up with a hypothesis of creation. Refuting a weak hypothesis of creation would not necessarily refute the concept of creation.

 

[Five Solas]

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.

Genesis 1
"The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The truth cannot be refuted...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Genesis 1
"The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The truth cannot be refuted...

Neither can an unsupportable myth. That was rather rude of you since much of Genesis has been shown to be false.

This thread is also about knowledge versus belief. It appears all that you have is a mere religious belief.

 

[Heyo]

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 .. .

And here I thought I was a hopeless optimist ...

 

[syo]

Deism.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

 

[blü 2]

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.

Golly, I hope you're not holding your breath ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Golly, I hope you're not holding your breath ...

I learned not to do that a long long time ago. I am just trying to get some people to think.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Nope. Though it does show YEC beliefs to be wrong it is not an outright refutation of creationism.

And you need to read the OP.

What is your model of creationism? Tell us what your personal model of creationism is and what possible test based on the predictions of your model could possibly refute it.

If you want to claim evidence for creationism you need a testable model first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Deism.

Please read the above post.

What is your model?

 

[gnostic]

Genesis 1
"The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The truth cannot be refuted...

Define what heaven is?

The second verse, 1:2 says the Earth was created, completely covered in water, but science say that the Earth was too hot to contain water. Even when the Earth cooled down to form the Earth’s crust, the whole Earth was never covered completely covered in water. So there were dry land long before there were enough water to surround the continental crust - the earliest supercontinent.

And verses 1:9-10 say dry lands only appeared then on the 3rd day, followed by creation of vegetation in 1:11-12.

So verse 1:2 and 1:9-10 are wrong.

Second, Genesis don’t mention anything about the sun, moon and stars til verses 1:14-18.

But in 1:11-12, vegetation were created before there were sun and stars.

What do you think sun is? The sun is also a star, and sun isn’t even the oldest in the Milky Way.

So 1:1 and 1:14-18 are wrong.

Verses 1:20-22 say that the marine life (eg fishes) and birds were created at the same time, and that birds were created before land animals (1:24-25).

But according to fossil records, bacteria have been around for billion of years (about 3.6 billion year), invertebrate animals for at least 700 million years, the earliest vertebrates were primitive fishes, less than 500 million years ago, and there were no birds around.

The earliest land animals were insects and primitive amphibians, amphibians that evolved into amniotes, repitile-like animals. The split of amniotes into synapsids (ancestors of mammal-like and of the extinct and living mammals) and sauropsids (ancestors of dinosaurs, extinct and living reptiles and birds) occurred around 312 million years ago.

True mammals exist as early as the Permian period, but did really diversify until after dinosaurs were extinct 66 million years ago.

The earliest true birds evolved from dinosaurs around 100 million years ago, but diversification of birds didn’t occur until most of the dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago.

So to say birds existing at the same time as fishes and other marine life, and before earliest reptiles and earliest mammals are wrong.

The only animals that didn’t change much, existing before, during and after the dinosaurs periods (Mesozoic) are the sharks and crocodiles.

 

[gnostic]

Sciences are the only things that refute Genesis.

Human history and archaeology have demonstrated Genesis are wrong about the human timeline. Examples, creation of humans in Genesis 1 & 2, 6 to 8 regarding to the Flood never happened, and Genesis 10 (the Table of Nations) is wrong too, especially about Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria.

Egyptian culture have been around at least 4000 BCE. In Mesopotamia, cities like Uruk (Erech in some some translations) in Sumer and Nineveh in Assyria, have been around respectively 7000 and 8000 years. While Calah (or Kalhu in Assyrian) was built til around 1250 BCE or 3250 years ago, by Shalmaneser I. There is no way for Nimrod to build both Nineveh and Calah (Kalhu).

 

[Brian2]

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.

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.

 

[Brian2]

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.

As post 35 says, it's not a scientific hypothesis, it is a faith.

 

[rational experiences]

Theism by a human refutes it.

As evolution says a human mind is natural so it owns no thesis.

Scientists just men pretend they are the God type who invented by their thesis life's presence. To think first.

Teaching said the non sex man adult...not a father by human sex got hurt bio sacrificed.

Baby man adult by human sex was the theist as a father man. Hurt his own baby man's life proven.

Is what you lie about consciously.

As a human father by sex owns biological microbial human babies living activation. As just the man.

You were warned you life role play natural evolution by human sex advice conscious man. You falsified advice as if your human sex had created all things from microscopic living forms.

As a father human typified I'm a God man by scientific man's thesis about all things.

To invent .....is why science is wrong. As you didn't invent reactions.

A reaction ends as the reactive end...as just a reaction mass changed.

You however experience the presence of all things...the reaction doesn't as it's paths is exact.

For example men wanted coldest gas for a machine. Said space plus gas heavens owned it. Infinity.

He only takes chemical mass heats it converts time shifts mass already zero cooled many times to obtain evolution the cold gas. Or gets it as a gas straight out of earth.

So by invention he falsified why earths atmosphere had cold gas. He claimed I invented it.

Is your human advice any thesis you theory is fake.

In biology every body exists. Same law.

In biology everything dies or desists and self procreation is only why it continues.

Isn't evolution as it remains in its fixed body place. Unless reacted destroyed. Like dinosaurs were.

As humans bio body can produce cell damage harm. Isn't evolution its natural healing ability exists in its owned cellular function.

Also isn't evolution.

So if all bodies are fixed and change by damage or conditions that change as conditions. Change is exact.

The condition change says it allows change.

So body removal in mass says change occurs as inner space mass converting is gone..and outer space more space cooled it.

Isn't evolution its change and is cooling.

Biology dies by change of either increased heat or Increased cooling. So we have not evolved.

We came as a fixed body that in change earths environment exact first owned both cold and heat itself.

So we had to own previously a fixed body. To be changed by either or conditions.

Which we explained as the first human parents with animal living nature that came out of a fixed body that had always pre existed the eternal.

We can impose a theoretic belief explanation which is neither evolution creationism or science.

The eternal type had caused created creation itself. Still existed now owned a hole in its body that exerts outside space pressure the hole O itself.

One day by loss of created mass within space womb the outside exerting could bodily close off created creation as if it never existed.

Terms....as mass evolved in space conditions as the law. We are free willed free moving bodies inside a mass. Heavens. As proof we aren't mass. And are not joined to mass.

As we can also leave bodily our heavens by space travel.

The sun dust mass above you could pretend is a machine in thesis that reacted to invent the presence of earths heavens. As men impose the same status to earths dust in science gain a gas.

Proof we were not created by suns dust mass nuclear chemical history.

And hence did come from a place of spirit only as a pre owned body a being whose lifeform converted in heat cold terms. Why we die.

Why we've always claimed we came from spirit and are a spiritual consciousness of innate abilities.

Which is neither creationism or evolution both man's science only arguments.

 

[Heyo]

So it is the idea of creation that you see as a scientific hypothesis.

I don't.

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.

We agree on that one.
But there are those who don't see it that way. They insist that the Bible (or any other creation myth, but mostly Genesis) is a fact and can be scientifically supported. The Ken Hams and Kent Hovinds are arguing it professionally. I think the OP was for those people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As post 35 says, it's not a scientific hypothesis, it is a faith.

And faith is not a pathway to the truth. Why not try to find a better way?

 

[rational experiences]

In the beginning says a human man standing on planet earth. Refuting the God as a Pre man type creator substance or entity.

Who says G O D a lettered science symbol... forms one word. I identified it's term and it was how swirling holding of mass. Terms any spirit on the face of space great deep and water rotated spun cooling.

As I'm theorising how mass was held in one...one place body.

O rotates by symbol G spin in O. Middle heat I attraction of forces symbol I named ....I as intensity of magnetism is cooling I DD split OO yet O is cooling only.

I also claim I think by self man as I. Why I know I lied.

So I claimed ID was identified meaning. And I the self man thought it...as I'm not intensity of magnetism.

I stand on the planet man theist scientist storyteller with water to know water...sea or fresh exists..light exists...land bared naked exists for a nature garden.

I'm with animals too living on dirt rock sand surfaces. All present created to know the term variable substance.

I bring my thought not back to the woman human with me. Just to my man self theist.

A woman was with me.

I theoried maths the creation to own build operate my machine plus reaction in one theory.

Change to the reaction is to mass not in the theory as I hadn't yet changed it. Only to build machine by Alchemy.

When I did all life of all bodies living already known were attacked Sacrificed as the sun UFO chariot ark appeared above forming bringing light burning. Life left.

So I said God the position life's protection hadn't attacked man's biology and baby man life. Man the father of the wisdom theories coloured gases had...coat mantle heavens body protection.

It was when my man's image appeared in heavens cloud as a son of God now by my human man and babies life removal in genetics.

I lost our water mass heavens support with single bodied microbiomes carbonised to form image. I lost chemical biology cell blood bone in the attack.

As single body was gone removed. I told you why life was created invented sacrificed. By man arguing against man in consciousness. A theist.

As babies cannot speak for theirselves my mother sister human is telling you...as man the father adult did it to me.