Re: Creationism is a falsified scientific theory

in article pan.2006.08.17.16.43.39.47691@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mark Isaak at
eciton_NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 8/17/06 9:45 AM:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:20:35 -0500, *** C wrote:

RAM wrote in talk.origins

George Evans wrote:

You have misidentified the villain. It is fundamentalism. Creationism is
still viable. It is not "unsupported by science". It is in second place.

Provide some evidence of this "scientific support." And what exactly do you
mean by second place.

I didn't know scientific theories were in a queue.

If they were, creationism wouldn't be second, it would be dead last, and
would have to back up everytime another scientific theory was presented.

No, creationism would not be in the queue at all. It was once, about 200
years ago, and it reached the head of the queue, and it got rejected on
account of being wrong. (Which brings us back to the Subject of this thread.)

The closest thing I have seen to a falsification in this group is the idea
that creation would predict a very sharp boundary in the geological record
representing the moment of creation--the reverse of an extinction. And, of
course non is found, so that seems conclusive. The problem is that under
"peer review" it was shown that the possibility of a world wide flood brings
the data into question because such an event could have changed geology.
Therefore the "experiment" is not conclusive.

You would be well advised to push the idea that the creation theory is not
falsifiable in the first place, and therefore not science to begin with.

George Evans

.