Re: Creationism is a falsified scientific theory

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:59:21 +0000, George Evans wrote:

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.

Biblical creationism made at least two definite predictions -- that the
earth is less than 7000 years old, and that there was a global flood after
humans came on the scene. Both are now spectacularly falsified.
Creationism also predicts stasis of a sort, that that animals we see today
have existed as long as there were animals. That too is spectacularly
false.

The scientists of 200 years ago, who were all creationists, recognized
(for the most part) that the Bible-based models were being falsified, so
they abandoned the biblical models. The surviving creationists are not so
intellectually honest.

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.

That goes on, too, but creationists do sometimes say things that can be
tested. Even intelligent design, which goes out of its way to say as
little as possible, says life looks designed. Since we know properties of
known design -- i.e., separate manufacturing and reuse of ideas in
multiple lineages -- we can look and see that ID too is false.

That is the fatal weakness of creationism. It has to say *something.*
"Life looks like it was arranged according rules we know absolutely
nothing about" does not sell books.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

.