Re: Creationism is a falsified scientific theory

"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-06B466.19551619082006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In article <1156038950.792008.152200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Kent" <musquodster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

<snip>

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.

No,,George Evans, it's conclusive of nothing at all. In fact, if God had
made the world, then He could have one so in such a way that there was
no such boundary. The problem with that statement is that it cannot be
disproven, even in principle. It's just a variant of Last Thursdayism:
God created the whole universe, including all evidence and memory of
previous existence, last Thursday. You can't disprove that, so, by your
logic, that's conclusive. But that logic is wrong.

I didn't say anything about proof. Last Thusdayism is nonsense. It is a
"problem" for all theory of the past, equally. It has nothing to say about
everything.

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.

Except that there is no possibility of such a flood. There's not enough
water on the planet for it to rain steadily everywhere for forty days
and forty nights.

That depends on where the water was initially. If you put half the water in
the oceans into suspension in the atmosphere, there is plenty.

Therefore the "experiment" is not conclusive.

I'm not sure what experiment you're talking about.

The geological thought "experiment" we are doing right now.

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.

I would not call those predictions. Predictions are saying what will
happen in the future not the past. Those would be postdictions or
retrodictions.

Kent, you're getting hung up on certain meanings of the word
"prediction." Forget prediction. Let's just say it this way: The Bible
says that that the earth is less than 7000 years old, and that there was
a global flood after humans came on the scene. But both statements have
been spectacularly falsified. (Mostly Mark Isaak's words.)

Back to prediction: When scientists say that a theory predicts
something, they don't mean that some event will happen in the future,
they mean they predict that certain phenomena will be discovered. For
instance, "When Dmitri Mendeleev proposed his periodic table, he noted
gaps in the table, and predicted that as of yet unknown elements existed
with properties appropriate to fill those gaps."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendeleev%27s_predicted_elements )

Those elements already existed, but nobody knew about them. Mendeleev is
said to have predicted them.

A 7000 year old earth is not falsified. Think
Omphalos hypothesis.

That doesn't advance the discussion at all. Omphalos is not even in
principle falsifiable, and thus does not fall within the realm of
scientific investigation.

BTW, everything in evolution is "postdiction" according to Kent.

<snip>

George Evans

.