To: Reuben Hick
"So, please falsify the Fact of Creation for us. No one has been able to do so in over 5600 years."
The fact of creation is not falsifiable, since life exists.
The who of creation is unknown. I personally ascribe to the God did it, here.
However, the real question is if the literal interpretation of the Bible is falsifiable. It is. It has been down many times. Just one: Dinosaur bones are in chronological order in the strata and dated to millions of years, showing species change over time.
This falsifies the notion of special creation of each species (or kind). This one fact falsifies creation science and ID insofar as its notions of speciation or macroevolution are stated.
posted on 12/03/2004 4:03:54 AM PST
(Peace through superior firepower.)
You wrote: "However, the real question is if the literal interpretation of the Bible is falsifiable. It is. It has been down many times. Just one: Dinosaur bones are in chronological order in the strata and dated to millions of years, showing species change over time." This is the sort of blind and stupid thinking believers in evolution fall into. First it is man that observes the rock strata with certain fossils in them. Because we know rocks were laid down over time we can say bones in lower courses are older...so what? It just means life at that time died at that time and was fossilized. But there is NO indication, absolutely NO hint of gradual changes from species to species. Just different life in different eras (that always appear in-toto suddenly in the fossil record and they continue on THE SAME, until extinction or they live on into the next era like sharks and cockroaches). It is only because you wear evolutionists glasses that you LABEL a previous era of life as more primitive than a later era. That something appeared earlier in the fossil record in no way means it is MORE PRIMITVE than later life of similar morphology, it is simply the labeling game of evolutionists. I can just as well say that different life was created in successive ages and the fossil record bears witness to my interpretation far better than yours, as no transitory species have ever been found, other than labeling games by evolutionists who find a half bird, half lizard, and pronounce it a transition between birds and lizards. How do you know? It could just as well be a lizard-like bird all in its own right! This theory falls in on itself by the weight of its own illogic and contradictory causes and effects. Imagine we are to buy the driving force of evolution that says: "Survival of the fittest," species gain a new niche because they are driven by ruthless competition to exploit some mutation of genes. So a fish starts growing legs to walk on land, but it takes millions of years for the process (wink, wink). All the while it is subject to the same ruthless competion that started the process, but it is no longer an efficient fish, and not yet an efficient land animal. So all the other animals suddenly give this half-assed newly forming species a pass? And they do this for the required million years or so? Freaking ridiculous crap parading as science. Only those that want to find anything, believe anything, but in the immediate creative power of God would buy into this junk.
posted on 12/03/2004 6:40:54 AM PST
I would argue with you on your point that Biblical literalism is falsifiable. God could have done it exactly as stated in Genesis and arranged all of the physical evidence the way it is at that time. This is an unfalsifiable notion and is thus unscientific. When an omnipotent being is an integral part of an idea, that idea can never be falsified.
posted on 12/08/2004 11:13:26 AM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson