This doesn’t falsify evolution. If anything, it extends its reach. But I won’t try to show you the errors of creationism because I know it’s not possible to reason someone out of something they weren’t reasoned into.
Just one thought, though. Isn’t it odd that we can see the results of the scientific method in the civilization we have created with it, but when that same method bumps up against the tribal beliefs of some Bronze Age desert dwellers, the scientific method is completely fallacious?
It is certainly not possible to reason oneself into belief in the absurdity of evolution. The amount of faith and belief in magic required to fall for the evolution narrative far surpasses the faith necessary to accept Creation by an omnipotent God.
You won’t “show the errors of creationism” because you have neither the ability or the information.
Let me know when you come face to face with the love of Jesus Christ bleeding from his side. He loves you and has proven it to me throughout your life.
The scientific method is the wrong test when studying origins.
The scientific method is part of empirical science:
1) make observation
2) form question
3) develop hypothesis
4) conduct experiment
5) study results
6) form conclusion
What is called for is historical/forensic science rather than empirical science.
Past events are neither observable nor repeatable so (historical)scientists must make multiple assumptions, inferences, extrapolations and conjectures about the sequence of past events that would lead to present observations.
We all have the same evidence but our presuppositions influence how we interpret what we see.
What’s the scientific method got to do with evolution? Evolution is not demonstrable using the scientific method.
That is a classic line.
A few questions and observations about your comment, sparklite2: (1) Are you really proposing that our civilization is entirely or even mainly the result of the scientific method? What about its formation established in Greece, Jerusalem, and Rome that has been perking away for at least the past five millennia? And which helps account for the persistency and givenness of human nature down the ages? When was this tremendous legacy "falsified?"
(2) Bishop Ussher was not "some Bronze Age desert dweller." However, he did commit a fallacy, IMHO: He evidently believed that the age of the earth could be calculated by summing up the ages of the patriarchs. We could say he was being "selective" in the qualification of relevant evidence. But the so-called "scientific method" is routinely just as selective about what it qualifies as evidence. Case in point: anthropogenic global warming. If the "evidence" does not fit the pre-existing premise, then it is disregarded -- just as Bishop Usher disregarded other possible factors than the ages of the patriarchs in his calculation of the age of the earth.
How can evolution be "falsified" when so many people have such deep emotional commitment to it? At bottom, such people find it enormously gratifying precisely because it purports to explain how a world can exist that needs no God to explain it. But please tell me, how does one "explain" such things as logic, reason, natural law, mathematics, the persistence of basic human nature over eons, even the scientific method itself? Are such things really the outcomes of directionless, random, mindless evolution over eons?
Now THAT would truly be miraculous!!!
For all the derision the current scientific community has towards those who lived in the path, they forget that these same *Bronze age desert dweller* contemporaries, were the ones who laid the very foundations of the science that we learn in elementary school.
They had to discover this stuff and reason it out on their own with very rudimentary equipment and math knowledge.
Considering the handicaps they worked under, those were men of genius the likes of which we rarely see today.
Today we have all the information we need at our fingertips and the knowledge of math and science that we take for granted they had to discover with NO help from anyone.
THAT takes far more brains than spending a couple decades in school being taught all they did not know but had to discover on their own.
We have it so easy it's ridiculous and it is inexcusable to compare them to us and condemn them for the things they did not know that we now learn in 2nd grade.
The smug attitude of intellectual superiority so many scientists have today is a slap in the face to their forerunners.