Any good scientific theory has to site conditions under which the theory could be proven false. So under what conditions would you consider creationism proven false?
2006-07-11 09:41:06 · 8 answers · asked by mikayla_starstuff 5 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
FYI an example is this:
Evolution would be proven false if it were proven that mutations within DNA don't happen.
2006-07-11 09:42:06 · update #1
chas_chas_123:
We have both of those.
NEXT!
2006-07-12 06:41:45 · update #2
Do not say that we cannot prove evolution so by default creationism is right. It's just not true, so don't even go there.
2006-07-12 07:07:39 · update #3
How about a transitional fossil?
How about a mechanism for creating genetic information?
Evolution is easily refuted - see link below.
2006-07-11 12:30:32 · answer #1 · answered by a Real Truthseeker 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The problem, FlowerKid, is that this is more important than a simple "I believe it so it must be true" argument. You are challenging scientific proof and logic with mumbo jumbo and whilst there are ignorant people in the world, the better educated will always try to make sure you become better educated. In reality, it isn't necessary to actually disprove creationism, it's more necessary to prove it. Simply because some uneducated person without adequate proof and knowledge made up a good story doesn't make it true. All societies have their creation myths based on gods, but as we in the west move into the 21st century (most of us at least) it's no longer sufficient to believe in myths and ancestors to explain natural processes. Your christian creation story is no more believable than the earth flying through space on the back of a turtle or the sun god Ra journeying in the sky every day in his chariot.
If it helps you, there are quite a few creation myhs. Stick a pin in at random and choose one, it's as effective as believing in the flood.
2006-07-11 17:01:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would accept an alternative if you can prove that the alternative is "probable".
For example: Take amounts of Aluminum, Gold, Silicon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and various amounts of other elements and put them in a large bag. How long would you have to shake that bag to end up with a completed 747 Jet?
Evolutionists would have you believe that something a million more times complex than a 747 "just happened".
2006-07-11 16:51:57 · answer #3 · answered by BobbyD 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The real question is why Bobby D thinks his comment is relevant to either evolution or creationism. Other than simply not understanding what the Theory of evolution says, that is.
2006-07-11 17:02:51 · answer #4 · answered by mathematician 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is merely being paraded as one because today's society is sick of babbling clergymen and more drawn to reason and science (weird, huh?). A close examination (even a shallow one) will reveal that creationism has no roots in science and is based on postulates (such as supernatural interference) which are themselves topics of major dispute, thus they would not even qualify as postulates.
2006-07-11 16:50:10 · answer #5 · answered by Lestat de Lioncourt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the problem is called denial in the face of strong evidence. It's like a mom never believing her son did it even though the victim and other whitnesses and DNA say he did.
2006-07-11 16:54:26 · answer #6 · answered by SacBrian 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, if a leader of my church said it was false I wouldn't believe him. I think for myself. And I have studied it as well. If you want to believe its false thats your right. If I want to believe its true thats my right. What's the problem?
2006-07-11 16:48:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only thing that wold work is the leader of their church saying that it's false.
2006-07-11 16:44:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋