Are the hypotheses suggested by creationism testable?

Answer 1

By "testable" do you mean to ask, "can similar results be acheived in a controlled environment?" The answer to that would be, no. But you see, that is exactly what researchers have tried and are trying to do to prove the theory concerning the random synthesis of life. They have not been able to find the right combination of random events to "accidentally" produce a living organism. So it's a draw, isn't it? Actually, you can't reproduce similar results in a controlled environment to prove creation - unless you have an All-Powerful Creator in the room that you can convince to do it again for you. Personally, I think it is silly what some people require for proof. From my angle, you are surrounded and immersed in the proof right now! You ARE the proof.

Answer 2

Testable meaning on lab? Impossible God is not a "human logic" mind. Only the idea of its existence is not rational. I am a believer in God I tested him and I got many spiritual evidences to be confident.

Answer 3

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.

The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88.

Answer 4

I can't see how.

To be VALID science, the experiment has to be done MANY times and MUST come up with the SAME result EVERY time.

Someone tell me how you can do that.

grace2u

Answer 5

~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
The proof and evidence is all around you and everywhere, undeniable proof, and indisputable visible evidence. It is called creation and life. Unless your are blind, deaf, and senseless. You can see, smell, taste, hear, feel, and examine the evidence.
~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
We live on a planet teeming with life. Plant life with approximately 250,000 species, animal life with over a million species. Scientists are learning just how complex life is. So complex that it requires design. The evidence of design requires a designer. Scientists are also learning the conditions for life; just how perfect conditions here on planet Earth are to support all this life.
~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
The human brain, it absorbs forty megabytes per second of data while awake. That is two terabytes of data a day. At night, it sorts and stores that data through the creation of new chemical bonds and synaptic connectors.
~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
Sure, right, this all just happened and evolved. This sort of thinking takes considerable faith, exponentially more faith than believing in a creator.
~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~


TEST AWAY

Answer 6

No, because we cannot remake the Earth in a laboratory. But, we can't do that for Evolution either...

Answer 7

Nope. Doing so would imply testing God, and that's a no-no according to the Bible. I guess that even if you could, it would be a sin.

Answer 8

No. Because the key terms and variables were never adequately defined.

"Is there a god?"

How do we define "god"?

Answer 9

Only if you are a creationist.

Answer 10

yes, but not in a lab