Adriann

Is it verifiable ? If not, why is it called a theory ?
As far as I know, it contradicts other existent scientific theories without being able to proove what it says a.k.a. it can not make itself obvious in any way. This means it is a false theory. Correct ?

Amaleq13

This belongs in the Evolution/Creation forum and that is where it shall be transplanted. Scoop and plop, watering thoroughly.

Dhaeron

Yes. For example by god showing up and telling everyone that the bible is literally correct. But then, every claim is verifiable, that's why falsifiability is the real test. And before you ask, no creationism isn't falsifiable.
Because creationists believe by consitently calling it that, they can give it some false credibility, as if it were indeed a scientific alternative to moderrn biology.
Almost. There is no evidence whatsoever to support creationism, correct. However that doesn't make it incorrect. String theory for example does not (yet?) have any physical evidence for it's support either (at least to my current knowledge). What makes a theory false is if it's been falsified. Say, evidence found that directly contradicts it. Now, the literal creationism of the 6k years old earth kind has certainly been falsified. The more elusive creationist theory that says "god magicked everything into being appearing as if it was billions of years old" etc. pp. is not falsifiable at all. That doesn't make it a false theory, it makes it not a theory at all. Just like there's no way to disprove "fairies exist". You can't prove a negative, so can't disprove the theory, so it's scientifically worthless, and a theory in the scientific sense.

Adriann

Well, if it's verifiable, i want to verify it. That is what I was talking about.
Do we have to take into consideration the "->0 probability" for which the creationist "theory" could be true ?

And they're aware of it ? :banghead:

Well, the string theory claims that a particle is a string ... What about that ? And remember, it's not verifiable. Do I have to belive it ? Beware, here comes the Occam's Razor. :wave:

Who claims, explains. The creationist has to explain his statement. How does he know that ?

Kotter

To the best of my knowledge, the all aspects of creationism that can be falsified, have been falsified. What is left is religious dogma. Morris has tried to get out of this by saying (in Genesis Flood, I think), that the processes used to create the universe are not in existence now, so we can't check! A remarkable piece of sophistry. Creationists also try to equate evolution with religion (and other times atheism -want it both ways) so that they can claim it is just a "battle" (for want of a better term) between belief systems.

Adriann

Yes, cerainty seems to be the main problem. Many theists call themselfs "believers", but they say they know, for sure, God exists, and made the Universe etc. How comes that ?

If we can't check, he can't check either. Therefore, he does not know. He only belives.
And believing is not knowing.

Kotter

Exactly my point! Creationists tend to then fall back on the authority of the Bible to support their claims, as this is, to their eyes "the inerrant word of God"

Adriann

Regarding "the inerrant word of God", I have a question for Creationists:
How can one know if Bible is the word of God ?

Dhaeron

Well you can't. You'll have to wait for god to do that i guess.
No.
Hard to say. I'd say probably not aware, although i suspect that is the motivation behind it, if at a subconscious level. Why else try to make up scientific reasoning to support creationism instead of simply stating that it's a baseless belief. (aka: faith)
As far as i know (but i'm out of my league with higher physics) string theory is a theory that makes a lot of sense mathematically, and offers some useful explanations, but is still missing physical evidence to support it. So Occam's razor falls flat because it is the simplest explanation. It could however, still be considered a hypothesis instead of a theory until some physcial evidence has been found to support it.
God told him? :huh:
If you examine it rationally, there is really no reason to believe in creationism. So you can't discredit creationism in the eyes of the creationist by showing that it's an irrational belive. If it was that easy to overcome childhood indoctrination, there'd be no fundies anymore.

/edit
Well, and for the rational, educated people, there isn't really a need for discussing the merits of creationism either. Taking the word of bronze-age goat herders over current scientific knowledge and physical evidence? Please, how crazy is that? The evidence for the ToE could be lot than it is, and it'd still be far superior to anything creationism has to show for itself. Creationists are trying to muddy the waters by invoking scientific dissent with the ToE. There is no scientific debate about creationism. There has not been for at least a hundred years. Creationism is mainly a social problem, not a scientific one. Unfortunately, that means that as in politics, simple factual arguments won't do the trick.

Adriann

This means it could be verifiable. In fact, it isn't.

If so, string theory it's not the simplest. You forgot God's Will. Everything is God's Will. And it's also not verifiable.

:thumbs: