44
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists (view source)
Revision as of 11:48, June 16, 2008
, 11:48, June 16, 2008Actually...
Your challenge meets the same result regardless of whether God exists or does not exist; thus, it is not a useful challenge. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Your challenge meets the same result regardless of whether God exists or does not exist; thus, it is not a useful challenge. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
== Actually... ==
My challenge is nothing like Hovind's.
Hovind's was invalid because it required one to prove things outside the scope of evolution, not just evolution. It wasn't to prove evolution, it was to disprove creationism, which is by nature unfalsifiable.
physical or supernatural, creationism requires the actions of god to be POSSIBLE in some way. Extraordinary Claims need Extraordinary Evidence, as they say. I could claim that there exists a being that defies all laws known to man, but it would be just that: a claim. Until I proved it could be done.
In other words, in something can't be DISproven, you must PROVE it.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)