1,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 54:
Line 54: + +
no edit summary
:::::My position on the matter is that is ''was'' when originally formulated in a scientific manner, and it has been falsified. The modern "theory of creationism" makes no significant predictions, in fact it goes out of its way to justify why the strata should be indistinguishable from gradulistic accounts, and so it isn't science, just an excercise in apologetics. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::My position on the matter is that is ''was'' when originally formulated in a scientific manner, and it has been falsified. The modern "theory of creationism" makes no significant predictions, in fact it goes out of its way to justify why the strata should be indistinguishable from gradulistic accounts, and so it isn't science, just an excercise in apologetics. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I think that rather depends on one's definition. Certainly, specific creationist ''models'', such as Humphreys' white hole cosmology, are falsifiable. And, indeed, false. More generally, though, no approach which allows for plugging gaps with 'and then a miracle occurred' is falsifiable, by definition. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)