1,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 67:
Line 67: + +
no edit summary
:::::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)
:::::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)
::::::Creationism does ''not'' take the approach of plugging gaps with miracles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Creationism does ''not'' take the approach of plugging gaps with miracles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I didn't say that ''all'' creatonist approaches did that; indeed, I specifically stated the opposite. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)