Paul Blay wrote:

"Michael Walsh" wrote ...

Paul Blay wrote:



What is it that you believe we are arguing about?

Your statement

""Creationism" is internally consistent and cannot be disproved."

is provably incorrect for the first half for a significant (and in my opinion
probably majority) of values of "creationism".

The second half of the statement is misleading in that while certain
types and claims of "Creationism" can not be disproved they often
put forward 'proof' and 'logic' to support their beliefs and _those_
supporting arugments can often be disproved.

What I was pointing out was that any set of beliefs can be made
internally consistent by couching observation in terms of the
belief system.

For instance there is a "Flat Earth" society that provides counters
to the obviously overwhelming evidence against them. The
"flat earthers" have the advantage that they don't seem to really
believe in their concept.

Also, try to disprove any conspiracy story. All of the evidence
against it is regarded as another conspiracy.

Mike Walsh