What predictions does Creationism make? (a fundamental requirement in science class)

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: sHuRuLuNi

So you worship Zeus and his fellow gods, or are you desperately trying to rationalize the cognitive dissonance of your faith and reality with wordplay?

Attempting to rewrite Greek history to fit it with your cultural faith is... beyond silly.

Wait ... what?

The hellenes (greeks) did not CREATE Zeus and Hera and so on.

They FOUND those "Gods" when they came to today's Greece which was already inhabited by pelasgians who had created those "gods" long time ago.


I am not trying to "fit" anything to anything, I am simply telling you that "Zeu" or "Zo" is "God" in my language.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vethumanbeing

No, Zeus, king of the gods on Mt. Olympus. And it was Prometheus who created mankind, not Zeus. And certainly not the retcon Abrahamic god.

Zeus dares to challenge Yahweh's claim to be God or maybe are just both middle manager demi-gods arguing over Earths territories? Enlil/Enki fighting over the upper and lower N/S earths equator line.

the op asks this:

originally posted by: Ghost147
So I ask, what predictions does Creationism make, how do we test those predictions? But, most importantly, is Creationism willing to be peer reviewed, and thrown away if proven to be false?

the majority of the posts being made here have absolutely zero relevance to this. all i can see is people calling each other stupid and arguing over irrelevant details.

stop it. please. for the love of God, answer the op, stay on topic, or stop posting.

is creationism willing to be peer reviewed? can it be used to write a viable hypothesis and design scientific experiments? is there any physical evidence to back up the hypothesis?

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
a reply to: Ghost147

Without a drive toward greater complexity the entire core of the theory fails.

Mwah...

not true. evolution does not require greater complexity, it is only a possible result of the process.

originally posted by: sHuRuLuNi

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: sHuRuLuNi

So you worship Zeus and his fellow gods, or are you desperately trying to rationalize the cognitive dissonance of your faith and reality with wordplay?

Attempting to rewrite Greek history to fit it with your cultural faith is... beyond silly.

Wait ... what?

The hellenes (greeks) did not CREATE Zeus and Hera and so on.

They FOUND those "Gods" when they came to today's Greece which was already inhabited by pelasgians who had created those "gods" long time ago.

The Greek pantheon of deities, much like the Hindu, Roman and to a lesser extent, the Norse, are derived directly from earlier Indo-European deities with localized variations resting from regional influences. It wasn't just a random local religion they wandered into and adapted. It's far more likely based on linguistics, that the original Indo-European religion was what spread across Europe, Western Asia and into India and the Middle East and then adopted local traditions that gave rise to what we are now. But it was with people as they travelled from one location to the next, not randomly found on the Aegean coast.

I am not trying to "fit" anything to anything, I am simply telling you that "Zeu" or "Zo" is "God" in my language.

That may be so but the etymological root of your 'Zeu' is the Indo-European 'Dieus' also called 'Dyeus Ph Ter'(Sky Father)
Dyeu means to shine in the original Indo European and when appropriated by the Greeks became known as Sky, heaven and eventually God. The oldest written fo comes from Linear B script. Zeus might be mentioned in earlier Mycenaean script but know body can read Linear A yet) and in that script it is recorded as Di-we or Di-wo (closest equivalents). While Zeus did become the template for a synonym for God in many cultures ( the Roman Jupiter[ ju ph ter] and the widely known Deus)it never came from Ze or Zo. Not trying to be pedantic but this is the etymological history of Zeus.

a reply to: spygeek
"Evolution does not require greater complexity, it is only a possible result of the process".
Those that seem to be failing are at times called 'specie endangered' or could on the other hand be described as an 'emerging specie'. No one can tell the difference unless an obvious mass genocide documented (American Bison).

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Well, you can tell the difference.. For a species to be considered endangered or emerging it must fulfill certain criteria.. This really has nothing to do with an organism's complexity, nor creationism really..

originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Well, you can tell the difference.. For a species to be considered endangered or emerging it must fulfill certain criteria.. This really has nothing to do with an organism's complexity, nor creationism really..

What is the criteria? There are some 1.5 million insects already cataloged on this planet; some suggest there may be another million more existing undiscovered (emerging or endangered). There are x amount of Great Horned Owls, and the numbers seem small (but no one documented their past numbers). Are they emerging or on the verge of extinction. Is the Wolverine emerging or near extinction (or in stasis).

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: vethumanbeing
What is the criteria?

getting even further off topic here..

Identifying a species as endangered criteria:


Making an identification of a species as emerging would depend on hard genetics.

There are x amount of Great Horned Owls, and the numbers seem small (but no one documented their past numbers). Are they emerging or on the verge of extinction?

Neither. They are protected but they are not categorised as threatened or endangered. Populations are so high in some areas that they out-compete more threatened species. They are not emerging as shown by their genetics.

Is the Wolverine emerging or near extinction (or in stasis).

The wolverine is not emerging. It is classified as threatened, specifically "Least Concerned" due to its wide distribution and remaining large populations.

Now we've got that out of the way, do you have anything on topic to contribute?

a reply to: spygeek
Your tabulating graph/table is just a calculation rate. I see no physical data (proof) of such provided to support its premise; past or present. If there is such a thing as 'hard' genetics what describes the less than hard?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: spygeek
Your tabulating graph/table is just a calculation rate. I see no physical data (proof) of such provided to support its premise; past or present.

Physical data/proof of what? That species are endangered? I don't understand what you are meaning here.. you asked what the criteria for classifying endangered species was, and i provided it for you in an easy to read table..

If their is such a thing as 'hard' genetics what describes the less hard?

Seriously?
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Hard genetics, as in, hard data.

Do you have anything to say on topic or are you just wasting my time here?

a reply to: spygeek
What supports the premise of your tabulating table? You cannot just invent something that seems to model an idea form and force nonexistent data to fit it (maybe you can as neither exist).

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: spygeek
What supports the premise of your tabulating table? You cannot just invent something that seems to model an idea form and force nonexistent data to fit it (maybe you can as neither exist).

I didn't "just invent something". The table shows the established criteria. It was sourced from National Geographic. The criteria are used by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Do you have a problem with the way endangered species are classified?

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: spygeek
What supports the premise of your tabulating table? You cannot just invent something that seems to model an idea form and force nonexistent data to fit it (maybe you can as neither exist).

I didn't "just invent something". The table shows the established criteria. It was sourced from National Geographic. The criteria are used by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Do you have a problem with the way endangered species are classified?

Not at all, just the process of the identification of (endangered, soon to be so, or extinct already). Humans are included within this demographic?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: spygeek
What supports the premise of your tabulating table? You cannot just invent something that seems to model an idea form and force nonexistent data to fit it (maybe you can as neither exist).

I didn't "just invent something". The table shows the established criteria. It was sourced from National Geographic. The criteria are used by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Do you have a problem with the way endangered species are classified?

Not at all, just the process of the identification of (endangered, soon to be so, or extinct already). Humans are included within this demographic?

Humans are not endangered, so no, they are not included.

Back on topic, what do you have to say about the predictive power of a creationist theory?

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: spygeek
What supports the premise of your tabulating table? You cannot just invent something that seems to model an idea form and force nonexistent data to fit it (maybe you can as neither exist).

I didn't "just invent something". The table shows the established criteria. It was sourced from National Geographic. The criteria are used by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Do you have a problem with the way endangered species are classified?

Not at all, just the process of the identification of (endangered, soon to be so, or extinct already). Humans are included within this demographic?

Humans are not endangered, so no, they are not included.

Back on topic, what do you have to say about the predictive power of a creationist theory?

That depends on how well you trust your creator as the ultimate designer of this system (it could be misleading you) as to the truth YOU THE HUMAN are but an accidental occurrence of nature is all (for some reason the modern human 50,000 years of age, is smarter than the shark 3.5 million years of age). Some specie (fish) are just too perfect to think about becoming the gods of this planet.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

?????

So, a creationist theory has no predictive power?

originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: vethumanbeing

?????

So, a creationist theory has no predictive power?

Why would it have to be predictive at all? You do not understand the instant INSERT of a fully formed sub prime specie overlay that is not predictive; just experimental as to the environment introduced to and observation of as to survival rate.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

In order to qualify as scientific, a theory must be predictive. If a theory can not be used to make testable predictions, it is worthless.

I'm glad you agree creationism is unscientific and therefore inappropriate to teach in science classes or present as a scientific theory. "Creation science" clearly is oxymoronic and nothing more than faith based opinion.

At last you have addressed the thread topic, hurrah!

originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: vethumanbeing

In order to qualify as scientific, a theory must be predictive. If a theory can not be used to make testable predictions, it is worthless.

Actually, this is highly debateable. Testable predictions?

See physicist Sean Carroll's article regarding falsifiability here

Actually, you could probably ask just about any string theorist out there...and they'll more than likely concur that being significantly elegant and explanatory is good enough, it doesn't necessarily have to be falsifiable(testable).

Or maybe you could ask some cosmologists how they plan to test their kaleidoscopic multiverses or the "many worlds" version of quantum reality...Sure they might be able to make some predictions...but how the hell they plan on testing them?

Or what about the theory of inflationary cosmology? Is it not science because it's fundamentally untestable? If so...why's it called a freakin theory?

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Fair point. However you can't really equate theoretical physics to the physical sciences which do require predictions. Theoretical physics, quantum mechanics, and cosmology are of a different realm. For creationism to be scientific it would have to make predictions.

Theories of cosmology and quantum string field theory demonstrate an internal logical mathematical consistency, and do not contradict what observations we can make. The same cannot be said of Creationism.