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

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing
We are the naked ape.
I actually read that book. Have you?

Desmond Morris (yes).

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing
We are the naked ape.
I actually read that book. Have you?

Desmond Morris (yes).

Then why would you ask this:

Question? Did we evolve from the Naked Ape?

Morris calls us the naked ape.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing
We are the naked ape.
I actually read that book. Have you?

Desmond Morris (yes).

Then why would you ask this:

Question? Did we evolve from the Naked Ape?

Morris calls us the naked ape.

Of course he does; where is the enlightenment factor?

I wasn't aware that Creationism (or Darwinism for that matter) made any predictions. They only offer explanations.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: spygeek
So what happens when creationists claim creationism is a theoretical science?

What happens is it becomes evident they don't know what theoretical science is.

Could they be called "creation theorists"...?

They could be called whatever they want, it wouldn't make them scientific theorists though. Sticking feathers up your bum doesn't make you a chicken.

Or does the scientific community have exclusive rights on the word 'theory'?

There is a difference between the scientific definition of the term "theory" and the layperson's. Creationism does not fit the scietific definition.

And also, how are some of the mainstream theories that are generally accepted simply out of concensus peer reviewed? If there is no empirical evidence...how are these theories modeled? Do these kinds of theorists take what they observe and then create a theoretical model to explain their observations? (Because that's exactly what creationism does...."God of the gaps" or "theory of the gaps")

And....how can "theoretical science" be taught in a school when there is no empirical evidence and no testable predictions? Isn't that akin to teaching speculation?

A2D

If you want a lesson on scientific process and methodology, take a course, a creationism thread is not the place to learn it..

In any case, here's a little clarification:

How do you prove your pet theory/model (if you're a theorist)? Simple: look at what the experiments say. If they do everything your model says the experiments should, chances are you're onto a winner, if not, sorry, try again. For experimental science, you get a set of observations, and see if the results of the observations match your favorite theory.

Theoretical science does perform experiments, using mathematics and computer modelling and simulation to verify a model's predictions.

Theoretical science can prove that something is not contrary to the laws of nature as we understand them at this point. This does not imply that just because the simulation says it can happen, that it will happen. The theory also needs to include results of observations. There are no solid "proofs" per say in theoretical science, apart from the model/theory agreeing with the real data, i.e. experiments.

Experimental science is based on real world observation and experiment, theoretical science is based on mathematically modelling and simulating observations to create a theory.

Creation "science" would have to be a physical science, not theoretical. Unless creationists possess the knowledge of the workings of God in creating life, and can produce a mathematical model to describe it and simulate it, they will be stuck trying to define and explain real world evidence through experiment, as experimental sciebce does.

Now you know the difference between thoeretical and experimental science, can you provide experimental evidence verifying predictions made by a creationist theory?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I wasn't aware that Creationism (or Darwinism for that matter) made any predictions. They only offer explanations.

Creationism can't make predictions.
There's no such thing as "Darwinism".
The theory of evolution predicts many things, some being:

Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.

Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.

There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.


Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.

Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.

Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.

Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.

Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.

In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.

It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.

In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.

Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.


In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."


This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found.

You can see why creationism has no business in science class.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: vethumanbeing

?????

So, a creationist theory has no predictive power?

Predictive; not so much,

Not at all, and therefore not scientific.

as regarding creationism the form is brought into the ecosystem fully formed. Provocative YES.

A theory's merit is not judged on whether it is provocative. Creationist theory is provocatively untestable and provocatively without a basis in objective reality.

Is there actually a creation theory one can study and reference? Or would that just be Genesis? I've read countless pages of creationist theories and they all disagree on so many points it's difficult to know which one is "the theory".

The welcome page for talk.origins, says up front: "No one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us."

A study of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 68 scientific journals over a 3-year period found that only 18 attempted to make a case for scientific creationism, and these were rejected because they were apparently written by laymen with a high-school level understanding of their subjects.

The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis, and that hypothesis can not be used to make verifiable predictions.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Creationism predicts change.

Change from nothing to something.

And how can one validate such a prediction of nothing changing to something, given that "nothing" does not exist. That's not a scientific prediction, it is as unfalsifiable as it is impossible.

Change in form based on environmental influences.

That's just hijacking an overly simplified version of a prediction made by evolution.




Still waiting for a creationism supporter to provide anything resembling a scientific argument in support of it, or even submit a theory that qualifies as scientific.

a reply to: spygeek

Did you want to post a source to that? Or were you intending to be intellectually dishonest with me?

What happens when one uses google answers because they don't know the answers for his/her self? It becomes apparent they are in over their head...

A2D

a reply to: spygeek

Or maybe you wanted to post your anti-theist source for that as well...

Copy and pasting from answersinscience is just as bad as copy and pasting from answersingenesis...Do you have anything to say that actually originates in your own brain?

A2D

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: deadeyedick
]originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: deadeyedick

deadeyedick: No need to evolve if dna can be manipulated by emf.
of coarse the whole man being part of this world was not predicted.

We don't have to evolve; as you say, our DNA is manipulated by others. Who would predict us? Our creators that continue to redesign us (for what purpose).

control

if they loose control they can just reset

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

The source is irrelevant when the information is correct.

Perhaps you would like to provide some discussion on why the information is wrong? You can attack the source all you like but if you do not address the actual information and facts you're just making a moot point.

Copy and pasting from answersinscience is just as bad as copy and pasting from answersingenesis.

How so? Answers in science provides solid scientific truth, the opposite of what answersingenesis provides. Answers in science isn't even the source of the information I provided, it originated at scientist Don Lindsay's Archive.

Would you accept information from talk.origns? What about The National Centre for Science Education? Is ResearchGate anti-theist?

What happens when one uses google answers because they don't know the answers for his/her self? It becomes apparent they are in over their head...

You assume a bit much there. Why waste my time writng out the definition of theoreical science for you, or try to remember as many predictions evolution has made as I can, when I can easily find the information online and share it? I'm not "in over my head", i'm lazy, plus I would like to be certain I have got the details right by cross checking them with other sources before posting, rather than rely on my memory alone and possibly get a detail or two wrong. I did in fact add a few paragraphs that "actually originated in my own brain".

What happens when one starts attacking the source of the informaton rather than the information itself because there is no argument against it? It becomes apparent they are just desperate to try to "score points" rather then actually debate the facts or admit they are uncontested. That is intellectually dishonest.

I see this kind of tactic employed all the time by creationism supporters; don't have an argument against the facts? well then attack the people who share the facts. It contributes nothing to the discussion and only serves to demonstrate that they do not understand the subject and are in over their head.

Rather than make a silly ad hominem attack on my intelligence or attempt to undermine the validity of facts by disparaging the people who share them, how about you show me where the information I provided is wrong?

While we are on the subject of sources, what makes the biblical creation myth so inerrant? Does creationism come solely from a literal interpretation of the bible or do creationism supporters have anything to say that "actually originates in their own brains"?

originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

The source is irrelevant when the information is correct.

Perhaps you would like to provide some discussion on why the information is wrong? You can attack the source all you like but if you do not address the actual information and facts you're just making a moot point.

Copy and pasting from answersinscience is just as bad as copy and pasting from answersingenesis.

How so? Answers in science provides solid scientific truth, the opposite of what answersingenesis provides. Answers in science isn't even the source of the information I provided, it originated at scientist Don Lindsay's Archive.

Would you accept information from talk.origns? What about The National Centre for Science Education? Is ResearchGate anti-theist?

What happens when one uses google answers because they don't know the answers for his/her self? It becomes apparent they are in over their head...

You assume a bit much there. Why waste my time writng out the definition of theoreical science for you, or try to remember as many predictions evolution has made as I can, when I can easily find the information online and share it? I'm not "in over my head", i'm lazy, plus I would like to be certain I have got the details right by cross checking them with other sources before posting, rather than rely on my memory alone and possibly get a detail or two wrong.

What happens when one starts attacking the source of the informaton rather than the information itself because there is no argument against it? It becomes apparent they are just desperate to try to "score points" rather then actually debate the facts or admit they are uncontested. That is intellectually dishonest.

Rather than make a silly ad hominem attack on my intelligence or attempt to undermine the validity of facts by disparaging the people who share them, how about you show me where the information I provided is wrong?

Sorry bud, you got caught. Anytime you post anything that is not your own words, it should be quoted with a link to the source. Not doing so not only makes you look bad, but distracts from the actual content and debate, as shown by A2D's response. Also I believe it's against ATS T&C.

Lesson learned.

And before you respond asking why I don't discuss the info you posted, I don't need to, I agree with it.

a reply to: Connector

I should've used ex tags, apologies. Doesn't change the validity of the information, which is available from a multitude of sources both online and offline.

In future i'll be more dilligent with providing sources for every paragraph that isn't my own words. I didn't realise it was against the t+cs to copy information that amounts to general knowledge without linking the source page, or that it would make me look bad. I was unaware no distinction is made between specific unique articles and general information that is widely disseminated and reproduced.

Lesson learned indeed.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: deadeyedick
]originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: deadeyedick

deadeyedick: No need to evolve if dna can be manipulated by emf.
of coarse the whole man being part of this world was not predicted.

We don't have to evolve; as you say, our DNA is manipulated by others. Who would predict us? Our creators that continue to redesign us (for what purpose).

control

if they loose control they can just reset

Yes; and have done it over and over again. I wonder how/when the plug will be pulled on this current version of the human? Do I want to live to see it; I may have no choice.

originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

The source is irrelevant when the information is correct.

Perhaps you would like to provide some discussion on why the information is wrong? You can attack the source all you like but if you do not address the actual information and facts you're just making a moot point.

The source is always relevant...as already discussed by Connector...

As for providing some discussion why the information is wrong...well I didn't say it was wrong. I said the remarks were made by those known to be biased(or some random guy on a forum that could be Jesus Christ himself for all I know)...either way, Neutral opinions are always the best option.

As a note, I don't disagree with most of what has been said throughout this thread...and I've followed it quite closely. I'm agnostic so I really don't have a horse in this race...but I still toss some of my spare change in the bucket every now and then you know...

A2D

originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: Connector

I should've used ex tags, apologies. Doesn't change the validity of the information, which is available from a multitude of sources both online and offline.

In future i'll be more dilligent with providing sources for every paragraph that isn't my own words. I didn't realise it was against the t+cs to copy information that amounts to general knowledge without linking the source page, or that it would make me look bad. I was unaware no distinction is made between specific unique articles and general information that is widely disseminated and reproduced.

Lesson learned indeed.

You're correct...it doesn't change the validity of the information, but does bring your character into the debate.

Stop your wiggling. You got caught plagiarizing, word for word, from a poster on an obscure forum from 2005. That isn't "widely disseminated and reproduced general information". Now everything you've posted in this thread is suspect and thus, by association, you comprise the entire debate you're trying to defend.

Sad thing is, your info is great. Get your # together!

link

originally posted by: [spygeek[/post]

How do you prove your pet theory/model (if you're a theorist)? Simple: look at what the experiments say. If they do everything your model says the experiments should, chances are you're onto a winner, if not, sorry, try again. For experimental science, you get a set of observations, and see if the results of the observations match your favorite theory.

a reply to: Connector

Wiggling? I clearly admitted my error in not using ex tags or linking the source of the material. Material that explains the widely accepted common definition of theoretical science and its difference to experimental science. Information that is widely disseminated and reproduced in a multitude of textbooks and educational articles online and off.

I admitted my mistake and said I would be more diligent in using tags and linking sources when including others' writing. At this point you're just derailing the thread. Get over it and stop playing moderator.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree

originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

The source is irrelevant when the information is correct.

Perhaps you would like to provide some discussion on why the information is wrong? You can attack the source all you like but if you do not address the actual information and facts you're just making a moot point.

The source is always relevant...as already discussed by Connector...

As for providing some discussion why the information is wrong...well I didn't say it was wrong. I said the remarks were made by those known to be biased(or some random guy on a forum that could be Jesus Christ himself for all I know)...either way, Neutral opinions are always the best option.

As a note, I don't disagree with most of what has been said throughout this thread...and I've followed it quite closely. I'm agnostic so I really don't have a horse in this race...but I still toss some of my spare change in the bucket every now and then you know...

A2D

While the informaton was republished on an anti-creationist website, Don Lindsay is unbiased and so is the original article, the information is accurate. By your logic, any scientific findings, no matter where they are originally published, once shared by a site such as answerinscience, become biased or inaccurate. Science is by definition unbiased and the fact that one article was republished on a biased website does not make the article "remarks made by those who are known to be biased".

I too am agnostic, however I do reject creation science on the basis that it is not science, and I do not tolerate those who claim it has any basis in scientific method. There really is only one horse in this race, or, two horses running separate races. That's my spare change.

a reply to: spygeek

Everything we do is technically science. See something you are curious about and ask questions trying to figure out what exactly it is that you observd? That's science. Observe something and come up with an explanation as to why it happened? That's science. Wonder if some th ing will float so you put it in water? That's science.

A2Do

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: spygeek

Everything we do is technically science.

Not by a long shot.

ee something you are curious about and ask questions trying to figure out what exactly it is that you observd? That's science. Observe something and come up with an explanation as to why it happened? That's science. Wonder if some th ing will float so you put it in water? That's science.

You have a very naive and ill formed understanding of the scientific method.