It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 16
13
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: spygeek

It's a theoretical model...lol but here have a read


I hate to split hairs, but that is not a theoretical model, it is a hypothetical one. It would become theoretical if a method could be developed to objectively test its validity. Even then it would struggle as it is based fundamentally on subjective and unverifiable assumptions, (i.e. The Bible is the error-free word of God). A hypothesis must be objective for the theory to work.


Again, I'm not saying the creation model is valid science. I haven't said anything of the sort.


You haven't explicitly said it, but you have heavily implied it through the suggestion that creationism could be considered theoretical science, and your contention that creationism's validity as an explanation of the origin of life is on equal ground with actual scientific theories and models. I can understand why you are backing away from this contention now that we have established it is unfounded.


don't know how or why some people believe I'm a creationist...I'm not by any stretch of the imagination...


I don't know either, you have clearly stated that you are agnostic, which creationists definitely aren't. I haven't seen anyone call you a creationist here though, perhaps I missed it.


Also, I'm not sure which creationists think that creation IS science...I'm pretty sure we all understand that science deals with natural phenomena...and creation would be considered SUPERnatural phenomena..

A2D


There are a number of people who subscribe to "creation science" and present it as scientific, they want it taught alongside evolution in schools. These people, (like the ones who wrote the "model" you linked above), and their arguments are the subject of this thread.
edit on 10-11-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
There is one prediction we can derive from the creationist "model": that its subscribers will utterly fail to grasp the science of evolution.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
There is one prediction we can derive from the creationist "model": that its subscribers will utterly fail to grasp the science of evolution.




I'm nicking that for my sig, if you don't mind xD



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

Sure, no problem



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

One prediction a creationist theory would make is that intelligent extraterrestrial life does not exist, that is falsifiable at least..

It would also predict a completely different geological history of the planet earth will be discovered, rewriting geology and all related sciences from the ground up (pun intended).
edit on 10-11-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: GetHyped
There is one prediction we can derive from the creationist "model": that its subscribers will utterly fail to grasp the science of evolution.


I'm nicking that for my sig, if you don't mind xD

You might tell whatever is driving your "SCIENCE OF" evolutionary process, 3D movie glasses are just an appliance attached to the face; better to improve upon the actual ocular/eyeballs mechanism existing in the skull behind them.
edit on 10-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: GetHyped
There is one prediction we can derive from the creationist "model": that its subscribers will utterly fail to grasp the science of evolution.


I'm nicking that for my sig, if you don't mind xD

You might tell whatever is driving your evolutionary process, 3D movie glasses are just an appliance attached to the face; better to improve on the actual ocular/eyeballs existing in the skull behind them.


Yeah that's the joke. Thanks for explaining the punchline.


edit on 10-11-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: GetHyped
There is one prediction we can derive from the creationist "model": that its subscribers will utterly fail to grasp the science of evolution.


I'm nicking that for my sig, if you don't mind xD

You might tell whatever is driving your evolutionary process, 3D movie glasses are just an appliance attached to the face; better to improve on the actual ocular/eyeballs existing in the skull behind them.


Yeah that's the joke. Thanks for explaining the punchline.

Not so fast; you are a fence sitter.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

A what now? As in agnostic? That really has no bearing on how I approach science. I'm agnostic in the sense that I understand the possibility that the universe itself may have some kind of inherent level of intelligence. To personify that intelligence in a God character only complicates things. I'm faithfully nonreligious I guess you could say.
edit on 10-11-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: vethumanbeing


spygeek: A what now? As in agnostic? That really has no bearing on how I approach science. I'm agnostic in the sense that I understand the possibility that the universe itself has some kind of inherent level of intelligence. I'm faithfully nonreligious I guess you could say.

Are you self described as Agnostic? Fence sitting is the act of the undecided returning philosophical/theological looking back at both dogmatic theists and the opposite; atheists. A fence sitter has the best prospective of both (and the luxury of not having to own either in COMMITMENT).
edit on 10-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: vethumanbeing


spygeek: A what now? As in agnostic? That really has no bearing on how I approach science. I'm agnostic in the sense that I understand the possibility that the universe itself has some kind of inherent level of intelligence. I'm faithfully nonreligious I guess you could say.

Are you self described as Agnostic? Fence sitting is the act of the undecided returning philosophical/theological vollies back at both dogmatic theists and the opposite; atheists.


I don't think I qualify as a fence sitter then, I rarely get sillyphosical while discussing science, here's where I find my philosophy..
This is getting kinda off topic..
edit on 10-11-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: spygeek
Nice Dodge.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

Well, you said it, but you were splitting hairs lol. Theoretical...hypothetical...

But...

"in theory" or "theoretically speaking" means it is based on a theory i.e. the creation theory...
"hypothetically speaking" equates to someone saying "this didn't/isn't(going to) happen, but if it does..."

The creationists who formed that model I provided above...based it on the THEORY OF CREATION....therefore it is a theoretical model...unless, of course, you want to argue there is not a theory of creation....(?)

(I'm not backing away from anything. I still believe origin theories are relatively young and undeveloped. None possesses enough "ummph" to really convince me. Each has its own somewhat limited pool of data to pick from and therefore none really more valid than the other, IMHO atleast)

As far as Creation science being taught alongside evolution in schools...I personally don't have a problem with this...The reason being?
Well...back in 1925 there was little thing called the scopes trial. You may or may not have heard of it...

But basically...the ACLU's main contention was that it is bigotry to teach only one theory of origins(at the time only creation was being taught)...

But now...we see exactly the opposite...does the ACLU still think it is bigotry to teach only one theory of origins?(Because I do)

On another note, since when did the majority vote not matter? You see, the majority of americans want evolution taught in school...Something like 85%...that number is highly divided when it comes to creationism though...BUT it does show that the majority of americans want to keep evolution in schools AND mention creation(ism) as a religious(not scientific) theory on origins...(win-win or no?)

A2D




edit on 10-11-2015 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: spygeek

Well, you said it, but you were splitting hairs lol. Theoretical...hypothetical...

But...

"in theory" or "theoretically speaking" means it is based on a theory i.e. the creation theory...
"hypothetically speaking" equates to someone saying "this didn't/isn't(going to) happen, but if it does..."

The creationists who formed that model I provided above...based it on the THEORY OF CREATION....therefore it is a theoretical model...unless, of course, you want to argue there is not a theory of creation....(?)


By scientific standards, a hypothetical premise is an untested hypothesis, such as creationism. It is through testing that hypotheses become theoretical. At this point the model is not theoretical by scientific definition. As far as I can find, there is no scientific theory of creationism.


(I'm not backing away from anything. I still believe origin theories are relatively young and undeveloped. None possesses enough "ummph" to really convince me. Each has its own somewhat limited pool of data to pick from and therefore none really more valid than the other, IMHO atleast)


This is a fair point, however I give more credence to those theories that are actually proven to be physically possible than those hypotheses that are not.


As far as Creation science being taught alongside evolution in schools...I personally don't have a problem with this...The reason being?
Well...back in 1925 there was little thing called the scopes trial. You may or may not have heard of it...

But basically...the ACLU's main contention was that it is bigotry to teach only one theory of origins(at the time only creation was being taught)...

But now...we see exactly the opposite...does the ACLU still think it is bigotry to teach only one theory of origins?(Because I do)

On another note, since when did the majority vote not matter? You see, the majority of americans want evolution taught in school...Something like 85%...that number is highly divided when it comes to creationism though...BUT it does show that the majority of americans want to keep evolution in schools AND mention creation(ism) as a religious(not scientific) theory on origins...(win-win or no?)

A2D





Religious reading belongs in church and sunday school, not public state schools. You can't grant special status to one religious doctrine over all others. End of story. Creationism is a religious belief and not a scientific theory, therefore it is not appropriate to teach our children that it is scientific, in science class. Separation of church and state is very clear on this and the courts of America have ruled numerous times that creationism is religion, not science.
edit on 10-11-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

Yes, there is Darwinism, the theory of 'descent with modification.' It is not the same as Evolution, which is generically 'change over time.'

I would argue that your list isn't a group of predictions, those are drawing conclusions to fit a theory and waiting for something to come along to fit the paradigm ignoring other findings that do not fit. Without a definitive lineage of ancestor to descendant it is not good science to automatically assume direct connections instead of branches from the main line, or just basic extinction of similar animals. Unfortunately direct lineage is hard to establish when fossils don't come with a serial number or birth certificate.

In "The Origin Of Species" Darwin also said: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one."

I agree that basic religious creationism has no place in science class, but I do think there is value in discussing Intelligent Design, if for anything else to debate references to irreducibly complex biological structures and attempt to refute or support the debate.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: spygeek

Yes, there is Darwinism, the theory of 'descent with modification.' It is not the same as Evolution, which is generically 'change over time.'


Well, the definition of the term "Darwinism" varies depending on context. In scientific circles it is often used as informal shorthand for the theory of evolution by natural selection, to differentiate it from modern evolutionary synthesis which expanded on the original theory and solved a number of its problems. The term is also often used by creationists themselves in a derogatory way to make evolutionary theory sound like an "ism"; a belief system based in faith and not scientific method.

Darwinism is not a belief system, and the term can refer to different aspects of evolutionary theory. It is not term that has a specific scientific definiton. I personally prefer not to use the term at all, because of this ambiguity.

"Decent with modification" is the same thing as "change over time" in evolutionary biology, just over a different time scale.


I would argue that your list isn't a group of predictions, those are drawing conclusions to fit a theory and waiting for something to come along to fit the paradigm ignoring other findings that do not fit.


Drawing a conclusion from a theory that can only be verified by future discovery is the definition of making a prediction. I don't know what your point is here. What findings don't fit with Darwin making a prediction that a transitional species of whale will be discovered that had both teeth and baleen, which then was discovered? What does that fulfilled prediction or any of the others listed ignore?


Without a definitive lineage of ancestor to descendant it is not good science to automatically assume direct connections instead of branches from the main line, or just basic extinction of similar animals. Unfortunately direct lineage is hard to establish when fossils don't come with a serial number or birth certificate.


Hard but not impossible, direct lineages have been discovered. You could say that dna information (if present) is a fossil's serial number, that its scientific classification the birth certificate, not to mention its time and place in the geological record.


In "The Origin Of Species" Darwin also said: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one."


So? What are you trying to imply with this quote mine?


I agree that basic religious creationism has no place in science class, but I do think there is value in discussing Intelligent Design, if for anything else to debate references to irreducibly complex biological structures and attempt to refute or support the debate.


There has yet to be discovered a single irreducibly complex biologicalquantified. that can not be explained by evolutionary theory. Intelligent design relies on an arbitrary definiton of "designed" that can not be objectively quantified

"Irreducibility" is simply is not a valid argument against evolution as such a biological structure could develop through "scaffolding": i.e. a structure gains in complexity via duplication and mutation of parts, then parts are mutated out, leaving a structure with no direct linear development from the original, basic structure. Another evolutionary path where irreducibly complex structures may form is through cooption of parts from other basic structures. Both of these can be seen in the case of the bacteria flagellum thatch include many parts taken from a secretory pump.

As the biologist Björn Brembs puts it: "I think I have now finally understood what "irreducibly complex" really means: a statement, fact or event so simple it cannot be simplified any further, but still too complex to be grasped by a creationist."

Intelligent Design is a religious belief like creationism, it is unscientific and not suitable for science class discussion.
edit on 11-11-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

If the creationist has a prediction, then in the true meaning of that word, it would be positive.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: NJE777

If not a creator, it would be a destructor.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: NJE777
a reply to: NJE777

If not a creator, it would be a destructor.

This would not be productive to the system who's main goal is GROWTH of the system.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Aliens



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join