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: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Ghost147

Correct, it's falsifiable. Now, how do we test that life comes through design?


That's not the hypothesis I gave. What you did is called changing the goal posts.


Perhaps I misread it, I had thought you meant your entire comment was your hypothesis when you put "Hypothesis" as your first word, usually symbolizing that the following words would be that hypothesis.

Could you explain how a Creationism can be made into a scientific hypothesis?

I didn't change any 'goal posts'. If you read the OP it shows that Testing, and making experiments is part of making any hypothesis. Your comment didn't show how you would test that Design is how life began on Earth. So how is that 'changing the goal post'?


originally posted by: onthedownlow
I have seen lots of these threads of late. There seems to be an assumption that without the means there is no end. We don't have all the answers, but we do have all the formulas? The point of creationism is to prove science is flawed, but we want to use the same old litmus test. I like this part, "The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome." Maybe science has changed since I was in school, but a hypothesis use to be followed with an assumed outcome, you use to provide an implied answer to your question. Then, you would test it.


I believe you misunderstood what I meant by 'Predetermined outcome'.

You are correct, Scientific Hypotheses are followed with an assumed outcome. This notion is confirmed in the OP. However, a Predetermined outcome implies one already has an answer for the question/observation before they even form a hypothesis.

For instance. In ancient times (and even today), you would look at a rainbow and say "god did it". Now a days we have science that makes a hypothesis about an observed phenomena and tests it. Even though Science didn't intend to prove the "God did it" answer wrong, many people who did/do feel like "God did it" feel threatened by it. So they create things similar to Creationism, where they have a Preconceived outcome that "God did it" and then try to prove their preconceived outcome based off of anything they can find (often simply unsubstantiated).

To put it simply:




originally posted by: CantStandIt
Not saying technological advancement is bs. Just peer review. Peer review is just a process... and just like any process, has only as much honesty, integrity, and relevance as the peers doing the reviewing.


The only issue is that anyone can peer review any scientific study. It's not like the information is hidden from the public. You can go out right now and devise your own tests, or copy the tests of another scientist and confirm their results (or find new information that discredits their hypothesis)




posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: sHuRuLuNi
What I don't get is this assumption on the side of atheists, that every person that believes in God somehow does not believe in evolution and/or other natural processes.


I don't know of anyone who believes that every person who believes in god doesn't believe Evolution. That includes all the Atheists here in this thread.

The topic is a direct question to Creationists, whom are all Theists, but it isn't directed to all Theists, as not all Theists are Creationists.


originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Ghost147

You don't need to elaborate soo much to make a point, the reality is that Creationism is no science is a believe that comes from religious views as that is just a concept, no even close to a theory.

But as usual the religious right will eventually get away with having that "religious belief" in the curriculum, because in America everybody has the right to everything.


It's not so much that I am trying to prove anyone wrong, It's that there may be a chance that some person out there was raised to be a Creationist, and simply rejects all that is scientific. This thread is more-so designed for them, the ones that simply don't know about the opposition. The ones that read what Scientific Terms are really described as and say to themselves "Hmmm, that actually makes a lot of sense". Then they see the responses of the creationists, whom really can't prove anything, because as you said, creationism and science are simply not compatible.

It's not that I'm trying to convince the Creationists that are responding that they are wrong. In many cases, they are so entrenched in the lies it spreads that there is virtually no chance in saving them from that line of thinking and bringing them into reality (which is incredibly saddening and unfortunate).


originally posted by: redoubt
Creationism is based on faith.
For instance, it says that God created the universe. We were not there so we base our belief in the faith that this is true. Arguing science against such faith, or faith against science for that matter, is basically pretty pointless.


Yes, I understand that Creationism is based on faith, and is totally incompatible with anything that is Scientific.

However, many creationists feel that it does in fact relate to science because that's what they are told by the hierarchy in Creationism; Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, so on and so forth all claim that Creationism/Intelligent Design are scientific at their core.

If you look at the OP, there isn't anything that suggests I am arguing science against faith. I'm just allowing the possibility for Creationists to see what really defines Science as, and they can discover themselves that Creationism simply cannot be compatible with those definitions.


originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Ghost147

I am not a creationist, but I do know that theory of evolution has some mighty holes.


There are other topics for that discussion. I specifically stated in the OP that I understand many people here feel that some scientific theories do not adhere to the definitions in the OP. Again, that is not the question's concern. The focus of this topic is that many Creationists feel Creationism is Scientific, and in order to be Scientific, Creationism needs to abide by the specific definitions within Science.


originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Ghost147
Forget teaching evolution or creationism in schools - mankind need classes in ethics and morals...

Evolution does teach how Ethics and Morals evolved, both biologically and socially.


originally posted by: onthedownlow

originally posted by: CantStandIt
a reply to: onthedownlow

The point of creationism is NOT to prove science is flawed. Get real now.


When the theory of creationism first came around, the point was that it couldn't be disproven. Very much like many scientific theories that postulate on things that we lack the current knowledge to disprove. Creationism is a man made theory. If it provides the proof you need, that is great, I am not by any means suggesting that there is no creator.


All scientific theories need to be falsifiable before they can be deemed scientific theories in the first place. Sorry, but your accusations are incorrect.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
interesting thread ghost, s+f!

how would one go about creating a scientific theory of creationism?

The creation theory would have to include scientific evidence and related inferences suggesting that:

1. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.
2. Life was suddenly created.
3. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.
4. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.
5. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.
6. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).
7. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

That's a pretty tall order, all before you can even start making predictions..

i'm looking into creationist literature at the moment, and i see a lot of arguements that attempt to be scientific, but instead misunderstand science:


The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.


If this argument were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

This is the problem i find in nearly all "creationist theory" publications; a fundamental lack of understanding scientific knowledge.

i would be very interested to see a properly scientific creationist hypothesis that could make predictions, i don't know how it could be done..
edit on 30-10-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-10-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

It's funny how you link a paper from 2012 that talks about how evolutionary theory isn't going to get any better and then this happened literally two days ago.

Virginia Tech chickens help reveal that evolution moves quicker than previously thought


The paper actually is describing an instance where the evolutionary processes, upon which current theory is founded, are NOT applicable because they cannot describe the observed data.

It doesn't disprove that genetic change is occurring, just that evolution as currently defined does not adequately describe it.

Evolution in this instance (described in the paper you linked to) is not predictive.


edit on 30/10/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek
interesting thread ghost, s+f!

how would one go about creating a scientific theory of creationism?

The creation theory would have to include scientific evidence and related inferences suggesting that:

1. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.
2. Life was suddenly created.
3. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.
4. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.
5. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.
6. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).
7. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.


Great post! I would say that evidence within any of those points you made would definitely lend some credence to Creationism.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed


If evolutionary biologists have already discovered something that disproves an intelligent designer, then why would they need to continue to discover that even more?

Because evolutionary biologists aren't working with an end goal of "disproving an intelligent designer" in mind. They're working toward a naturalistic explanation of how some facet of the world around us works. Further, in order to disprove something, it helps if there's some kind of evidence supporting that claim to begin with. I wouldn't expect an evolutionary biologist to spend time trying to disprove that a giant, magical, pink unicorn's flatulence was responsible for evolution. Why would I expect them to spend any time disproving any baseless assertion?


Once you discover something, does discovering it again later make it more true? Discovering water once, should be enough to know it exists.

I think you're confusing discovering with understanding.


What science class were you in anyways?

Apparently a better one than you.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Here you go, observable and testable, as requested.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: sHuRuLuNi


What I don't get is this assumption on the side of atheists, that every person that believes in God somehow does not believe in evolution and/or other natural processes.

I can't speak for all atheists, but I don't believe that. I don't think Ghost does either, which is why he titled his thread the way he did and not, "What predictions does theism make?"



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed




Wow what a load. Your dogmatic belief system sounds pretty biased itself. How does that work out in science class?


If there's evidence to support creationism I'm sure Scientist in many fields and I myself will be more than happy to agree with that assessment based on the methodology of science not the religious dogma of creationism...Until then it's a disproven hypothesis. How would creationism handle the barrage of criticisms in a school setting? They would do what good ol' Ken Ham did, point to the bible...In science class criticism is welcome, questions are encouraged because anything can happen in science.



If evolutionary biologists have already discovered something that disproves an intelligent designer, then why would they need to continue to discover that even more? Once you discover something, does discovering it again later make it more true? Discovering water once, should be enough to know it exists. What science class were you in anyways?


So what happens when we discover alien life? Creationists would just say;

"Oh yeah God just gave us some friends just so we didn't feel lonely when he wasn't around.."

No it would shatter their preconceptions of the entire universe and their entire belief system would crumble if we met an ET civilization. That in essence is another discovery that disproves creationism from a biblical perspective.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Nothing you said has any true relevance to proving or disproving the theory of creation. If you mean "the Earth is just 6000 years old" part, or things like that, then yes. I am Christian and I never have seen a single thing that would "rock my boat" about creation being viable.

As in any religion, you are going to have people who rewrite everything to suit their own lifestyle and personal beliefs.

People even "remake" Jesus so it suits their own personal wishes and moral choices.

IF everything was created so it appears exactly the way that it really does appear, then nobody can ever disprove that.

Fortunately, I am not one of those people who think just because I am a Christian, that I can "remake" everything to my own tastes like so many do these days.
Some people believe all kinds of different things from misinterpretation of the scriptures, and because they might be living a fairly good and honest and moral life, that entitles them to make all the facts fit their own viewpoint, kind of like Idealism. Idealists do that all the time, even though reality screams at them an entirely different tune. Like gun free zones and stupid Sh(t like that.

I prefer to remain totally UNBIASED and watch those who have a vested but misguided interest in not believing that there was a creator scream and shout and spit over it all. It is entertaining, but also embarrassing to watch BIASED people hide behind a veil of self endowed scientific pedigree and bark at the moon.

edit on 31-10-2015 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You sound like a very reasonable person. I'm curious as to why you consider yourself 'Christian' to begin with. The bible is a book which requires individualistic interpretation. There's no definitive way to tell if the original authors meant for it to be taking 100% literal, or 100% based on historic events, but to be interpreted metaphorically. The catholic church used to forbid the public/followers from even reading the bible unless you were part of their hierarchy.

So, as much as you may feel like you're not reading it in any way that suits your personal life/views, I cannot possibly see that ever being achievable.

I don't mean to say that you aren't achieving that, just that I don't understand how it could be achievable. May I ask how you've come to the conclusion that you do not interpret things based on your personal life/views?



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You sound like a very reasonable person. I'm curious as to why you consider yourself 'Christian' to begin with. The bible is a book which requires individualistic interpretation. There's no definitive way to tell if the original authors meant for it to be taking 100% literal, or 100% based on historic events, but to be interpreted metaphorically. The catholic church used to forbid the public/followers from even reading the bible unless you were part of their hierarchy.

So, as much as you may feel like you're not reading it in any way that suits your personal life/views, I cannot possibly see that ever being achievable.

I don't mean to say that you aren't achieving that, just that I don't understand how it could be achievable. May I ask how you've come to the conclusion that you do not interpret things based on your personal life/views?


Ah, I see what you are saying. I suppose there is going to be some degree of personal view affecting life's choices, and maybe even to a point of one hundred percent, but rather than choose based on desire, I ponder if something is right or wrong with my inherent ability to know right from wrong. Everyone has that ability, but we don't always use it me included.
The trick is not just going with greedy choice or the "me me me" choices, and at least think about why I want to choose a certain way or not. Have I considered how it affects others first? Things of that nature.

There is also the idea of having a personal relationship with the creator and keeping things like selfishness and pride at bay so those undesirable things don't provoke me into choosing the wrong thing that might hurt me or someone else later.

Being totally honest with oneself is a good tool to use to know if I am doing it right or not. Being able to guard against the undesirable emotions like vanity, pride and selfishness helps in a big way. It's so easy to be dishonest with oneself in order to follow the selfish road, and then when one does that, they are legitimizing their actions afterwards with all kinds of thoughts.
If I do something, and then am spending hours on legitimizing what I did being "okay" or not, then chances are it wasn't okay.
Being Christian is an obstacle course from day one until the end like that. But it is also having a personal relationship with the creator along the way. Many who don't believe in a Creator feel that a Christian belief is purely faith based, and in the beginning it certainly is. But after a person grows in their spirit the creator often times reveals things that the general public doesn't know. Christ has spoken to me in visions before, and some dreams. He wasn't very happy with me in one of those. The first time he brought me in the spirit to a different place and I was stunned that it happened.

I mean, why me? But why not me, just like anyone, everyone is important. I never thought I would actually be shown the reality of things like that, but I believed in it 100 percent without any doubt before, and part of that belief was because my life has been saved in the past that are unexplainable in conventional terms. All these things are what a person can experience, and it is meant just for them. It isn't part of something that someone needs to prove to others, it is a part of the "beliefs" I have chosen personally, and so what I experience after that is just for me anyways.

When I was baptized at age 12, I remember saying I believed, and I did, but I didn't know for sure 100% that it was actually true. I just chose to pursue life with the expectation that it was true without any need to have it proven to me. Then after many years, did I find out by personal experience that it truly is true.

Even after all of this, I still don't understand everything there is that is happening, and a lot of it doesn't make a lot of sense. But I don't look for ways to rubbish it all just because much of it doesn't make sense. I remember that the human value system is riddled with flaws and error by choice, and so reflecting on that makes it easier to see above human failing sometimes. Not always..

I know personally for a fact that there is a creator so I'm stuck with that burden. Knowing what I know makes life a lot harder as well. I don't enjoy a lot of it, but am learning to live with what I don't like, by just concentrating on my family, and what's most important to me. I think human history and how it all began is so far removed from what we actually know today that it would turn everything upside down. But even so, it still doesn't invalidate creation in my view.

Of course this is just my opinion.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed


IF everything was created so it appears exactly the way that it really does appear, then nobody can ever disprove that.

You've just provided, in your own words, an excellent rebuttal for those who think creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism is inherently unfalsifiable, as any evidence that runs contrary to creationist claims can be waved away by saying that God did it, and therefore inherently unscientific.
edit on 31/10/2015 by iterationzero because: I a word.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed




Nothing you said has any true relevance to proving or disproving the theory of creation. If you mean "the Earth is just 6000 years old" part, or things like that, then yes. I am Christian and I never have seen a single thing that would "rock my boat" about creation being viable.


No I'm not specifically referring to any particular school of thought in regards to creationism, I'm encompassing all of creationist who dogmatically profess that an unproven hypothesis should not only be taken seriously as a part of a science curriculum but those who also assert it's authority in science using circular reasoning as evidence. The fact that your on the site is proof enough that your no where near as ignorant as other Christians so I apologize if what I've said and about to say comes across with an undesirable attitude.



Fortunately, I am not one of those people who think just because I am a Christian, that I can "remake" everything to my own tastes like so many do these days. Some people believe all kinds of different things from misinterpretation of the scriptures, and because they might be living a fairly good and honest and moral life, that entitles them to make all the facts fit their own viewpoint, kind of like Idealism. Idealists do that all the time, even though reality screams at them an entirely different tune. Like gun free zones and stupid Sh(t like that.


Clearly your not as I noted above. That's essentially what creationist or creation "scientist" do with in their field, they misinterpret empirical data to fit their idealized world view and in some cases go out of their way like a few of these scientist have to falsify data in support of creationism. That goes against the methodology that makes scientists and their field legitimate. Idealist in support of your cause do it just as much as those who idealize the results of gun free zones and support for gun control. That doesn't validate neither does it invalidate the hypothesis of creationism, it just gives it a crappy reputation in the political aspect of science which can make or break a career unfortunately.



I prefer to remain totally UNBIASED and watch those who have a vested but misguided interest in not believing that there was a creator scream and shout and spit over it all. It is entertaining, but also embarrassing to watch BIASED people hide behind a veil of self endowed scientific pedigree and bark at the moon.


No your heavily biased. Your in support of creationism from a christian perspective... If were we were to include creationism as a legitimate field in science, why does it have to specifically be from the biblical perspective? Why not include creation myths from the Hopi, the Blackfoot, the Aztec's, the Mayan, the Japanese, Norse mythology or the Egyptian creation story? To me that's an incredibly biased view and if you were take a more objective stance in this regard maybe here you might have a point. But you don't, your entirely atheistic and even ethnocentric towards those particular religious and cultural creation myths.

You may find it absolutely hilarious that people who can see through the veil of bullsh1t that is creationism are actually speaking out against Christianities further attempts to oppress and scam people through fictional dogma. I on the other hand find it depressing that more people get sucked in to the Idealism and false hope that your religion espouses in its many disguises. I hope your entertained.
edit on 31-10-2015 by NateTheAnimator because: (no reason given)


(post by hudsonhawk69 removed for a manners violation)
(post by hudsonhawk69 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Isurrender73
They assume small changes account for larger changes over 1000s of years, even though It's impossible to know at this point.


Those aren't assumptions, they are verified through fossilized remains, as well as living organisms that possess (but often have no use for) specific bone structure/organs/Shared DNA.


Not true. There are HUGE gaps in the evolutionary fossil record and no know force to push evolution toward greater complexity for ANY reason.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Isurrender73

You are distracting from the OP. This thread isn't about evolution. It's about Creationism being valid science or not. The fact that you are trying to shift the focus of the conversation to evolution just shows that you are unable to answer the OP's questions in the opening post.



Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify the scientific method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[9] Philosophy of science seeks a deep understanding of what these underlying assumptions mean and whether they are valid.



A scientific theory is empirical,[nb 18][79] and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism.[nb 20] The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth from certainty. He writes that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth", but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: Ghost147

"... is Creationism willing to be peer reviewed, and thrown away if proven to be false?"

Just a note or two on this approach, if I may...

Creationism is based on faith.
For instance, it says that God created the universe. We were not there so we base our belief in the faith that this is true. Arguing science against such faith, or faith against science for that matter, is basically pretty pointless.

Why is such conflict so embraced by the devout from both ends of this razored polarization?
The human condition - something we have yet to overcome, from any quarter, to graduate to the next level.
IMESHO, that is.

Have a nice day










Evolution is based on a similar amount of faith. One is as guilty as the other...



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Claims evolution has holes.

Quotes creationist propaganda as proof.


Riiiiiiiiiiiight.



Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.


Cause evolution isn't propaganda... Evolution is full of holes clearly you are to blinded to see them!




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join