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

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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

this thread is a social experiment. the conclusion is irrelevant as long as we see how it was reached. the journey is the demonstration.

no one is stupid enough to think one thread will make a difference in the face-off between creationist science and actual science....i hope.

Actually if you were moderately intelligent you would realize that 'Chaos Theory' clearly states that this one thread could easily make all the difference!

originally posted by: cuckooold
I posted this in another thread, but it seems appropriate here as well.

This is how I think creationists think science works.

Funny! You could change that to say the exact same thing about science and it would still be just as true!!!

Both sides are guilty of that one...

.!.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Hypothesis. Life can only come into being through design, not random chance. This can be falsified by doing tests that attempt to start life through random chance under conditions that would have been possible.

Wrong!

There is no designer, if anything, the observer is the designer, observation is key to effecting outcome.

With the ICFO’s quantum random number generators, the Delft experiment perfectly disproofs Einstein's world-view, stating "nothing travels faster than light" and “God does not play dice.” At the very least one of these statements must be false, proving the laws that govern the Universe may indeed be a throw of the dice.

Random number generators developed at ICFO – The Institute of Photonic Sciences, by the groups of ICREA Professors Morgan W. Mitchell and Valerio Pruneri, played a critical role in the historic experiment was published online today in Nature by the group of Ronald Hanson at TU Delft.
The experiment gives the strongest refutation to date of Albert Einstein’s principle of “local realism,” which says that the universe obeys laws, not chance, and that there is no communication faster than light.

www.icfo.eu...

Roll the dice! either way Quantum Entanglement is here to stay!

Is that 'Formative Causation' that you are referring to?

change is the only accurate prediction any can make

originally posted by: deadeyedick
change is the only accurate prediction any can make

Change Is the Only Game In Town and no one knows why or to what purpose. This thread idea is an example of 'distraction' technique. Keep them arguing about nothing so as not to see any truths as to why/how they were created and exist on an inhospitable planet.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

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.

No one is denying that there are gaps in some lineages within the fossil record. There are also very detailed lineages. Having a gap in a specific lineage doesn't disprove evolution, so what's your point?

Also, The theory of evolution never claims that organisms are 'moving towards greater complexity'. In fact, many organisms often become more simplistic, losing features that were once considered complex (such as sight) when those organs/mutations are no longer needed due to the gradual change in their environment.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: cuckooold
I posted this in another thread, but it seems appropriate here as well.

This is how I think creationists think science works.

Funny! You could change that to say the exact same thing about science and it would still be just as true!!!

Both sides are guilty of that one...

.!.

Yeah... No... Exactly where do you see circular logic in the Scientific Method?

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: cuckooold
I posted this in another thread, but it seems appropriate here as well.

This is how I think creationists think science works.

Funny! You could change that to say the exact same thing about science and it would still be just as true!!!

Both sides are guilty of that one...

.!.

Yeah.. You really couldn't..

Science's flowchart is more like 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?

Did you even think about that question? I can think of tons that have already been confirmed...

Here's a statement you can take out of the bible and extract a very easily(and already demonstrated) prediction...

Genesis 3:19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return

Just think about it for a second...if you can't figure out what this implies, then you really should reconsider discussing anything scientific....

A2D

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

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...

Not at all actually. Propaganda is typically disseminated by a select group to push a biased message that is in no way impeachable. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis does not fall under any of that criteria. The overwhelming affirmation by professionals who specializer in every imaginable scientific disciplines from every nation on Earth consisting of individuals representing every possible faith. Anyone with data showing something new or showing outdated information to be incorrect has but to publish their findings and submit them for review. So there is no singular and select group of people, despite your protestations to the contrary... There is no biased message and the data is in no way unimpeachable. This mindset of a vast worldwide conspiracy amongst every scientist of every discipline with egos the size of mountains who want nothing more than to one up their peers... But no, they're hiding away data and the truth to push a propaganda piece? The entire premise is absurd at best.

Evolution is full of holes clearly you are to blinded to see them!

Please, by all means enlighten the class with your wisdom on this matter. Tell us of all the holes, please.
FYI, evolution is a fact. The theory serves only to Exxon the HOW of evolution. It doesn't change the facts surrounding the reality of eviction itself.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Using scriptural quotes is not equitable with demonstrating predictions made by promoters of Creationism. Ken Ham and his ilk continue to claim that creationism is a scientifically viable process, falls under the workings of science and that it is provable under science. This isn't about randomly reinterpreting scripture to suit the argument at hand.

a reply to: peter vlar

So you're saying no matter what predictions creationism makes, you refuse to acknowledge them as predictions?

The simple fact, regardless of whether or not you want to admit it, is that creationism does and has already made valid predictions.

A2D

a reply to: Ghost147

Have you ever come across something that was completely new, that nature created? Doesn't the big bang theory postulate that the universe was created by a big bang? I'm a little lost here, have we seen a new species created through evolution? From star dust? Your assumptions are incorrect, even if you can back them up with a bunch of blather. Was newton bound by your rules, or were they just another creation by a man, intelligently designed?

a reply to: Ghost147

I do appreciate the cartoon. At the same time I feel like each if us is looking at this from what we think is a superior vantage point, but they're just different vantage points. Science is a collection of ideas, many of which are dependent on certain conditions, but conditions change, and so do ideas... so evolution does occur on at least one level. I am not threatened by scientific theories, science is a great gift from God, but my willingness to challenge some theories is no different than your willingness to challenge my beliefs. There is no proof of evolution on the suggested grand scale that many believe, but I have the advantage, because either way an intelligent designer created it.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree

Genesis 3:19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return

Just think about it for a second...if you can't figure out what this implies, then you really should reconsider discussing anything scientific...

I have no idea what you're suggesting with that quote. That Humans die? please elaborate.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: peter vlar

So you're saying no matter what predictions creationism makes, you refuse to acknowledge them as predictions?

He is saying that proving biblical scripture with biblical scripture is circular reasoning and doesn't substantiate any claims.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: peter vlar
The simple fact, regardless of whether or not you want to admit it, is that creationism does and has already made valid predictions.

You keep saying that creationism has made many valid claims, how about you offer some directly, instead of just assuming we understand what you're implying with an out-of-context bible quote?

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: Ghost147
Have you ever come across something that was completely new, that nature created? Doesn't the big bang theory postulate that the universe was created by a big bang?

No, it suggests that the universe expanded from an incredibly compact singularity. No energy was created or destroyed in the process, it was all just incredibly compact, and then expanded suddenly and rapidly.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: Ghost147
I'm a little lost here, have we seen a new species created through evolution?

Yes

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: Ghost147
From star dust?

I don't know what you're asking with this question. A new species from star dust?

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: Ghost147
Your assumptions are incorrect, even if you can back them up with a bunch of blather.

My 'assumptions' are incorrect, even if i can back them up with evidence that you do not understand? Is that what you just said?

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: Ghost147
Was newton bound by your rules, or were they just another creation by a man, intelligently designed?

Roger Bacon (1214 - 1284) is credited as the first scholar to promote inductive reasoning as part of the scientific method. Isaac Newton was born January 4, 1643, so yes, 'my rules' did apply to his discoveries. Also, Even if the Scientific Method wasn't created then, if he just so happened to do what he did to make the discoveries he did, they would still apply. If he didn't use those methods, then his theories would be flawed because outside of the Scientific Method is a realm of irrational thinking where non-scientific theories cannot back evidence correctly and efficiently.

The Scientific Method isn't some science-club rules, it's just a basic, logical way of making conclusions, whilst having the least amount of irrationality to those conclusions. Irrational thinking like when a claim is Unfalsifiable.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: Ghost147

I do appreciate the cartoon. At the same time I feel like each if us is looking at this from what we think is a superior vantage point, but they're just different vantage points.

No. It's not that these concepts are on equal grounds. On one hand, your line of thinking requires you to reject all information that may be deemed damaging to your view of reality. Where as on my hand, I openly accept change if that change will lead to more accurate conclusions.

You are bound by your faith, and that faith requires a bias in order to function. Where as I am free to pick and choose what I accept as what best describes reality around us. There is a substantial difference.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: Ghost147
Science is a collection of ideas, many of which are dependent on certain conditions, but conditions change, and so do ideas...

No one who accepts science would claim otherwise. It is a requirement that Science be open for change. Hence the reason why hypotheses must be falsifiable. For anything that isn't falsifiable and claims to be "the truth" is undoubtedly a lie.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: Ghost147
I am not threatened by scientific theories, science is a great gift from God, but my willingness to challenge some theories is no different than your willingness to challenge my beliefs. There is no proof of evolution on the suggested grand scale that many believe, but I have the advantage, because either way an intelligent designer created it.

It's funny how god would create something that outwardly disproves virtually everything he is claimed to have done. I think the only reason you're not threatened by scientific theories is simply because you do not understand them well enough to understand that they not only threaten your belief system, but completely destroy it.

If you wish to discuss further about the "proof of evolution" I'd me more than willing to discuss it with you in a thread that that topic is based on. This one, however, is questioning how Creationism could ever be considered Scientific in any sense.

a reply to: flyingfish

Are you kidding ?

You think quantum entanglement will not be discarded for something more precise in the years to come ??

Everything else has so far,

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

So how are the time predictions given on every subject affected by this ?

Well, I cant wait for the innumerable things considered largely as fact now to be tossed in the trash for others, all the while the "scientists" continue stumbling on looking for something they know they will never find.

a reply to: Ghost147

I assume that creationism is, in essence, intelligent design...forgive me if I err. As you have pointed out, an unlearned person like myself doessnt reaallly get why intelliigent design isn't falsifiable, perhaps you can explain?

a reply to: Ghost147

I have no idea what you're suggesting with that quote. That Humans die? please elaborate.

If you truly are ignorant and not just acting like it, I suggest you go study some basic science. Middle school students the world over come to better conclusions than that all the time. Hint: How about considering the mineral composition of both the dirt(crust) of the earth and the human body?

He is saying that proving biblical scripture with biblical scripture is circular reasoning and doesn't substantiate any claims.

I never tried to prove biblical scripture with biblical scripture. In fact, examining the human body is something called anatomy and physiology. Likewise, studying earth is something called geology, and both are respectable fields of science.

Consider this...Calcium is the fifth most abundant element in the earth's crust(as confirmed by geology aka science)...but it's never found free in nature...and guess what...it's the fifth most abundant element in the human body as well(as confirmed by anatomy and physiology aka science)! Amazing isn't it. Surprisingly enough, we run into the same problem with other elements like sodium and potassium!

Oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, magnesium...all minerals found in the human body(a&p)...and guess what...they're all found in the crust (or dirt) as well(geology!)!

We can verify, scientifically(anatomy, physiology, geology), that we are exactly what we'd expect us to be if we were "from the dirt" as CREATIONISM says....isn't that something?

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: peter vlar

So you're saying no matter what predictions creationism makes, you refuse to acknowledge them as predictions?

No that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the circular reasoning of using scripture to prove scripture is ludicrous. It's as if you didn't even bother reading what I wrote as I was quite clear. When morons like Ken Ham et al make claims that science supports their YEC yet publish absolutely nothing to validate said claims. The Pentatuch which you were quoting, is not a proponent of creationism. It is scripture. Please discuss some actual scientific predictions made by those who claim that science supports scripture and there might've a discussion to be had.

The simple fact, regardless of whether or not you want to admit it, is that creationism does and has already made valid predictions.

A2D

No. It hasn't. Please describe some with done appropriate citations.

a reply to: peter vlar

Already did...read the above. (and if you're saying creationism doesn't follow the pentatuch then that's the first I've heard that...Ask every creationist what we're made out of...they'll say dirt/dust)

Also I love how you say

It is scripture. Please discuss some actual scientific predictions made by those who claim that science supports scripture

when i did exactly that. I just said that science (a&p, and geology) support scripture...


A2D