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

originally posted by: onthedownlow
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?

Yes, they are essentially the same thing, with a different title. It's unfalsifiable intrinsically because it requires a use of a god to implement everything initially. 'God did it' is an unfalsifiable claim. The main issue is that Creationists/ID'ers whom profess their ideology is scientific, don't seem to realize what makes scientific hypotheses scientific in the first place.

Nevertheless, I am still honestly interested in what Creationists/ID'ers have to say on how they believe their ideologies are scientific.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147
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?

Or, instead of pussy-footing around everything you're trying to make apparent, you could just directly explain your argument.

As for your 'hint', I have my doubts that the bible was attempting to express the mineral composition of the earth and human biology. Considering the time it was written, the more likely explanation from using those words specifically would be the observation that biological matter decomposes. Not that they even know what decomposition really meant either.

Sorry, but the fact that the scripture isn't specific enough towards either direction makes your claim entirely speculative, on a subjective-to-the-reader level.

Also, that's not a prediction, that's an observation.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147
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?

Again, the bible is so vague that anything can be claimed to be the original source of what it meant. And once again, the specific scripture you quoted is an observation, not a prediction.

a reply to: Ghost147

So the fact that the crust of the earth has all 60 minerals found in the human body is an observation? Please tell me how the authors of that particular passage OBSERVED that...

The body contains 60 minerals source

Every last one of those minerals have been found in the crust of the earth source

Scientific prediction from creationism = The body is made of minerals found in the crust or dirt of the earth.
How to verify = If geology or anatomy/physiology find a mineral in the body that is not from the crust, the prediction is null
Comes from = 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."

edit to add: "from dust you came" is not an observation about decomposition...(btw, im not even a creationist :lol
A2D

a reply to: Ghost147

Also, in regards to your statement

, most importantly, is Creationism willing to be peer reviewed, and thrown away if proven to be false?

No, no creationism is not willing to be thrown away. Just because you make a geological prediction that an earthquake at yellowstone is going to happen and it doesn't, doesn't mean you throw away all of geology. It just means you revise your theories...and unfortunately that's also what creationism will do....Science accomodates new information, and so will creationism...fair is fair...

A2D

a reply to: Ghost147

Do you mind sharing how evolution and the big bang theory might be falsified? I am just trying to establish what the standard is

a reply to: onthedownlow

Evolution can be falsified in the following manners: (and probably more)


If mutations do not occur

If organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
Which can sometimes be the case as we know "identical" twins are not exactly "identical" after all. Typically this would be attributed to the environment, but some experiments are showing that environment doesn't play as large a role as we thought it did. See the link and following excerpts for additional information.

If mutations are not passed down through generations

One of the landmark studies in human twin research that challenges the received importance of environment is the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart, in which detailed physical and psychological assessments were conducted longitudinally in over 100 MZ and DZ pairs of twins who had been reared apart since early childhood (11,12). In a variation of the traditional twin study comparing MZ twins reared together (MZT) with DZ twins reared together, the Minnesota study compares MZT with MZ twins raised apart (MZA). This study design allows comparisons between genetically identical MZ twin pairs who have been raised in a shared environment, at least as similar as for any two siblings, and those who have been raised in different homes, cities and states. Thus, the degree of dissimilarity between the MZT and the MZA pairs can be assumed to be the result of different environments (13). A series of tests were administered simultaneously to each pair of MZA and MZT twins, and the correlations of their scores on each scale were calculated and compared with test–retest correlations as a measure of the reliability of each scale. The intra-class correlation (R) within pairs of MZA (RMZA) and MZT (RMZT) was then expressed as a ratio (RMZA/RMZT). Surprisingly, the correlations within MZT and MZA twin pairs on personality measurements were almost identical (e.g. RMZA=0.50 and RMZT=0.49 on the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire—MPQ). The RMZA/RMZT ratio for the MPQ was 1.02, compared with 1.01 for fingerprint ridge counts. Out of 22 measurements for which the RMZA/RMZT ratio was reported, 15 had a value over 0.9. In addition to the traits mentioned previously, these included: electroencephalographic patterns; systolic blood pressure; heart rate; electrodermal response (EDR) amplitude in males and number of EDR trials to reach habituation; the performance scale on the WAIS-IQ; the Raven Mill-Hill IQ test; the California Psychological Inventory; social attitudes on religious and non-religious scales and various scales of MPQ

additionally

This list is far from comprehensive and is meant to illustrate our point that significant phenotypic variation, including crossing a threshold to fatal disease, can emerge from animals that have an identical, cloned genetic background, and frequently-occurring differences in mitochondrial DNA cannot be a universal mechanism for a wide spectrum of phenotypic differences. These early examples of cloned animals were subjected to intense scrutiny in highly supervised and controlled environments, yet they still exhibit disease in an inconsistent fashion. If environment were the source of this phenotypic variation, then one would expect the same emergence of disease among non-cloned members of this species, in an even greater extent, because their environment is not usually so tightly constrained. More likely, there are other potential explanations for this variation.

The conclusion? Put simply, evolution is facing a dilemma.... Genetically identical organisms have already been shown to exhibit different genetic traits...evolutionary proponents would have us believe this is due to environmental factors, but new studies are demonstrating that environmental factors actually have very little impact....

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

So the fact that the crust of the earth has all 60 minerals found in the human body is an observation? Please tell me how the authors of that particular passage OBSERVED that...

Again, where in the bible does it claim specifically that 60 minerals are found in the earth and in the human body? You're reaching for conclusions because you need to protect your faith from reality.

Your conclusions have so little merit, you might as well go to a morgue and claim that all the people there were murdered because you also know that when someone is murdered, they die.

The point is, your coming to outlandish conclusions on what the bible claims to say, without any proof that your conclusions are what it really means.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147
No, no creationism is not willing to be thrown away. Just because you make a geological prediction that an earthquake at yellowstone is going to happen and it doesn't, doesn't mean you throw away all of geology. It just means you revise your theories...and unfortunately that's also what creationism will do....Science accomodates new information, and so will creationism...fair is fair...

Can you explain to me an incident where creationism accommodated the new information? I have my extreme doubts that creationists will ever say "You're right, there is no way that a god could have created everything all of a sudden in it's current state and in the last 6000 years, your evidence clearly shows that", that is, assuming that they are young earth creationists.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: Ghost147

Do you mind sharing how evolution and the big bang theory might be falsified? I am just trying to establish what the standard is

Absolutely, you're free to inquire as much as you wish

Evolution can be falsified in a number of ways:


~ a static fossil record;
~ true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
~ a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
~ observations of organisms being created.
~ Organisms appearing in the 'wrong' timeline within the geological column (bunny rabbits, with dinosaurs, for example)

I can go on, if you're curious.

For the big bang theory:

~ The universe isn't expanding from a specific location
~ Distribution of galaxies is caused by something else
~ The cosmic background, with certain properties, is due to another cause
~ Proof that the universe was created instantaneously, as is
~ The theory suggests the universe is 13.6 billion years old. If we saw a supernova explosion from a star 15 billion light years away, then we'd have to conclude that stars existed BEFORE we think the big bang happened.
~ Some objects, like quasars, we only see at very great distances so if we found a quasar near our galaxy we'd have to do some rethinking.
~ If we found that large parts of the universe weren't expanding, but contracting instead, that would also suggest that our big bang theory as it, currently stands, isn't correct.

and more to this as well

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: onthedownlow
If organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.

Identical twins do not have Identical DNA, we've known this for a long time. They do share a strikingly similar percentage, but it is never 100%. Also, your link doesn't disprove Evolution, it just means that our current understanding on how much environment has an impact on mutation has a different percentage than what we original postulated.

a reply to: Ghost147

Cloned organisms have identical DNA....did you even read the study?

Cc(copy cat) was a cloned cat...and although her and Rainbow had IDENTICAL GENES, they expressed those genes differently...Rainbow was calico in color while CC was a tiger tabby

A2D

a reply to: Ghost147

That's what science does...

You form a hypothesis based on statements or observations...and then you test them...and then you see if your hypothesis was correct...

My hypothesis was that the body is made of the same composition as the earth's crust based on the statement found in genesis...
I have used pretty common knowledge in the fields of anatomy/physiology/geology to test this hypothesis....
Turns out that it's pretty accurate....

How is that not science?

(Also, as I've already stated, I don't have a faith in "creationism"...I'm agnostic so don't jump to conclusions...)
A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

Also, in regards to your statement

, most importantly, is Creationism willing to be peer reviewed, and thrown away if proven to be false?

No, no creationism is not willing to be thrown away. Just because you make a geological prediction that an earthquake at yellowstone is going to happen and it doesn't, doesn't mean you throw away all of geology. It just means you revise your theories...and unfortunately that's also what creationism will do....Science accomodates new information, and so will creationism...fair is fair...

A2D

From what i've read, creationism most certainly does not accomodate any new information that has come to light since the text it is based on was written..

creationism is not willing to be thrown away because it is a faith based belief system, faith being the operative word here: a belief in something without evidence..

Ghost, i am currently attempting to write a falsifiable hypothesis of creationism, it's not going well but i will post it when or if i can get it to make logical sense and fit with occams razor..

Wish me luck, xD

In the mean time, have fun trying to explain scientific method to those who's own perspective is based on the unscientific goddidit method..

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

Cloned organisms have identical DNA....did you even read the study?

A2D

Do they possess a soul at all? (I doubt it) so what animates them. Twins do not possess the same spirit (animator).

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

Cloned organisms have identical DNA....did you even read the study?

A2D

Do they possess a soul at all? (I doubt it). Twins do not possess the same soul.

Just curious, how can one define and scientifically measure a soul? Is there any way to objectively verify a soul even exists?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I don't know if they possess a soul, vet. In fact, I don't even know if such a thing as a soul exists...and I likely wouldn't even know what it was if I was looking directly at it. What animates them? I can only assume the same thing that animates the rest of us....

A2D

a reply to: spygeek

Sure, because there are branches of creationism that are narrow minded and stick to their beliefs no matter the cost. Just as there are nutcase scientists who stick to their beliefs no matter the cost as well...

However, it is evident in the movement. You don't see nearly as many YEC's as in previous years because creationism as a whole has begun to accept the scientific dating of the Earth among other things...

A2D

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

Cloned organisms have identical DNA....did you even read the study?

A2D

Do they possess a soul at all? (I doubt it). Twins do not possess the same soul.

Just curious, how can one define and scientifically measure a soul? Is there any way to objectively verify a soul even exists?

Sounds odd but has been done measuring body weight right before death and after. 1.5 to 3 grams missing (this not including excrement).

a reply to: Ghost147

Again, where in the bible does it claim specifically that 60 minerals are found in the earth and in the human body? You're reaching for conclusions because you need to protect your faith from reality.

Your conclusions have so little merit, you might as well go to a morgue and claim that all the people there were murdered because you also know that when someone is murdered, they die.

The point is, your coming to outlandish conclusions on what the bible claims to say, without any proof that your conclusions are what it really means.

You're backtracking so hard and so fast I don't know what to say to you...

Let me take this slow for you. To verify something scientifically, you take a claim and examine it...you test it...If I claim that wood floats...you take some wood and put it in water...and see if it floats....Pretty straight forward stuff.

Now, if I claim that the body is made of dirt...you can test it by seeing if dirt and a human body are made of the same stuff....and oddly enough they are...Pretty straight forward science if you ask me...

Now...just to see if you've got the concept...let's say that I claim multiple mutations among organisms result in genetic changes over long periods of time...how would you verify that?


A2D

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

Cloned organisms have identical DNA....did you even read the study?

A2D

Do they possess a soul at all? (I doubt it). Twins do not possess the same soul.

Just curious, how can one define and scientifically measure a soul? Is there any way to objectively verify a soul even exists?

What do you think animates you? Radiation?

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

you can test it by seeing if dirt and a human body are made of the same stuff

Meteorites are made of the same stuff too.
And, just as in humans, in different proportions to those found in dirt. Or are you composed of 47% oxygen, 28% silicon and 7% aluminum? Because that's what you're going to find in "dirt" on average.

The whole galaxy is made of "the same stuff."

a reply to: Phage

Precisely, which means what phage? It means my conclusion is still acceptable. And ultimately that creationism IS testable...that's only one hypothesis formed from the creationists line of thought that can be tested and verified scientifically, I'm sure there are others as well....

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

It means nothing.
Your observation that people are composed of elements (not "dirt") is nothing but a statement of the obvious, not a conclusion. It is a fact, not a hypothesis.