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

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147

Well you must admit, there are certain passages that ccan be
catagorized as scientific in content, whether or not they are
correct?

Passages of what? The bible?

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: spygeek

step back and take a neutral viewpoint for a moment... can't you appreciate the hypocrisy?

the hypocrisy of what exactly?

a reply to: Ghost147
Regarding your original post, I suppose you could Google the answer, but here you go: creationwiki.org...
Hope that helps you with your struggle.

a reply to: Jim Scott

Interesting, thanks for the link.

However, the information on that page has already been debunked, and a lot of the claims it makes about Evolution, do not exist. For instance:

Geologic Formation and Time Geologic formations mainly reflect catastrophic events, with sudden change, as opposed to the evolutionary assumption of long uniform change over millions of years (what is called uniformitarianism).

Evolution has no input on Geology.

I'm about to head to sleep, so i'll have to read more though it tomorrow

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147

Well you must admit, there are certain passages that ccan be
catagorized as scientific in content, whether or not they are
correct? But I'm not one to make the claim that Creation should
be required in science class. Never would. The subject is
difficult enough without all that. Therefore your heading makes
as much sense to me as my altered version.

And a square peg could hypothetically be wedged into a round hole until it sticks. This doesn't mean they work well together.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Maybe they actually meant NO atmosphere, like the moon. That way it would not fit the day and night cycle observed today.

What does an atmosphere have to do with day and night?
If there were no atmosphere there could be no oceans.

The day and night cycle as viewed today is a result of light refracting through the atmosphere of the Earth. Different wavelengths refracting at different angles result in the blue and reds. The moon has no atmosphere and so the sky is still black during the "day" cycle.

See Snell's law, Malus's law, general optics theory.

How do you define "day" and "night?"

-FBB

Wont let me edit for some reason.

The definition of "Day" from merriam webster;
day
noun ˈdā

: a period of 24 hours beginning at midnight : one of the seven time periods that make up a week

: the time of light between one night and the next : the part of the day when light from the sun can be seen

: the part of the day when people are usually most active and when most businesses are open

Well, the moon is reflecting the light from the Sun, does that mean that when you can view the moon that it is day time. This is not semantics, I am pointing out the abstractness of the term day and would like greater precision so as not get caught up in other's and my own assumptions.

-FBB

//edit

So was the light the earth was receiving from the sun or other or the light from the big bang, or some other similar body which produces light? The sun is listed as being created later, so did they consider it fully formed at the time? The same with the stars, they may be older than our galaxy but were listed later in the story. Were they accounting for the great distances travelled?

The issue of perspective seems to be entirely unaddressed.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Look man, if you're going to reply to me at least make it
worth the space. Other wise save it.

a reply to: Ghost147

No!!! Moby Dick!

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

You attribute way too much to this. It's your kind that adhere to mandated texts. We don't.

Really?
Who cares?

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: Jim Scott

Interesting, thanks for the link.

However, the information on that page has already been debunked, and a lot of the claims it makes about Evolution, do not exist. For instance:

Geologic Formation and Time Geologic formations mainly reflect catastrophic events, with sudden change, as opposed to the evolutionary assumption of long uniform change over millions of years (what is called uniformitarianism).

Evolution has no input on Geology.

I'm about to head to sleep, so i'll have to read more though it tomorrow

It's funny that you say they've already been debunked...because as far as I can tell, you were only asking for predictions that creationism makes...and you've been supplied with several, but still refuse to accept them as predictions.....

May I remind you that a prediction doesn't have to be accurate to still be considered a scientific prediction...

A2D

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

In the first book, I think, mankind is expelled from Heaven and everything changes.

No. Man was never in heaven.

Pretty bold statement there!

I suppose the ats grand scienencer is speaking in religious terms now.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

Look man, if you're going to reply to me at least make it
worth the space. Other wise save it.

if you are going to compare scripture with science, at least make it worth the space. otherwise save it.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

In the first book, I think, mankind is expelled from Heaven and everything changes.

No. Man was never in heaven.

Pretty bold statement there!

I suppose the ats grand scienencer is speaking in religious terms now.

There is just a real schism between the religious approach and "science" approach. Many on either side seem completely unable to perceive the views of the other. Hence my emphasis on perspective and pointing out the absurd definition of "day."

However, the creationists rarely demonstrate that, from their understanding, creation behaved after death was brought in to the world and people were expelled from the garden as it did before. Kind after kind and the like, or would adaptations be required to continue the species. Was this then applied retroactively (like pro-rating) or not?

Also the science folks deal exclusively with the natural world and testable observation. They rarely engage in more esoteric concepts that would reduce the conflict. Take mathematics, a concept of great importance in cryptography where a result was not reversible. These things exist in the mind so do they exist in the natural world? Say they don't exist in the natural world, does that mean they don't exist? The very thought and concept itself is an arrangement of neurons, so is that the concept ( which therefore exists) or is it all hogwash. Reversible functions are a fundamental necessity of physics for creating predictions.

Essentially it appears to come down to egos clashing rather than a humble approach towards truth.

-FBB

//edit

And YES math buffs, an irreversible function does fit the discrete math definition of function it is the path that is irreversible.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Nicely stated.

I think back to a time when the natural world did not include things not seen beyond human eyes.

Today a whole new learning ground was opened up by the use of magnification and I really believe that we are in a similar dilemma with the things we still can not see.

For me these issues are not differences in thought but just a big puzzle with a few pieces out of place that causes the differences to seem unamendable simply because we lack the forethought to know it is all real.

a reply to: spygeek

Apparently you can't step back, you must be to vested. That in itself is a hypocrisy.

a reply to: onthedownlow

why are you being so vague?
step back from what?
vested in what?

you still have not explained how anything i have posted is hypocritical, and you are going off topic..

originally posted by: deadeyedick
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

FriedBabelBroccoli: In the first book, I think, mankind is expelled from Heaven and everything changes.

Phage: No. Man was never in heaven.

deadeyedick: Pretty bold statement there!I suppose the ats grand scienencer is speaking in religious terms now.

I am looking forward to the soon to be published; "I Can Prove Man Was Never In Heaven (and here's how)" hypothesis. If anything, mankind was the concept of something; simian apes perhaps living in heaven.

a reply to: spygeek

I am not calling you a hypocrite, nor was the statement geared towards anything you said. I was merely making a suggestion and then, in my last post, pointing out one of the hypocrisies. I had no intention of being vague, I just thought it was obvious. I am in no position to argue scientific method with presumable experts on the subject matter, I was failing miserably. But, the obvious hypocrisy of the argument does make it self defeating, even if those involved are to close to the subject matter to recognize it.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Care to contribute towards the "I Can Prove Man Was Never In Valhalla (and here's how)" hypothesis?