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

a reply to: spygeek

Fair enough...just wanted to point out the few problems when it comes to falsifiability and scientific theory

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

There are no problems with falsifiability and scientific theory. The theoretical sciences do not have to be falsifiable or predictive, they are outside the standards of physical sciences, hence why they are called "theoretical".

Not to diminish your point, but it's quite irrelevant to this topic.

a reply to: spygeek

So, to clarify, to be a scientific theory, it DOESN'T have to be falsifiable....right? (it's quite relevant to this topic seeing as how the whole premise is based on falsifiability to begin with...)

The theoretical sciences do not have to be falsifiable or predictive, they are outside the standards of physical sciences, hence why they are called "theoretical"

So what happens when creationists claim creationism is a theoretical science? Could they be called "creation theorists"...? Or does the scientific community have exclusive rights on the word 'theory'?

And also, how are some of the mainstream theories that are generally accepted simply out of concensus peer reviewed? If there is no empirical evidence...how are these theories modeled? Do these kinds of theorists take what they observe and then create a theoretical model to explain their observations? (Because that's exactly what creationism does...."God of the gaps" or "theory of the gaps")

And....how can "theoretical science" be taught in a school when there is no empirical evidence and no testable predictions? Isn't that akin to teaching speculation?

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Falsifiability comes in to play when actually designing experiments or theoretical tests concerning the theory.

If something is true in all cases, then proving the false is much easier to attempt to do then to prove every single case.

This is a seriously neglected field (usually encountered in mathematics - discrete maths) of education. It relies of propositional language ( for those more interested in language and writing) which is by definition a true or false statement.

An example would be:

For all x(variable like zebras) existing in the set of M(mammals), x implies it E(eats grass).

//edit

a zebra is a mammal therefore it eats grass

//edit

x=>E
x
______
E

So to test this you would identify a mammal which does not eat grass.


This actually is extremely relevant to testing predictions and I would very much support anyone interested in researching further. Warning though there are a lot of funny symbols which can be confusing at first, but I believe you can figure it out with practice.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Not sure what you're getting at....how does any of that pertain to any of the questions I posed?

A2D

originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: vethumanbeing

?????

So, a creationist theory has no predictive power?

Predictive; not so much, as regarding creationism the form is brought into the ecosystem fully formed. Provocative YES.

Creationism predicts change.

Change from nothing to something.

Change in form based on environmental influences.

a reply to: deadeyedick

What part of creationism predicts that humans would evolve from early primates?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Creationism predicts change.
Change from nothing to something.
Change in form based on environmental influences.

Creationism if anything predicts "failure" no chance to evolve; must survive AS IS as it was inserted into a time space environment as an experimental form ONLY. Its a miracle any survived.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: deadeyedickWhat part of creationism predicts that humans would evolve from early primates?

No cross over. Primates are as they always will be (never to evolve always separate even within their own specie). Humans were never apes; it was always planned they were to be the caretakers of this planet (landlords).

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I guess I misinterpreted what dick said:

Change in form based on environmental influences.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Creationism predicts change.
Change from nothing to something.
Change in form based on environmental influences.

Creationism if anything predicts "failure" no chance to evolve; must survive AS IS as it was inserted into a time space environment as an experimental form ONLY. Its a miracle any survived.

No need to evolve if dna can be manipulated by emf.

of coarse the whole man being part of this world was not predicted.

a reply to: deadeyedick

of coarse the whole man being part of this world was not predicted.

Really? Was man not included in Genesis? I thought we played a pretty important role.
You know, image of God and all that? Does God look like an early primate?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Phage: I guess I misinterpreted what dick said:
"Change in form based on environmental influences".

Predictable circumstances?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Are you say that the evolution of Man from primate was predictable?
According to what theory? I mean, there are plenty of examples of other descendants of those same animals not becoming human. Seems more like happenstance that we are what we are.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
]originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: deadeyedick

deadeyedick: No need to evolve if dna can be manipulated by emf.
of coarse the whole man being part of this world was not predicted.

We don't have to evolve; as you say, our DNA is manipulated by others. Who would predict us? Our creators that continue to redesign us (for what purpose).

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Are you say that the evolution of Man from primate was predictable?
According to what theory? I mean, there are plenty of examples of other descendants of those same animals not becoming human. Seems more like happenstance that we are what we are.

Two separate specie. Man did not evolve from an Ape primate. No evolution conundrum. The Ape really needs to jump start its evolution in order to refocus a scrutiny well deserved. Start with buying up billboard space "I am an Ape until I am a Human" (bananas please). If you relish identifying yourself as a "Happenstance"/"Haphazard" or an "Accidental Occurrence ". Trademark it ; used as future Tombstone epitaphs.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Man did not evolve from an Ape primate.

Correct. Man is an ape which evolved from an early primate.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Man did not evolve from an Ape primate.

Correct. Man is an ape which evolved from an early primate.

Question? Did we evolve from the Naked Ape?

a reply to: vethumanbeing
We are the naked ape.
I actually read that book. Have you?