Creationism should be treated like Science.

[Arikay]

Hello,

With the many claims of evidence for creationism, and with a High School board rejecting science books because they did not contain creationism, I thought we should take a look at creationism as a science.

One of the methods of science is to Form a hypothesis. Then figure out what that hypothesis will predict. Then look for evidence that supports your hypothesis and its predictions.

Hypothesis:

Although its hard to define Kind, we will give it a definition here. A kind is similar to a species, but slightly different. All those that can mate together (whether they produce effective offspring or not) are of like kind. We shall assume that a Horse, a Donkey and a Zebra are all types of the “horse like kind.”

Noah only took one type of each “kind” onto the ark, and from this kind all the other variations of like kinds came from it. Since it is my belief that no new information can be gained from evolution, only changes within a kind, then that means that Noah needed to take the highest chromosome count with him, the most information rich of each kind. A Horse has 32 pairs of chromosomes, a donkey has 31 and a Zebra has 22. So Noah took a Pair of horses on board the ark and no donkeys or Zebra. Donkeys and zebras evolved from the horse after the ark sat down.

The flood is also distorted all radio carbon dating for pre flood animals.


What the Hypothesis should predict:

-The post flood fossil record should show horse fossils older than donkey or zebra fossils. As horses got off the ark, and then some changed into all the others of the Horse like kind.

-We should see a rate of evolution, as in:
4400 years ago, horses walked off the ark.
4200 years ago horses evolved and formed Donkeys.
2000 years ago horses or donkeys evolved and formed zebra.

-The fossil record should support and show some sort of recent evolution change over the years, since the ark landed with only the Horse of the “horse like kind”

-If we expect this rate to continue, we should also be seeing the horse like kind change more, we should be seeing a possible transitional species of the horse kind into other horse kind that are less complicated than the Horse.

-If the flood distorted all radiometric data of pre flood animals, we should find a large gap in zebras and donkeys. They should have existed in preflood times, then been killed by the flood, which would distort their readings by thousands or possibly millions of years, then they should reappear as they then reevolved from the ark animals.
The larger we make the definition of a Kind (I.E. if it became closer to the family category instead of the species category) the larger this gap should become and the easier it should be to find it.

Evidence:

Now we need to search the fossil record to see if these predictions are true. If they are true, then it supports our hypothesis, if they are not true, then we either need to change or throw out our original hypothesis.

I shall leave this question to the creationists. Can you find evidence that supports the predictions made by the hypothesis?
If Yes, please post them. If not, then we need to rework or throw out this hypothesis for another one.

-Ari

 

[webboffin]

Is this an anti YEC debate or a debate on Christian creationism as a whole?

 

[Outspoken]

Hmm..*wonders why he demands fossils when the fossil record is pretty fragmented anyway and thus the problem he posed is also a problem for evolution*

 

[Arikay]

It would generally be considered a YEC hypothesis. However, the Hypothesis works for any group who believe the things said in the hypothesis. That the global flood happend, that Noah took 2 of each kind aboard, that the global flood distorted Radiometric readings, etc.

Today at 10:13 PM webboffin said this in Post #2

Is this an anti YEC debate or a debate on Christian creationism as a whole?

 

[Arikay]

Well, the fossil record shouldnt be fragmented enough to hinder this hypothesis.

Today at 10:18 PM Outspoken said this in Post #3

Hmm..*wonders why he demands fossils when the fossil record is pretty fragmented anyway and thus the problem he posed is also a problem for evolution*

 

[Zadok001]

Outspoken:

The fossil record is indeed fragmented. Yet we see creationists saying we don't have enough transitional forms to act as evidence for evolution. That would be a double standard. So... If you want to use that defense on this subject, can I assume you'll never complain about a lack of transitional forms again?

webboffin:

He's just treating YECism as any other scientific hypothesis. We have a prediction. Do we have evidence? Go, seek! Shouldn't be hard. How long ago do horses show up in the fossil record? Which ones come first - Full blown horses of modern day? That's what SHOULD happen...

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 05:41 PM Arikay said this in Post #1
With the many claims of evidence for creationism, and with a High School board rejecting science books because they did not contain creationism, I thought we should take a look at creationism as a science. 

Creationism is a scientific theory.  You've posted one of the embedded hypotheses. But there are others deductions, easier ones, you can post based on a 144 hour creation week.

Creationism is a falsified theory.  It achieved refutation 170 years ago.  So yes, you can teach it as a falsified theory like you teach geocentrism as a falsified theory. But you can't teach it as a valid one.

The only way high school science books can honestly contain creationism is as a refuted theory, not a valid one.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:18 AM Outspoken said this in Post #3

Hmm..*wonders why he demands fossils when the fossil record is pretty fragmented anyway and thus the problem he posed is also a problem for evolution*

There are hundreds of sequences of transitional individuals linking evolution across species, genera, family, order, and even class lines.  I've posted some and can post them again if you want.

The problem for creationists is there should be NO such sequences. All organisms should be mixed together in the fossil record. For YEC, there should not be a fossil record at all. Since the earth is not old enough to accumulate one.

So, just having a fossil record falsifies YEC.  The transitional series falsified the basic statement of creationism: separate creation of immutable forms.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

It is not only the amount (and quality) of evidence that supports a theory that is important, but the amount (and quality) of evidence that falsifies it.


Hypothesis................... Creationism...... Evolution
Supporting evidence....... none................tons 
negating evidence........... tons ...............none

 

 

   there you have it