A challenge for creationists: evolution’s predictive power

[Aggie]

1, 4, 8, 13, ... What is the next?

Both evolutionist and creationist will answer 19. If you call this prediction, than it is a example of scientific prediction.

This is why I asked whether you can provide an example of something creationism predicts in biology different from what evolution does which turned out to be correct. Things predicted by both creationism and evolution aren’t useful for comparing the accuracy of the two theories. In order to have any scientific value, a theory needs to make accurate predictions that no other theory is able to.

The two examples I provided in my OP are predictions that were unique to evolution, since Greg Paul and William Beebe based these predictions on the idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Can you provide any predictions that are unique to creationism about structures in biology that went on to be discovered?

 

[Paul365]

Creation is a science AND is a faith. You need to distinguish the two. We all know faith is not a science. Faith predicts things we will see in the future. That is a super level of prediction, and is much much better than any science can do. Do you believe the eternal life? There you go.

Get a science textbook by Creationist and find out what kind of science is taught in there. It is a better science which teaches what we know as well as what we do not know.

Creationism is certainly a faith, but I don't think that it fulfills the requirements for being a science. The production of textbooks by Creationists is not a criteria of science.

The facts against Creationism being a science are:

1. Science collects observations and deducts a theory from them. Creationism starts with a theory and attempts to fit the observations into it. The difference is visible when you compare scientific and Creationist publications. The focus of scientific publications is doing observations and building theories, wile the focus of Creationist publications is usually interpretation of observations and promotion of those interpretations.

2. An important criteria for a scientific theory is external consistency, meaning that the theory must be consistent with other fields of science. For instance, the theory that the universe is 6000 years old requires explanations why we can see distant star light, why we observe background radiation and why we observe the current hydrogen to helium ratio in the universe. Creationism does not offer those explanations and thus is externally inconsistent.

Due to the above arguments, and other arguments like Occam's razor I challenge the claim that Creationism is a science.

 

[sfs]

The study of evolution is a science.

Some simplified conclusions made from the evolutional science are not based on science. Such as: man evolved from ape.

If one wanted to combine the two above into a few words for the non-science oriented general public, what should one say?

I think "evolution is not scientific" is not a bad one. Notice this is just a political slogan, not more than: Obama is for Change.

The problem is that the conclusion that humans evolved from apes is based on science. Therefore any slogan that incorporates the opposite will be wrong, as your specific suggestion is wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

The problem is that the conclusion that humans evolved from apes is based on science. Therefore any slogan that incorporates the opposite will be wrong, as your specific suggestion is wrong.

Not so fast:

humans evolved from apes is "based" on science; vs.
humans evolved from apes is "implied" by science.

The formal is a propaganda. The latter is science.

 

[juvenissun]

Can you provide any predictions that are unique to creationism about structures in biology that went on to be discovered?

What format would that prediction look like?

How about: Because God creates monkey, so we predict that the next creation by God is human.

Your question is a logic mistake.

 

[juvenissun]

Creationism is certainly a faith, but I don't think that it fulfills the requirements for being a science. The production of textbooks by Creationists is not a criteria of science.

The facts against Creationism being a science are:

1. Science collects observations and deducts a theory from them. Creationism starts with a theory and attempts to fit the observations into it. The difference is visible when you compare scientific and Creationist publications. The focus of scientific publications is doing observations and building theories, wile the focus of Creationist publications is usually interpretation of observations and promotion of those interpretations.

2. An important criteria for a scientific theory is external consistency, meaning that the theory must be consistent with other fields of science. For instance, the theory that the universe is 6000 years old requires explanations why we can see distant star light, why we observe background radiation and why we observe the current hydrogen to helium ratio in the universe. Creationism does not offer those explanations and thus is externally inconsistent.

Due to the above arguments, and other arguments like Occam's razor I challenge the claim that Creationism is a science.

Creationism teaches the principle of gravity.

It is a science.

 

[sfs]

Not so fast:

humans evolved from apes is "based" on science; vs.
humans evolved from apes is "implied" by science.

The formal is a propaganda. The latter is science.

Since the second is the stronger statement, I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

One of the conclusions of the science of biology is that humans evolved from apes. That conclusion is implied by science, based on science, and is in fact part of science.

 

[juvenissun]

Since the second is the stronger statement, I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

One of the conclusions of the science of biology is that humans evolved from apes. That conclusion is implied by science, based on science, and is in fact part of science.

(conclusion) based on (science) vs. (conclusion) implied by (science).

The formal suggests the conclusion is true. The latter explicitly says the conclusion is inferred.

 

[Aggie]

What format would that prediction look like?

How about: Because God creates monkey, so we predict that the next creation by God is human.

Your question is a logic mistake.

I have no idea how you came up with that example, but I gave some examples in my reply to Nathan of what a creationist biological prediction would look like. One such prediction would be, “Since all carnivores originally ate plants, all carnivorous animals will show signs of being recently modified from an herbivorous lifestyle.” Another would be “Since according to the book of Genesis, giant humans (‘Nephilim&#8217 used to exist, we will find their remains.” Creationism is no different than any other biological theory in that it makes unique predictions about animals or traits in animals that will be found; the way it differs from evolution is just that thus far, none of the biological predictions unique to creationism have turned out to be correct.

If creationism is science, it will make biological predictions like this that no other theory makes, and those predictions will be later confirmed. Can you provide any examples of that?

 

[juvenissun]

I have no idea how you came up with that example, but I gave some examples in my reply to Nathan of what a creationist biological prediction would look like. One such prediction would be, “Since all carnivores originally ate plants, all carnivorous animals will show signs of being recently modified from an herbivorous lifestyle.” Another would be “Since according to the book of Genesis, giant humans (‘Nephilim&#8217 used to exist, we will find their remains.” Creationism is no different than any other biological theory in that it makes unique predictions about animals or traits in animals that will be found; the way it differs from evolution is just that thus far, none of the biological predictions unique to creationism have turned out to be correct.

If creationism is science, it will make biological predictions like this that no other theory makes, and those predictions will be later confirmed. Can you provide any examples of that?

I see. Thanks.

Add one more: Early people lived much longer (700+ years). Is there any human remain (boneor tooth) which indicates that order of age?

Well, I tell you, you better pray that these predictions will never be discovered. It would only take ONE of them to thrown off all evolutional science.

 

[NathanCGreen]

If creationism is science, it will make biological predictions like this that no other theory makes, and those predictions will be later confirmed. Can you provide any examples of that?

Aggie, what would you say or think if a lion refused to eat flesh? And wouldn't even drink milk if there was even a single drop of blood in it? Because guess what? That has happened in the past, not too long ago either... This animal was behaving the way we creationists would expect in a pre-fall world, where everything was good, and God gave them only plant matter to eat. But it is surprising, even to us, that a creature in this cursed world would refuse to touch what a 'normal' lion would eat, even though it had been purposely refused food to make it hunger so much that it would surely eat the flesh... but it didn't. Amazing. I forgot the name of the animal, but I will post the info if I can find it on the web.

 

[Aggie]

I see. Thanks.

Add one more: Early people lived much longer (700+ years). Is there any human remain (boneor tooth) which indicates that order of age?

Well, I tell you, you better pray that these predictions will never be discovered. It would only take ONE of them to thrown off all evolutional science.

Yes, that’s another unfulfilled prediction made by creationism. You seem to be getting the idea of how this works.

What I can’t understand is why you seem to think I would have a problem with evolution being disproved, if that were to happen at some point in the future. (The discovery of a 700-year-old human wouldn’t disprove all of evolution, but there are other possible discoveries that essentially would, such as a high-level chimera.) As someone who views the world in a scientific way, the only thing that matters to me about I believe is that it be what’s most consistent with the physical world. I used to be a creationist, and eventually accepted evolution because its descriptions and predictions about the world were more accurate than those of creationism, but I’ll be happy to go back to creationism if the opposite ever ends up being true.

You seem to be agreeing that unless the predictions made by creationism suddenly start being fulfilled, though, evolution predicts things in biology more accurately than creationism does. Does this mean you also agree that evolution is a more accurate description of biology than creationism is?

Aggie, what would you say or think if a lion refused to eat flesh? And wouldn't even drink milk if there was even a single drop of blood in it? Because guess what? That has happened in the past, not too long ago either... This animal was behaving the way we creationists would expect in a pre-fall world, where everything was good, and God gave them only plant matter to eat. But it is surprising, even to us, that a creature in this cursed world would refuse to touch what a 'normal' lion would eat, even though it had been purposely refused food to make it hunger so much that it would surely eat the flesh... but it didn't. Amazing. I forgot the name of the animal, but I will post the info if I can find it on the web.

I’ll be interested to see that article. But since both creationists and supporters of evolution agree that present-day lions are carnivores, this doesn’t seem like something evolution or creationism would have predicted. What I said would fulfill a prediction made by creationism is if lions had vestigial traits showing that their ancestors had been herbivores within the past six thousand years.

 

[juvenissun]

You seem to be agreeing that unless the predictions made by creationism suddenly start being fulfilled, though, evolution predicts things in biology more accurately than creationism does. Does this mean you also agree that evolution is a more accurate description of biology than creationism is?

Again, wrong question. The "predictions" (as you call it) on the side of Creationism (like examples you gave) are NOT based on science, but based on faith. So I won't call them as predictions. Are you also suggesting the Genesis Flood is a prediction to be discovered?

Back to my earlier thought. I think your question is illogical. There is no such thing as a prediction by Creationism.

 

[Aggie]

Again, wrong question. The "predictions" (as you call it) on the side of Creationism (like examples you gave) are NOT based on science, but based on faith. So I won't call them as predictions. Are you also suggesting the Genesis Flood is a prediction to be discovered?

Back to my earlier thought. I think your question is illogical. There is no such thing as a prediction by Creationism.

I guess evidence for a global flood could be an example of something like this also, but the reason I didn’t mention that is because I wanted to stay within the topic of biology. The evidence for a global flood, if there were any, would be mostly geological.

I don’t have a problem with the idea that all of the predictions made by creationism are based on faith rather than science, but if that’s the case, I do have a problem with you saying that creationism is science. If creationism is science, it would need to make its predictions within the realm of science. Something can’t be considered science unless it plays by science’s rules.

 

[Paul365]

Creationism teaches the principle of gravity.

It is a science.

No, Creationism does not teach the principle of gravity. Last time I checked, it was still General Relativity Theory that teaches the principle of gravity.

Maybe you meant to say that Creationism is not in contradiction with the principle of gravity. But the same can be said of astrology, palm reading, and witchcraft. It does not make Creationism a science.

 

[busterdog]

Aggie, what would you say or think if a lion refused to eat flesh? And wouldn't even drink milk if there was even a single drop of blood in it? Because guess what? That has happened in the past, not too long ago either... This animal was behaving the way we creationists would expect in a pre-fall world, where everything was good, and God gave them only plant matter to eat. But it is surprising, even to us, that a creature in this cursed world would refuse to touch what a 'normal' lion would eat, even though it had been purposely refused food to make it hunger so much that it would surely eat the flesh... but it didn't. Amazing. I forgot the name of the animal, but I will post the info if I can find it on the web.

For what its worth, there is a story of a lion rescued by a Hindu sanyasin. The Hindu taught the lion to eat as a vegetarian. But, that is of course training. It is reported in Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi.

 

[johnd]

I shall remove the answer I gave and pray God helps us all.

 

[johnd]

what is truth?

oh and you can't use John 14:6 it might oh oh of-f-fend someone... huh huh huh

 

[Aggie]

For what its worth, there is a story of a lion rescued by a Hindu sanyasin. The Hindu taught the lion to eat as a vegetarian. But, that is of course training. It is reported in Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi.

Are you going to try and take my challenge in the OP, Busterdog? You said that other models can succeed with the data just as well as evolution does, and Gluadys said in that case you should be able to handle this challenge. You haven’t replied to what she said to you about that, but I’d like you to answer whether you’re able to come up with what I asked for in my OP.

The fossils you showed could be the sheering away of the reptilian skin in the sudden burial of sediment that fossilized them in the first place. It does not preclude they had feathers or wings.

On Jinfengopteryx and Microraptor gui, the feathers have visible barbs and barbules attached to a central rachis. There’s no way preservational factors can produce this.

Even IF they had both, the macro-evolutionist is still stumped by biogenesis so long as from nothing nothing comes (TD Law #1).

Something coming from nothing isn’t part of evolution. Neither is the origin of life; that’s the topic of a separate theory called abiogenesis.

Please don’t post in my thread again unless you have something to contribute that addresses the point I made in my OP.

 

[johnd]

Billllllions and billlllllions of years ago...
and ennnnormous explosion of emmmmense proportions....
​