Creation predictions

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Hi there folks

I'ld like to know from creationists out there...
What testable predictions does the creation model make?
And how exactly do they naturally flow from the creation model?

What is your, let's say, top 3 of testable predictions?

EDIT: I ask in context of biology.
 

Sorn

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2018
1,354
315
60
Perth
✟178,563.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If creation is true its hard to say what testable predictions can be made as we don't know by what rules God went by when creating life.
For example if he said 'I will reuse stuff wherever possible' then we could expect a lot of commonality with dna and genetics (ie chimps having 98% commonality with us etc).
This is what we see but we can't say that proves creation because we don't know that God was thinking, 'I just have to tweak this and voila!'.

I guess the main predictions or theories are that you should be able to show & ideally prove are that what evolutionists say takes ages can take much, much less time. But again, running an experiment for a few decades or century or 2 instead of thousands or millions of years is not something that can be done in quantities sufficient to constitute a 'proof' for now.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,175
9,960
The Void!
✟1,133,168.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi there folks

I'ld like to know from creationists out there...
What testable predictions does the creation model make?
And how exactly do they naturally flow from the creation model?

What is your, let's say, top 3 of testable predictions?

EDIT: I ask in context of biology.

For me, providing an answer will depend on whether or not you consider BioLogos to be a form of "Creationism." o_O

The funny thing is that, either way, my answer as to what the testable predictions are that we can make will be basically the same as yours (assuming you're in line with Methodological Naturalism).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
For me, providing an answer will depend on whether or not you consider BioLogos to be a form of "Creationism." o_O

The funny thing is that, either way, my answer as to what the testable predictions are that we can make will be basically the same as yours (assuming you're in line with Methodological Naturalism).

Then what is the difference, in terms of merrit?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,175
9,960
The Void!
✟1,133,168.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Then what is the difference, in terms of merrit?

Merit? By which frame of reference are you alluding? [Because for 'merit' to have value, it has to be assumed and imputed from some other set of assumptions ... ]
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
If creation is true its hard to say what testable predictions can be made as we don't know by what rules God went by when creating life.

Then how can you know that any God did anything?
Or on the flip side, how do you then uphold belief in such, when on the other hand we have explanations like evolution, which DO make predictions (and which check out when tested)?

For example if he said 'I will reuse stuff wherever possible' then we could expect a lot of commonality with dna and genetics (ie chimps having 98% commonality with us etc).
This is what we see but we can't say that proves creation because we don't know that God was thinking, 'I just have to tweak this and voila!'.

That's not actually what we see. What we see is a nested hierarchy, which is what we expect when things share ancestry ...

I guess the main predictions or theories are that you should be able to show & ideally prove are that what evolutionists say takes ages can take much, much less time.

If that could be done (it can't, btw), it would be an argument against evolution and not one FOR or in support of creationism.

I'm asking about creationism, not about evolution.
The answer to my question shouldn't even mention evolution.


But again, running an experiment for a few decades or century or 2 instead of thousands or millions of years is not something that can be done in quantities sufficient to constitute a 'proof' for now.

That would again be about evolution. I'm asking about creationism......
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,175
9,960
The Void!
✟1,133,168.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"Merrit" in the sense of "explanatory power".

About the only thing that the BioLogos position will differ on, and therefore demonstrate "merit," is that it would say that we should expect to see something productive and ordered arise biologically from un-productive, chaotic matter. So, I guess in a slight sense, a very, very slight sense, BioLogos would have a more Lamarckian kind of slant to its thinking, and this would contrast a bit with Darwin who would assert that evolution can go in one of a multitude of directions: up, down, sideways, forward, maybe even backward.

However, I don't think you're going to find anyone at BioLogos who actually holds to Lamarck.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
About the only thing that the BioLogos position will differ on, and therefore demonstrate "merit," is that it would say that we should expect to see something productive and ordered arise biologically from un-productive, chaotic matter. So, I guess in a slight sense, a very, very slight sense, BioLogos would have a more Lamarckian kind of slant to its thinking, and this would contrast a bit with Darwin who would assert that evolution can go in one of a multitude of directions: up, down, sideways, forward, maybe even backward.

However, I don't think you're going to find anyone at BioLogos who actually holds to Lamarck.

Not exactly an answer to my question, but whatever.
It's already drifting away from topic.

If you don't have any "top 3 testable predictions" to share concerning creationism, then there is nothing to discuss in this thread.
 
Upvote 0

Favourofone

Active Member
Dec 28, 2017
205
122
46
Stockhol
✟18,322.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
For example if he said 'I will reuse stuff wherever possible' then we could expect a lot of commonality with dna and genetics (ie chimps having 98% commonality with us etc).

So God had a budget ? This is bit weak even for creationist arguments.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,175
9,960
The Void!
✟1,133,168.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Not exactly an answer to my question, but whatever.
It's already drifting away from topic.

If you don't have any "top 3 testable predictions" to share concerning creationism, then there is nothing to discuss in this thread.

Oh well. I guess I'm not enough of a "Creationist" for you. :rolleyes: However, if we extol the virtues of Methodological Naturalism, I'm not sure why all this makes much difference to you in the first place. But, I get it. You are who you are, and if you want to side with Richard Dawkins (atheist), you can. However, I'll side with Eugenie C. Scott (also an atheist) on this, if you don't mind.

 
Upvote 0

Sorn

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2018
1,354
315
60
Perth
✟178,563.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If you just want to stick to Creationism and not evolution etc then I guess that one hypothesis that you could make might be to say that scientists will never create life more advanced than a bacterium or possibly a plant. (ie nothing that could be regarded as having a consciousness)

The idea being that it takes God to create a conscious entity. The only experiment is to wait and see as technology advances if anyone can do it or not.

As to the chimps example, by God re-using stuff it could appear to us as being 'a nested hierarchy'.

As yet as far as i know nothing even approaching a bacterium, let alone conscious stuff, has ever been created in a lab so even that may be out of reach. Time may tell.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Oh well. I guess I'm not enough of a "Creationist" for you. :rolleyes: However, if we extol the virtues of Methodological Naturalism, I'm not sure why all this makes much difference to you in the first place. But, I get it. You are who you are, and if you want to side with Richard Dawkins (atheist), you can. However, I'll side with Eugenie C. Scott (also an atheist) on this, if you don't mind.


You're still going off topic.

This thread is not about evolution, about dawkins, about atheism,...

It's about the creationistic model to explain the world. I'm asking for a top 3 of testable predictions of that model.

The answer to the question shouldn't mention evolution, atheism, dawkins,....
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

Almost there

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,571
1,152
60
Kentucky
✟44,542.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not exactly an answer to my question, but whatever.
It's already drifting away from topic.

If you don't have any "top 3 testable predictions" to share concerning creationism, then there is nothing to discuss in this thread.
The challenge is that creation all around us already supports pretty much any prediction you can think of. I bought a bunch of hens and a rooster. My prediction, based on my creationist worldview, is that they are designed to procreate, so I left some eggs to hatch and they did.

The problem is that in a way you are asking a bunch of fish to make predictions based on their theory that water is wet. It's so obvious and accepted that they forget that they are making these predictions all the time, and having success all the time. They don't even notice that they are wet.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Tom 1
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi DH,

Well, for me, I'm curious what you mean by 'testable predictions'. As far as I'm aware, no prediction is testable until it becomes reality. How would you possibly test a prediction? Certainly you could lay out some sort of current evidence that might lead one to make a certain prediction, but test it?

For example, I might say that I believe the stock market will continue to climb and lay out some reasons that I would think so. But then what if the stock market didn't continue to climb? Would that mean that I didn't 'test' my evidence, or just that I misread or misunderstood the future implications of my evidence.

As far as the creation goes, the whole of that event (the six days) was something that God did. As far as I am aware, there is nothing that God does for which man can test whether or not He did it or not. Can we test whether or not Mary was a virgin at the time of conception? Can we test that the water of the sea separated so as to create a wall of water on two sides? Can we test that the sun stood still in the sky for an inordinate amount of time one day several thousand years ago? Can we test that the sun or the earth somehow moved in an unconventional way as to cause a shadow cast by the sun to move back the distance of 10 steps?

As a born again believer, I think that one first comes to understand who God is and the power that He wields over His creation. Then having been sufficiently convinced that God is who He says that He is and has the power that He says that He has, we believe, on faith, that the things that He accounts for us in the Scriptures as having done...He did!

I would ask, what would we expect the earth to look like if God did create it only some 6,000 years ago? Many people say, well, there wouldn't be all these layers that we believe were established over millions of years. Why not? What if the various layers of soil and rock and sandstone were exactly how the earth had to be constructed to exist as an everlasting planet. That on the day of the earth's creation we could have drilled into the earth and found pretty much the same layering as we see today because that's what makes the earth solid and holding to its form. That the crust of the earth always consisted of a built up foundation of these various material parts.

Some would say that the light of the stars proves that the earth is as old as it is. Why is that so? God has already given examples that He can play with the natural properties of light pretty much however He wants to. There is an account during the plagues on Egypt where we are told that for three solid days it was pitch black in Egypt. Yet that same account tells us that for those same three days there was light in Goshen. Now, these two areas are just like modern suburbs of a city. Goshen isn't hundreds of miles away from Egypt. It literally adjoins Egypt and even during our darkest solar eclipses it isn't just pitch dark in one place and and normal daylight just hundreds or thousands of feet away. Not at all! It would seem that by whatever power God has over light, He literally stopped the light of the sun from shining in Egypt and even held back any refractive light that would have been created by the atmosphere.

Take the shadow moving backwards ten steps. Now, I can't even begin to tell you how God did it, but the account clearly seems to indicate that in some way God took the rays of light emanating from the sun and caused them to shine on those steps in a manner that moved the shadow backwards. He may have moved the sun or the earth in some way to have accomplished this, but that would mean that the sun's shadow moved backwards all over the part of the earth on which it was shining at the time. Or, He may have merely manipulated the light rays only in that small area so that they changed their natural straight line direction over those steps so that they moved the shadow backwards.

What about the star standing over Bethlehem during the birth of our Lord. Many will say that it was a conjunction of the light of stars that still exist today to make the pinpoint of light from each one to appear brighter. However, it could be just as possible, with the power of God, that He created a special light in the heavens only for that moment in time to announce and show the awesome event that was occurring. I mean, there also seemed to be a tear between the heavenly realm and the earthly realm at that moment that showed a gathering of shepherds a whole host of angels singing praises to God and announcing the birth of His Son. That event in the Scriptures is portrayed as a fairly spectacular sight.

All this to say, that when God created the stars and other various bodies of the universe, by the power of God the light of those stars may have been instantly visible to anyone upon the earth. If God wanted those lights in the heavens to be what God said they were created for, signs and seasons, then it would seem that He would have wanted Adam to see them just as much as any of us today.

But, is there any way to test any of this? No! There is no way that man can test how God works; the things that God does. God merely commands that something be...and it becomes! At one point Paul cautions believers to not be swayed by fine sounding arguments that are based on the natural properties of things and not on the spiritual. As I understand this warning, he is telling us that there are things that we just have to trust that they were done in the spiritual realm by the power of God and Jesus. That when men lay out fine sounding arguments against the claims of what God has told us that He has done, we need to understand that there is a power in the spiritual realm that we just honestly don't understand. Within that spiritual realm there are things that God can do that defy our understanding of them.

However, there is coming a day, according to the Scriptures, that we will see that power that God holds over this created realm. We are told that in the last days the heavens will be rolled up like a scroll. That earth and sky will flee from Him who sits upon the throne. When the people who are alive in that day see this event, then I believe many will understand that God can do some pretty awesome things that we will never have any understanding of how He actually accomplishes them, other than to just command that they be...and they become.

The only test I can think of that one can use to confirm any of these events is the test of faith.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
If you just want to stick to Creationism and not evolution etc then I guess that one hypothesis that you could make might be to say that scientists will never create life more advanced than a bacterium or possibly a plant. (ie nothing that could be regarded as having a consciousness)

The idea being that it takes God to create a conscious entity. The only experiment is to wait and see as technology advances if anyone can do it or not.

That doesn't sound very usefull...
2 questions though:
1. how does it flow from the creation model that "only a god" can do that?
2. how does man's inability to do a certain thing "prove" or "support" that a god can?

As to the chimps example, by God re-using stuff it could appear to us as being 'a nested hierarchy'.

It doesn't appear so. It IS a nested hierarchy. Which is the only possible result from an evolutionary process with common ancestry.
At the same time, it is the least expected result from individual creation events.

As yet as far as i know nothing even approaching a bacterium, let alone conscious stuff, has ever been created in a lab so even that may be out of reach. Time may tell.

As far as I know, humans haven't created hurricanes either, but that doesn't mean that Poseidon does.


You see, you are again pointing away of your creation model....
If you say that god creates consious entities, then you need to demonstrate that causal relation there.... not point out that there is no (known) causal relation between creating consious entites and some non-god.

You're essentially saying "scientists can't do it, therefor god".
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Not a budget, but more like, why keep re-inventing the wheel all the time when this will do just fine.

In context of the nested hierarchy in life, the real question is rather "why include inactive DNA to create wheels while it is a hovercraft?"

Like a chicken having inactive DNA to build teeth.
In evolution, this makes sense: their ancestors had teeth.
In creation, this makes no sense at all.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
43
tel aviv
✟111,555.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
If creation is true its hard to say what testable predictions can be made as we don't know by what rules God went by when creating life.

if creation is true we whould find evidence for design in nature. this is indeed what we find. for instance: the flagellum is a spinning motor, and we know that a motor is evidence for design, even if its made from organic components or has a self replicating system:


bacterial+flagella+in+detail.png


(Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U)

or that:


2662.jpg


(VCAC: Cellular Processes: Electron Transport Chain: Advanced Look: ATP Synthase)

or that:

6-16-newsletter-diagram-2.png

(June Newsletter: Kinesin Motor Proteins and Neurodegeneration)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 20, 2017
890
103
91
Knoxville Tn.
✟70,085.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Widowed
Hi there folks

I'ld like to know from creationists out there...
What testable predictions does the creation model make?
And how exactly do they naturally flow from the creation model?

What is your, let's say, top 3 of testable predictions?

EDIT: I ask in context of biology.

It is very simple. Plant some corn seeds and in about 90 days,not only will you ALWAYS get corn, you will get the exact same variety you planted.

Mate 2 dogs and you will ALWAYS get a dog.

Apes and humans can't mate an produce an offspring of either kind. Therefor to say man evolved from apes is absurd and not based on science, but on necessity to give the disciples of Darwin hope they have not believed in vain.

Now it is your turn. Prove one thing the TOE presents as a mechanism for a change of species.

When you try to use mutations, post an example of when and how a mutation was the cause of it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Almost there
Upvote 0