Creation predictions

[DogmaHunter]

Each such discovery supports the idea that evolution
does not occur.

Neanderthals co-existing with homo sapiens is evidence against evolution?
How?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Lol, so it is, I read the whole thing twice and didn’t see it, must be my age!

Maybe the creator had "hardened your heart"!?


(sorry, couldn't help myself)

 

[Almost there]

lol! Good one!

So then, if God is the reason for Gravity, would that mean something like Mars could then come about naturally (i.e. not designed specifically, but under the power of Gravity acting on rocks)? Would that fall under "Design" or "By accident", and could you explain why?

Well, I use the "design vs accident" argument, at its core, as a reference to the first thing that ever existed that man's "science" would call a "life form". Not potential life. Not something that could lead to life, but something "science" would call "alive".

Regarding everything else, all bets are off. My belief is that he created man, as opposed to letting the environment he created just naturally result in "man". But I was not there. I can't be sure. It is possible that the act of creating man was to use many, many years of evolution to develop the first man, not to be confused with the physical parents of that first man. Which is where it gets complicated, if you think about it.

I find the discoveries made by science, even within the scope of the evolution debate, to be fascinating and exciting. It's the conclusions and inferences from those discoveries that I usually have a problem with. Frankly, they remind me of catholics who believe that when the bible says someone is Jesus brother, it really means "cousin". It makes no sens until you realize that they teach that Mary NEVER had sex. Then you see how it is imperative that they do not interpret scripture that way.

I see the same thing from BOTH sides of the evolution debate. Raw facts can not be denied. Unprovable hypotheses can.

 

[Jimmy D]

I normally have images off, but they're on today. Love your avatar!

Unfortunately it's not me, I'm never that angry!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Well, I use the "design vs accident" argument, at its core, as a reference to the first thing that ever existed that man's "science" would call a "life form". Not potential life. Not something that could lead to life, but something "science" would call "alive".

Regarding everything else, all bets are off. My belief is that he created man, as opposed to letting the environment he created just naturally result in "man". But I was not there. I can't be sure. It is possible that the act of creating man was to use many, many years of evolution to develop the first man, not to be confused with the physical parents of that first man. Which is where it gets complicated, if you think about it.

I find the discoveries made by science, even within the scope of the evolution debate, to be fascinating and exciting. It's the conclusions and inferences from those discoveries that I usually have a problem with. Frankly, they remind me of catholics who believe that when the bible says someone is Jesus brother, it really means "cousin". It makes no sens until you realize that they teach that Mary NEVER had sex. Then you see how it is imperative that they do not interpret scripture that way.

I see the same thing from BOTH sides of the evolution debate. Raw facts can not be denied. Unprovable hypotheses can.

...."BOTH sides of the evolution debate"? In science, there is only one side. I completely agree with your statement following though - "Raw facts can not be denied. Unprovable hypotheses can."

Also, could you address my Post #167? It might be that I'm just being impatient and you're getting around to it, so sorry if that's the case...

 

[Almost there]

...."BOTH sides of the evolution debate"? In science, there is only one side. I completely agree with your statement following though - "Raw facts can not be denied. Unprovable hypotheses can."

Also, could you address my Post #167? It might be that I'm just being impatient and you're getting around to it, so sorry if that's the case...

I said "both sides" because I've seen it on both sides. The problem is that every single person on each side is a human being. And all that that implies, and is proven through observation.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I said "both sides" because I've seen it on both sides. The problem is that every single person on each side is a human being. And all that that implies, and is proven through observation.

I must still be missing something - what are the two sides you speak of? in science, there is only Evolution. That's it. There's no other game in town, there's no scientifically founded dissent from this idea let alone any other theory of biological diversity, right?

 

[Almost there]

I must still be missing something - what are the two sides you speak of? in science, there is only Evolution. That's it. There's no other game in town, there's no scientifically founded dissent from this idea let alone any other theory of biological diversity, right?

I'm talking about the "30,000 foot level" of the debate regarding the origin of species. Creation vs evolution, including "did man evolve or was he created as man". All the nuances are, as you say, science. We have facts, predictions, observations, theories, hypothesis. I'm big on facts, less so on unproven predictions, theories and hypotheses.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually, no. If that happened, I'd become one of those that believe that God created the first life and then let evolution take its course, and here we are. But that has yet to happen.

Really?
So you would require observing something that would falsify evolution, in order to accept evolution?

That's.... strange.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I'm talking about the "30,000 foot level" of the debate regarding the origin of species. Creation vs evolution, including "did man evolve or was he created as man". All the nuances are, as you say, science. We have facts, predictions, observations, theories, hypothesis. I'm big on facts, less so on unproven predictions, theories and hypotheses.

wait, what? So you mean to say the debate between the one and only scientific explanation of the origin of species as opposed to random laypeople's various other unsupported ideas of how they imagine it might be? There is no "Creation" science, and if you want to include your Creation idea, then you'll have to include all the other scientifically unsupported Creation ideas too - are you going to do that? Where's all the "Creation Science" then? where's the theories and predictions, the medicines and technological progress because of Creation? was it your Creation idea that has these theories & predictions, or is it another Creation idea?

There is no debate!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well you need to know more then. Here is a refresher:
Read the OP again.

When asked for predictions of the creation model, you would require the set of predictions that isn't shared with other models. Because that is the set of predictions that can only be there, if the creation model checks out.

If only the "shared" predictions check out and none of the "exclusive" predictions do (or if there are no such exclusive predictions to begin with), then you really have nothing that actually supports the creationist account.

In short, I'm interested in the green part:

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

When asked for predictions of the creation model, you would require the set of predictions that isn't shared with other models. Because that is the set of predictions that can only be there, if the creation model checks out.

If only the "shared" predictions check out and none of the "exclusive" predictions do (or if there are no such exclusive predictions to begin with), then you really have nothing that actually supports the creationist account.

I'd go a step further and say that other models that do have predictions specific to them are actually the more valuable models and accordingly, Occam's Razor means the other less specific model should be discarded.

I guess that's another demonstration that the "Creation" model is a non-starter anyway.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is the scientific method. I make a prediction and then perform a controlled test. If I observe, after the test, what I predicted, my test successfully proved my prediction. It's the scientific method.

Sure, but if your prediction and test are not valid or reasonable, neither will your conclusion.

Consider this example:
Claim: undetectable pixies make grass grow.
Predictions: grass should grow and no pixies will be seen (they are undetectable after all)
Test: measure the length of the grass every day for a reasonable amount of time and look around for pixes while doing so.
Outcome: the grass became longer over time and no pixies were seen.

So, does that validate the model that grass grows because of undetectable pixies?

After all, there was a prediction and the experiment showed the prediction to be valid, did it not?


So, where is the mistake here, in your opinion?

Creation is the same way. A single cell is far more complex than anything designed by "intelligent" man, yet many argue that it was accidentally formed.

Nobody who actually understands how evolution works, would call the biological development of anything, an "accident".

 

[DogmaHunter]

If it happened by accident, from where does one acquire morals, and why should they be trusted?

You can discuss this nonsense in another thread. In fact, there's an entire subforum dedicated to exactly this topic.

This thread here, is about the testable predictions, if any, creation models make.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

You can discuss this nonsense in another thread. In fact, there's an entire subforum dedicated to exactly this topic.

This thread here, is about the testable predictions, if any, creation models make.

but, I just..... aww.... -_-

 

[Almost there]

Really?
So you would require observing something that would falsify evolution, in order to accept evolution?

That's.... strange.

Strawman.

 

[Almost there]

You can discuss this nonsense in another thread. In fact, there's an entire subforum dedicated to exactly this topic.

This thread here, is about the testable predictions, if any, creation models make.

Point taken. And very politely addressed as well.

Now I have to decide which nonsensical thread on which to focus.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Strawman.

Huh?

How is it a strawman, when it is literally a factual response to the exact post you wrote??? :-S

 

[Almost there]

Huh?

How is it a strawman, when it is literally a factual response to the exact post you wrote??? :-S

You rephrased my post to something other than what I wanted. Sorry, but I now have to go to a meeting...

 

[DogmaHunter]

You rephrased my post to something other than what I wanted.

That's just not true. Here are your exact words:

Actually, no. If that happened, I'd become one of those that believe that God created the first life and then let evolution take its course, and here we are. But that has yet to happen

And the "if that happened..." was in reply to this:

If you had bought that same bunch of hens and a rooster and they laid eggs that hatched into snakes, or puppies, or even a broadway dancing troupe, you would equally say this supports your creationist worldview and we would all be none the wiser.


So yes, that is exactly what you said: when you see those eggs hatch into snakes or puppies, then, as per your own exact post, you would stop being a creations and simply accept evolution theory. While those eggs hatching into snakes, would actually disprove evolution.

So no, not a strawman, but a factual response to your post.

I'm perfectly fine if you were honestly mistaken and didn't actually mean it like you wrote it, or read the post you replied to too fast and misunderstood it. That's all cool. You can just retract it and explain what you REALLY meant or just say you misunderstood the post. That's fine. We all make mistakes. Especially if we are late for a meeting. ;-)

But simply denying it all and playing these silly accusation games while what you wrote is right there for all to see/read, doesn't seem like a smart thing to do.