Creation predictions

[SkyWriting]

Rigft. It works with the theory of evolution, too. Reproducing couples create offspring which are similar to their parents.

But this thread is not about evolution or trying to discount it.
Please read the OP.

 

[Speedwell]

But this thread is not about evolution or trying to discount it.
Please read the OP.

No, but when one theory makes the same prediction as the other theory it is of little interest. In this case both predict that reproducing couples create offspiring similar to their parents. What is of interest is if the two theories make different predictions.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, but when one theory makes the same prediction as the other theory it is of little interest. In this case both predict that reproducing couples create offspiring similar to their parents. What is of interest is if the two theories make different predictions.

Please read the OP. This thread is not about evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Please read the OP. This thread is not about evolution.

Which I take to be your admission that creationism does not make any unique predictions.

 

[Aman777]

No, but when one theory makes the same prediction as the other theory it is of little interest. In this case both predict that reproducing couples create offspiring similar to their parents. What is of interest is if the two theories make different predictions.

Scripturally, there are two kinds. One is His kind, a temporary kind, and is subject to death. The other is Their kind or the eternal kind, which is no longer subject to death. A good example is Humanity since Jesus formed us from dust knowing that we would disobey. He also knew that in order to live forever with Him, one MUST be born again by the agreement of the Trinity. (Their kinds) Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 John 14:16

 

[SkyWriting]

Which I take to be your admission that creationism does not make any unique predictions.

You may imagine me saying anything that fits your religion.


1. Be found to be much older than previously believed (scientists shouldn't be assuming anyway).
2. More species will be found to co-exist at the same time, rather than one evolving into the other.
3. There will be an extreme shortage of mistakes in any fossils, and in living forms, due to excellent engineering on the front end.
4. It will become more and more obvious that nothing is random.
5. The "Junk DNA" concept will be discarded.

 

[Almost there]

That's not a prediction, that's an observation. Kent Hovind thinks he has a tremendously profound "prediction" that "dogs will only give birth to dogs". Not only is that exactly what evolution says, and a dog giving birth to anything other than a dog would falsify evolution, but it's simply making an observation of something and and claiming it is then a prediction.

It's not.

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.

And your comment about the tremendously profundity of the prediction demonstrates why creationists think evolutionists are funny.

You could make the "tremendously profound" observation that a chunk of a rusty engine block out in a field was designed, but people would laugh at you because, duh, it's obvious.

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. You gotta admit:

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

How do you know dogs only give birth to dogs?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Scripturally, there are two kinds. One is His kind, a temporary kind, and is subject to death. The other is Their kind or the eternal kind, which is no longer subject to death. A good example is Humanity since Jesus formed us from dust knowing that we would disobey. He also knew that in order to live forever with Him, one MUST be born again by the agreement of the Trinity. (Their kinds) Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 John 14:16

Wait, I still don't get this - if you had your way, Gen 1:21 says "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind" - which you seem to think is all living forms of life (you know, L.U.C.A and all?), even though it's just referring to the fish - and Gen 1:25 says "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind" which means Whales, Fish and Cattle aren't subject to death? Then there's all the creepy things that creepeth, and all the winged fowl (probably including bats) and all the other beasts (except Cattle) that will never see Heaven, while Whales. Fish and Cattle will be in blissful paradise with you and your Pastor?

 

[Speedwell]

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

Who are these "many?" I've never heard of them or their argument.

 

[Almost there]

How do you know dogs only give birth to dogs?

Hey, let's do a scientifically controlled experiment to test that theory of yours.

On a side note, how do we know the sun ONLY sets in the west in Hawaii?

 

[Almost there]

Who are these "many?" I've never heard of them or their argument.

Those that do not accept the concept of a creator. I know there are more than three, so I said "many".

 

[Speedwell]

Those that do not accept the concept of a creator. I know there are more than three, so I said "many".

I see--you are using an eccentric meaning of "accidental."

 

[Almost there]

I see--you are using an eccentric meaning of "accidental."

Life was either created or it is an accident of nature. One or the other. They are mutually exclusive.

i.e. it was an act of some conscious personality's intent, or it just accidentally happened.

 

[Speedwell]

Life was either created or it is an accident of nature. One or the other. They are mutually exclusive.

Most people realize that (whether there is a creator or not) life did not come about "by accident" but by an orderly series of chemical reactions.

Do you think that when you mix hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide, the resulting salt is an "accident?"

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Life was either created or it is an accident of nature. One or the other. They are mutually exclusive.

i.e. it was an act of some conscious personality's intent, or it just accidentally happened.

Nonsense. It could've been an accident of Nature that life was created. That's to say that the natural laws of physics and Quantum Mechanics are such that the accidental creation of life was an inevitable result. There you go, not mutually exclusive at all.

Then, we have all these other ideas that you seemingly didn't have an imagination for:

• Life is perpetual, being seeded in each Universe either by a natural process carrying over microbes from some other universe via some wormhole style connection.
• Life, again is perpetual, being specially seeded (and not created) by an alien intelligence from an alternate universe or plane.
• Life comes from a parallel dimension that seeds all universes with microbial life from the time it can support it.
• undirected but powerful Magic perpetually creates life on every planet in the universe.

All too easy - I reckon you could do with some more imagination tbh, I found that quite a breeze...

 

[Almost there]

Most people realize that (whether there is a creator or not) life did not come about "by accident" but by an orderly series of chemical reactions.

"By accident" means there was not a conscious personality driving the method.

Do you think that when you mix hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide, the resulting salt is an "accident?"

That would be an example of a conscious personality (me) driving the method.

This is also where atheism's amorality is displayed. If I dump out the resulting salt, nobody want's to arrest me, because it is an amoral act. But if I kill a human being, which is similarly an "accident of nature", someone somehow thinks that is a moral act. It isn't, if we were not created by a thinking personality. The slaughter of the entire human race would be as amoral an act as cutting down a tree for firewood.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

"By accident" means there was not a conscious personality driving the method.

That's a broad definition... so the wind used to sail a yacht is "by accident"? Amoeba creating energy via photosynthesis is "by accident"? The river nile snaking its way to the ocean is "by accident"? gravity is "by accident"?

 

[Almost there]

Nonsense. It could've been an accident of Nature that life was created. That's to say that the natural laws of physics and Quantum Mechanics are such that the accidental creation of life was an inevitable result. There you go, not mutually exclusive at all.

If the process was set up by a conscious personality, with purpose, it was not an accident. To clarify. Either something was done on purpose, or it was an accident. They are mutually exclusive. To wander into the weeds: If the "accidental" processes were purposefully created, that means there is a creator. Without the purposeful actions of the creator to begin with, none of what you call "accidents" are possible.

Then, we have all these other ideas that you seemingly didn't have an imagination for:

• Life is perpetual, being seeded in each Universe either by a natural process carrying over microbes from some other universe via some wormhole style connection.
• Life, again is perpetual, being specially seeded (and not created) by an alien intelligence from an alternate universe or plane.
• Life comes from a parallel dimension that seeds all universes with microbial life from the time it can support it.
• undirected but powerful Magic perpetually creates life on every planet in the universe.

All too easy - I reckon you could do with some more imagination tbh, I found that quite a breeze...

Yeah. I "thought about" those ideas back in the 70's. Even back then, people would say, "so, who created the alien intelligence?" Those all fall under "accidental" at their core, except the last one. In that case, it is accidental unless the "magic" was controlled by a conscious personality with purpose.

At its core, no matter what the theory, life is either accidental or created. If created, it implies purpose. If accidental, it doesn't, making the concept of morality non-applicable.

But it is a quite binary question with mutually exclusive answers. Either a "personage" did it on purpose, or it was an accident.

 

[Speedwell]

At its core, no matter what the theory, life is either accidental or created. If created, it implies purpose. If accidental, it doesn't, making the concept of morality non-applicable.

That is creepy. Do you actually believe it or are you just using it as a rhetorical device?