Creation predictions

[DogmaHunter]

The challenge is that creation all around us already supports pretty much any prediction you can think of.

In that case, you should have no problem answering the OP question and sharing with us your top 3 of such predictions, explain how they naturally flow from the model and then point out how they check out in reality "all around us".

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.

A prediction of a model is only usefull if it exclusively supports that model.
That biological entities reproduce is not such a prediction.

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.

Huh?
No. The creationistic model (in terms of biology) is an attempt at explaining the origins of biological entities. A model is "true" to the extent that it matches reality.
In order to see to what extent a model matches reality, is to test its predictions against reality.

This is why I'm asking what predictions that models makes.

 

[Sorn]

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

yes, that was effectively what I was saying. Its not a proof of Creation as such, i also agree.

I myself have at time thought that evolution is just a tool in Gods toolbox as it were.

Perhaps you should read some of the chapters in this book, plenty on biology in it.

In Six Days

The whole book is available online. Many of the non-biology topics also touch biology in good ways. I recommend Chapter 24 for one.
There are several very good ones.

cheers

 

[essentialsaltes]

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?

Maybe 'testable conclusion' would sound better to you. If X is true, then Y would be the case, and then we can go and test whether Y is actually so or not. In some cases these are really more 'thought predictions' because someone else may known all about Y, even if you don't.

Just to make this more concrete with an actually relevant example. Let's suppose one was a child reading Genesis. And had a very literal bent, and a bold instinct for prediction/conclusion making.

The child reads the story of Eve being made from Adam's rib and concludes: "This must mean that men have one fewer rib than women!"

The child could stop there, or the child could go on to test this conclusion by looking at skeletons or checking Wikipedia. This is not a prediction about some far future state, but something that can be tested by 'experiment', even if only a very casual one of checking the facts to see if it agrees or disagrees with the conclusion.

 

[Sorn]

Parts of the book link i provided presents stuff like what the user ID posted earlier and argues that such cellular mechanisms could not have evolved therefore they were created.
I suppose that believing in the act of creation is a step of faith that might be very difficult to prove.

But then the alternative (self replicating life spontaneously arising, given right conditions) also requires a step of faith as that bit has not been proven either as yet.

 

[Sorn]

Maybe 'testable conclusion' would sound better to you. If X is true, then Y would be the case, and then we can go and test whether Y is actually so or not. In some cases these are really more 'thought predictions' because someone else may known all about Y, even if you don't.

Just to make this more concrete with an actually relevant example. Let's suppose one was a child reading Genesis. And had a very literal bent, and a bold instinct for prediction/conclusion making.

The child reads the story of Eve being made from Adam's rib and concludes: "This must mean that men have one fewer rib than women!"

The child could stop there, or the child could go on to test this conclusion by looking at skeletons or checking Wikipedia. This is not a prediction about some far future state, but something that can be tested by 'experiment', even if only a very casual one of checking the facts to see if it agrees or disagrees with the conclusion.

Of course one would have to decide on which assumption to use:
1) the missing rib was passed down to other generations
2) the removed rib had no impact on the kids Adam fathered.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hi DH,
Well, for me, I'm curious what you mean by 'testable predictions'.

"if X is true, then we should observe Y and Z".
If this, then that. Basically.

How would you possibly test a prediction?

By looking at reality and checking if the predictions checks out or not.
How one would go about that, would depend on the prediction.

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.

It means that your prediction didn't check out. So the model from which the prediction was derived, must be false / incomplete / inaccurate.

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.

Then how can man know that god did anything?

Can we test that the sun stood still in the sky for an inordinate amount of time one day several thousand years ago?

Actually, the sun doesn't move accross the sky. Instead, the earth rotates. So if the sun "stood still in the sky", it means that the earth's rotation would have stopped.

I'ld say that the claim that earth stopped rotating most certainly has implications that would be testable. Quite a lot depends on the earth's rotation....

For example, people in China would have noticed.
Not to mention the apocalyptic side effects such an event would have (which would actually destroy everything on the planet).

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!

Aha. On "faith". Meaning, without evidence.
In other words, you have no list of testable predictions to share?

You could have just said that instead of this wall of text.........

I would ask, what would we expect the earth to look like if God did create it only some 6,000 years ago?

For starters, I wouldn't expect an abundance of evidence that showed it to have a 4.5 billion year history........

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.

With fossils inside those layers of creatures that never lived?
Also, your "what if", makes no sense. How is the pre-cambrian geological layer, for example, a necessary ingredient for the planet to see another day without exploding / collapsing / imploding / whatever you are implying here?

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.

With fossils in those layers of creatures that never lived?
With canyons cut out by rivers that didn't actually exist either?
With meteor craters that never impacted?

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.

Or maybe, just maybe,.... the anecdote isn't true?

It seems as if you are suggesting that we can either choose between assuming the anecdote to be false, OR it is true because "magic".

I'm at a loss why you are prefering the magic.

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.

Or, again.... it never happened?

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.

Or, again.... it never happened?

All this is what you believe religiously. I get that.
This thread however, is about how we find out if those beliefs are accurate.

How to test these claims? How can we match them to reality?
An accurate claim, is a claim that matches reality, after all....

Do you just "decide" that it matches reality, or do you actually have something that can be verified in some way?

But, is there any way to test any of this? No!

Then how do you know it happened?

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

What is that?

 

[DogmaHunter]

if creation is true we whould find evidence for design in nature.

What are the criteria to detect design?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Actually, it is still your turn.

I'm asking about testable predictions of the creation model.
I'm not asking about your objections or strawmen concerning evolution theory.

For the purpose of this thread, let's just forget everything about evolution.
In fact, let's even pretend as if it has just been disproven. So there, evolution is off the table.

Now, the proposition is the creation model.
What testable predictions does it make?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Of course one would have to decide on which assumption to use:
1) the missing rib was passed down to other generations
2) the removed rib had no impact on the kids Adam fathered.

Just trying to give an example of the kind of thing DH is looking for, since people seem to be having difficulty understanding the concept.

 

[Sorn]

Yes, largely untestable but I don't claim to speak for all.

There may be a test out there but it isn't easy to think of one that doesn't involve "if a can't explain it then the only alternative is b" kind of logic.

Its kind of like the saying, when you have removed all the things that can't explain it, whatever is left must be the truth.

Some scientists who also believe in creation may be able to offer a testable hypothesis.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Parts of the book link i provided presents stuff like what the user ID posted earlier and argues that such cellular mechanisms could not have evolved therefore they were created.

That's an argument from ignorance.
It's also, once again, more about objecting to evolution then it is in support of creationism.
What it most definatly isn't, is a prediction that naturally flows from the creation model.

I suppose that believing in the act of creation is a step of faith that might be very difficult to prove.

I'm talking about merely support though, not proof.

But then the alternative (self replicating life spontaneously arising, given right conditions) also requires a step of faith as that bit has not been proven either as yet.

False dichotomy and not the subject.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, largely untestable but I don't claim to speak for all.

There may be a test out there but it isn't easy to think of one that doesn't involve "if a can't explain it then the only alternative is b" kind of logic.

Its kind of like the saying, when you have removed all the things that can't explain it, whatever is left must be the truth.

That would be an argument from ignorance.

"whatever is left" would still have to be based on something, it would still need to be demonstrated.

It also seems to me that the "all" in "all the things that can't explain it", is only really limited by your imagination.

When you can't explain something, then the correct stance is "I don't know".



Anyhow, it seems you are the first to give a proper answer.
Your answer seems to be "it doesn't make testable predictions to my knowledge"

 

[Sorn]

That's an argument from ignorance.

Not necessarily, read chpt 24, also 17 & 46 of the link i gave. All good.

another way to look at this then.

Suppose you start with the following 2 assumptions:
1) there is a God
2) God created life (which may have evolved from then on or not etc)

Now if you could carry out a test that could prove 2 or give very strong support to it, then you could also say that your test must then also prove 1.
However it is not possible to prove the existence of God, a being that exists outside of our space & time so probably not going to prove 2.


Now if someone could prove that life was created, would that prove it was God for you or would you then say 'Well, it could have been aliens that kicked off life here'?

 

[Sorn]

In case my previous post was written in the wrong part of the reply:

another way to look at this then.

Suppose you start with the following 2 assumptions:
1) there is a God
2) God created life (which may have evolved from then on or not etc)

Now if you could carry out a test that could prove 2 or give very strong support to it, then you could also say that your test must then also prove 1.
However it is not possible to prove the existence of God, a being that exists outside of our space & time so probably not going to prove 2.


Now if someone could prove that life was created, would that prove it was God for you or would you then say 'Well, it could have been aliens that kicked off life here'?

 

[Sorn]

"whatever is left" would still have to be based on something, it would still need to be demonstrated.

Well, this kind of logic is used in all sorts of ways in life today and is a perfectly valid way to conduct research, judge trials and arrive at conclusions when a course of action MUST be decided upon.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In case my previous post was written in the wrong part of the reply:

another way to look at this then.

Suppose you start with the following 2 assumptions:
1) there is a God
2) God created life (which may have evolved from then on or not etc)

Why would you start with those assumptions?

Now if you could carry out a test that could prove 2 or give very strong support to it, then you could also say that your test must then also prove 1.

Why yes, if you can prove that X did Y, then you also prove that X exists in the process.
Seems rather obvious.

However it is not possible to prove the existence of God, a being that exists outside of our space & time so probably not going to prove 2.

Then what are you talking about?

Now if someone could prove that life was created, would that prove it was God for you or would you then say 'Well, it could have been aliens that kicked off life here'?

If you prove that life has an unnatural origin, then that is the only thing that you have proved: that it has an unnatural origin. And nothing else.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, this kind of logic is used in all sorts of ways in life today and is a perfectly valid way to conduct research, judge trials and arrive at conclusions when a course of action MUST be decided upon.

Can you give a specific example?

 

[Sorn]

[Staff edit].

Your answer seems to be "it doesn't make testable predictions to my knowledge" - yes

 

[Sorn]

Why would you start with those assumptions?

Well, we are talking about Creationism specifically.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, we are talking about Creationism specifically.

Sure, but models of explanation aren't just assumed to be true.......
But anyway, it's no longer relevant as, after many detours, you finally answered the OP: it's not testable and thus there are no testable predictions that flow from the model.

That is all that this thread is about.


If anyone else feels like the model DOES make testable predictions, I'm all ears.