Creation predictions

[DogmaHunter]

You want a model with testable biological predictions?

Sure.

The creation model predicts you can't mate a giraffe and an elephant and get a viable offspring.

Now ... quit cursing the dark and get out there and see if I'm right.

(On second thought, don't.)

Same as above. This is not a test that lends any credence to creationism in particular.
Furthermore, it's also not a prediction that naturally flows from the model in the sense of "if this and this, then that" as well as the opposite: "if NOT this and this, then NOT that!".

That biological organisms reproduce with others from the same species is the case, wheter creationism is correct OR wrong.

See the disconnect now?

Let's contrast with something perhaps a bit more straightforward and simplistic....

Consider the idea of a volcanic eruption. It either happened or it didn't.
If it DID: it will have left a layer of volcanic ashes.
If it did NOT: there should NOT be a layer of volcanic ashes.


I'll go ahead and assume that you will agree that if creationism is wrong, that that doesn't mean that inter-species interbreeding should be possible...

That means that species sticking to their own for reproduction, doesn't support creationism in particular at all....

 

[AV1611VET]

Every model says you can't do that.

What other models?

At the time, only Adam & Eve existed.

And I'm sure they didn't come up with other models to test.

So in 4004 BC, the creation model correctly predicted you couldn't gender two different kinds.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It doesn't make any predictions. It simply tells what happened.

Cool. So, it just "asserts" and that's it. And you can either believe it at facevalue or not.

What it say can't be proved or disproved

Nobody is asking for "proof".
How about "supported"?

But I guess if there are no verifiable predictions at all, then it can't be supported either.

However, are you aware that other alternative models of explanation in biology actually DO make testable predictions AND that these predictions check out when studied?

When something can' be proved, logic must be used. IMO matter, energy and life can't create themselves out of nothing.

I smell an argument from ignorance coming up, based on a false dichotomy and strawman.

A creation, especially one whose processes work the same way all the time, requires not only an omnipotent Creator, but also an Intelligent Designer.

Yep, I was right.

1. Argument from ignorance: "imo life/matter/energy can't create itself"
=> the "imo" part actually means "as far as I know". So you appeal to your own ignorance to support some other, unsupportable, notion

2. false dichotomy: as if "create itself out of nothing" is the only alternative to "god dun it"

3. strawman: nobody claims that matter/energy/life "created itself out of nothing".

I could actuall also add a 4th point: special pleading, because I guess you believe that this god that you can't support, CAN create things "out of nothing" in a way that you can't support.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What other models?

Literally every model you can think of that attempts to explain how life/humans came to be.
Including those that are incorrect.

I don't think there is a single model out there that states that any creature should be able to mate with any other creature.

This isn't rocket science.

Apparantly, it is... seeing as how so many people have so much trouble understanding what I am asking....

 

[SkyWriting]

What do you mean by this? Wouldn't it be the other way round?
That species really are younger then currently believed?
The vast majority of species today are believed to be much much older then what a YEC would claim.



Not sure what this means either...
What would that mean in practice?



What do you mean by "mistakes"?



In what sense?
For example, if I throw 20 dice, will the outcome not be random?

Or is your point that because the forces of physics are fundamentally deterministic, it is theoretically possible to predict exactly the outcome of any dice throw, assuming one has all the required information to plot out the path of each and every dice?



When, how and why?

A concrete example.... chickens have inactive (and broken) DNA to build teeth.
Is that not "junk" DNA? Why not?

All of my predictions are solid and real.
I have no interest in further schooling.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All of my predictions are solid and real.
I have no interest in further schooling.

I just asked for clarification dude.

How should I interpret your unwillingness to clarify?

 

[xianghua]

if creation is true we should find many cases of non hierarchy. this is indeed what we find.
if creation is true we should not see a creature evolving into another creature. again: this is indeed what we have seen so far.

 

[essentialsaltes]

if creation is true we should find many cases of non hierarchy. this is indeed what we find.

Where do we find this?

 

[Speedwell]

if creation is true we should find many cases of non hierarchy. this is indeed what we find.
if creation is true we should not see a creature evolving into another creature. again: this is indeed what we have seen so far.

Yes. According to your terminology speciation is not evolution, but "adaptation." We have only seen one creature "adapting" into another creature.

 

[xianghua]

Where do we find this?

here is one case for instance in the feather phylogeny:

(image from Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia)

as you can see- at least 3 times in this phylogeny we find the wrong order of feather evolution. evolutionists "solve" it by claiming for convergent evolution or convergent loss. this situation fit naturally with creation.

 

[SkyWriting]

2. More species will be found to co-exist at the same time, rather than one evolving into the other.

Not sure what this means either...
What would that mean in practice?

Neanderthals Coexisted with Humans for More Than 5,000 Years
instead of evolving into humans as previously assumed.

 

[essentialsaltes]

this situation fit naturally with creation.

In the sense that creation predicts 'anything goes'.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Neanderthals Coexisted with Humans for More Than 5,000 Years
instead of evolving into humans as previously assumed.

Haa, in that way. Okay.

But then, shouldn't the examples of such be a LOT more prevalent? Because this is just 1 species out of many many many millions.

Why isn't there a single instance known, for example, where humans are found with dino's?

So how deep those that "prediction" go? Can you make it more specific?
For example, wouldn't it have to mean that all species coexisted at the same time?


I mean, if one finds out that neanderthal coexisted with homo sapiens for some period, while this single instance might be consistent with a creation model, it hardly lends any specific credence to it, right? It's not like it's impossible or even just unlikely for neanderthal and homo sapiens to co-exist if creation is false, right?

So, while it certainly is among the better predictions I have gotten in this thread (not that I've gotten that many after 7 pages of dancing....), I'ld say that it doesn't seem to be checking out in reality, since I'ld expect then that the vast majority of species would have coexisted.

And the fossil record does not support that at all. Do you agree?

 

[SkyWriting]

@Ophiolite
@DogmaHunter

Becasue of a single creation event, species will:

1. Be found to be much older than previously believed (scientists shouldn't be assuming anyway).

If all "kinds" were created at one time, then biologists would be wrong about "Branching"
and any given species or kind would be found in the earliest fossil evidence.

Lacking a clear record, species would be found earlier and earlier in the fossil record
confounding evolutionists by messing up their branching diagrams.
This is the case.

Polar bear DNA reveals species much older than previously thought
Corals much older than previously thought, study finds
Human Species May Be Much Older Than Previously Thought
Language may be much older than previously thought
Ancient Algae: New fossils suggest plants might be much older than
Human Y Chromosome Much Older Than Previously Thought
Dog Domestication Much Older than Previously Known
Human species 'older than previously thought' |

 

[SkyWriting]

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

5. The "Junk DNA" concept will be discarded.

Becasue of excellent engineering on the front end,
(Scripture indicates that creation was originally perfect)
"Junk DNA" will be found to have value.

Hidden Treasures in Junk DNA - Scientific American
Genomics. Not junk after all. - NCBI
'Junk DNA' has value for roundworms | Science News
What is junk DNA, and what is it worth? - Scientific American
Study finds value in 'junk' DNA - Phys.org


Here researchers work to 'Duck and Cover" their humiliation:
Junk DNA Isn't Junk, and That Isn't Really News - Smithsonian Magazine

 

[Kylie]

@Ophiolite
@DogmaHunter


If all "kinds" were created at one time, then biologists would be wrong about "Branching"
and any given species or kind would be found in the earliest fossil evidence.

Lacking a clear record, species would be found earlier and earlier in the fossil record
confounding evolutionists by messing up their branching diagrams.
This is the case.

Polar bear DNA reveals species much older than previously thought
Corals much older than previously thought, study finds
Human Species May Be Much Older Than Previously Thought
Language may be much older than previously thought
Ancient Algae: New fossils suggest plants might be much older than
Human Y Chromosome Much Older Than Previously Thought
Dog Domestication Much Older than Previously Known
Human species 'older than previously thought' |

Irrelevant.

Show me a polar bear that lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. Show me a whale that lived in the seas alongside trilobites. You seem to think that your links somehow equate to all life forms being formed at the same time. There is absolutely zero actual evidence to support that view.

 

[DogmaHunter]

@Ophiolite
@DogmaHunter


If all "kinds" were created at one time, then biologists would be wrong about "Branching"
and any given species or kind would be found in the earliest fossil evidence.

Then whey do hominids only appear in the relatively recent fossil evidence and never before it? Why do we never find a single mammal in pre-cambrian layers?

Lacking a clear record, species would be found earlier and earlier in the fossil record
confounding evolutionists by messing up their branching diagrams.
This is the case.

Polar bear DNA reveals species much older than previously thought
Corals much older than previously thought, study finds
Human Species May Be Much Older Than Previously Thought
Language may be much older than previously thought
Ancient Algae: New fossils suggest plants might be much older than
Human Y Chromosome Much Older Than Previously Thought
Dog Domestication Much Older than Previously Known
Human species 'older than previously thought' |

None of these really work for your "prediction".
Considering geological time and the fossil record, the word "much" in the above links is to be taken with a grain of salt.

The human species, for example, wasn't exactly pushed back into the era of dinosaurs - which is what your "prediction" expects.

Are you saying that one day, we will find humans alongside dino remains?

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
Utterly predictably, this thread has had a clean.
Please stay on topic and address the questions in the OP.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[SkyWriting]

The human species, for example, wasn't exactly pushed back into the era of dinosaurs - which is what your "prediction" expects.

I can't predict how far. Just that such changes are what is expected.

 

[SkyWriting]

You seem to think that your links somehow equate to all life forms being formed at the same time. There is absolutely zero actual evidence to support that view.

I only said that one creation date for all kinds would push back the
dates of all species as additional information came in. Relevant to the OP.