Creation predictions

[DogmaHunter]

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

If you can't specify the supposed "changes", then it is meaningless as a prediction.

For the simple reason that IF our current understanding of how old any given species is changes... then it can ONLY go in the direction of "older".
Because if you have a fossil of 5 million years old, then it means that the species in question is "at least" 5 million years old.

If a new fossil pushes that back another million years, then that new reality is accepted. Finding a fossil of the same species of 4 million years old, then the new reality is not that the species is just 4 million years old.... it's still at least 5 million years old.

So again here, we have only a very vague "prediction".

If you can't say which animals exactly are older and for what reason, and how much older, then what is your prediction about, really?

As a non-creationist evolution acceptor, I fully expect that certain dates will change in the future as more data comes in. So that does not give any special credence to creationism. At all.

So you're going to have to be more specific.
So, which groups of organisms were created "at the same time"? And how much time would there have to be "between creation waves"?
And does your model predict that we should find humans alongside dino's?

If not, then can you give me another example of 2 species that existed at the same time according the creationism, wich only could have existed at the same if creationism is true (or at least that it is very unlikely that they did if creationism is false)?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I only said that one creation date for all kinds

1 for ALL kinds?
Wouldn't that mean that all species should have the same age? And thus would have to show up throughout the geological column without any "sorting" whatsoever?
Resulting in trilobites next to dino's and humans?

would push back the dates of all species as additional information came in.

Of "all species"?
You do realise that there currently are millions of species known, and that you just pointed to 5? What about the other 99.999% of species?

So, I'll ask again: do you expect that we will find humanoid fossils of 200 million years old?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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' |

That's a prediction of evolution. The sparse fossil record and the fact that species type specimens are generally the first novel fossil discovered, means that, on average, a given type specimen is likely to be roughly in the middle of its temporal range, so there's a high probability of discovering pre-dated specimens.

However, as it stands, the fossil record does not support the idea that major groupings appeared simultaneously, so you'll need a interesting definition of 'kind' to make creationism compatible with observation.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's a prediction of evolution. The sparse fossil record and the fact that species type specimens are generally the first novel fossil discovered, means that, on average, a given type specimen is likely to be roughly in the middle of its temporal range, so there's a high probability of discovering pre-dated specimens.

However, as it stands, the fossil record does not support the idea that major groupings appeared simultaneously, so you'll need a interesting definition of 'kind' to make creationism compatible with observation.

I thought I had read that "the Cambrian Explosion, which produced the first fossils of almost all major categories of animals living today." would qualify as filling my prediction.

 

[SkyWriting]

So, I'll ask again: do you expect that we will find humanoid fossils of 200 million years old?

I don't know anyone that old to ask.

I went to the mummy exhibit that was circling the US a couple years ago.
They could not date any of the people except for a couple entombed with writings.
See for yourself:
Mummies of the World Exhibit

 

[DogmaHunter]

I thought I had read that "the Cambrian Explosion, which produced the first fossils of almost all major categories of animals living today." would qualify as filling my prediction.

So, is your stance that the "cambrian explosion" is "the" creation wave? Just one creation wave? The last / first creation wave? What are you implying exactly?

What about life that existed prior to that cambrian explosion?

And shouldn't we then have to find humans, chimps, elephants, tigers, dogs, cats, dolphines, whales, polar bears, penguins, etc in cambrian layers?

That seems to be what you are saying, is that correct?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't know anyone that old to ask.

You just refered to the "cambrian explosion" and seemed to imply that that was the moment that all the "kinds" were created. So, were humans created in that wave?

ps: the cambrian explosion happened approx some 540 million years ago.

Let's try another question... according to your creation model, approx how old is the human species?

I went to the mummy exhibit that was circling the US a couple years ago.
They could not date any of the people except for a couple entombed with writings.

But could those mummies have been millions of years old, or is it more like a couple thousand?

 

[SkyWriting]

If you can't specify the supposed "changes", then it is meaningless as a prediction.

It works for me.

 

[SkyWriting]

Let's try another question... according to your creation model, approx how old is the human species?

It's not mine and I have no idea.
All past events are a matter of faith.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I thought I had read that "the Cambrian Explosion, which produced the first fossils of almost all major categories of animals living today." would qualify as filling my prediction.

Ah, OK - so the 'kinds' you referred to are the primitive sea creatures of the Cambrian?

Why not go all the way back to the LUCA?

 

[SkyWriting]

Ah, OK - so the 'kinds' you referred to are the creatures of the Cambrian?

They could be. Kinds has nothing to do with classification. It has to do with parents and offspring.
I'm just avoiding the label of species because it has a dozen or so definitions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Kinds has nothing to do with classification. It has to do with parents and offspring.

OK; what, specifically, has it to do with parents and offspring?

I'm just avoiding the label of species because it has a dozen or so definitions.

And 'kinds' doesn't ?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's not mine

Ok, not "your" model. I'll rephrase into "the creation model you adhere to".

and I have no idea.

So what DO you have an idea about?
Perhaps I'll rephrase my question to be more in line with your vague predictions:
Which species should be the same age as homo sapiens, according to the creation model you adhere to?

Were humans part of the same creation wave as dino's?
Were humans created last, making them the youngest species?

Can you say anything helpfull here?

All past events are a matter of faith.

I've demonstrated countless times to you that this is nonsense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They could be.

If that's the case, then all extant species are in fact 540 million years old?

Kinds has nothing to do with classification.

That's certainly correct.

It has to do with parents and offspring.

How so?

I'm just avoiding the label of species because it has a dozen or so definitions.

Better a dozen definitions then no definition at all, as is the case with the word "kind".
But you are very welcome to post your definition here. Because to be honest, when you say "kind", I have no idea what you are talking about.

I've been reading over it because I felt it would have been a distraction from the actual points being discussed. But since you bring it up and insist literally on not using the word "species" because of it having multiple definitions depending on context...

Now you need to define what you mean by "kind", so that we at least know what exactly you are refering to when you use that word.

I won't start quibling about the definition. It just needs to be clear what exactly you mean by that word. Otherwise, we'll end up talking past eachother even more then usual. And that won't be very productive.

 

[Jimmy D]

I thought I had read that "the Cambrian Explosion, which produced the first fossils of almost all major categories of animals living today." would qualify as filling my prediction.

What has your link got to do with what you've typed? Did you link the wrong page?

 

[SkyWriting]

What has your link got to do with what you've typed? Did you link the wrong page?

The quote is from the first paragraph in the link.

 

[SkyWriting]

It has to do with parents and offspring.

How so?

"After their own Kind"

Means the children are similar to their parents,
or "dogs do not come from chickens."

 

[SkyWriting]

Ok, not "your" model. I'll rephrase into "the creation model you adhere to".

It's not the model I adhere to. I am just providing support for it as requested.
I am no longer a supporter of the YEC model. But after decades being one, some of the arguments still hold up. I gave 5 of the best ones.

 

[SkyWriting]

OK; what, specifically, has it to do with parents and offspring?


And 'kinds' doesn't ?

"After their own Kind" means the offspring take after their parents
and don't look like other parents.

 

[SkyWriting]

So again here, we have only a very vague "prediction".

If you can't say which animals exactly are older and for what reason, and how much older, then what is your prediction about, really?

As a non-creationist evolution acceptor, I fully expect that certain dates will change in the future as more data comes in. So that does not give any special credence to creationism. At all.

It's a shame you don't approve of the predictive powers.
I predict you will dislike each one I list and claim they
are all inadequate. This response is very predictable.