Creation predictions

[SkyWriting]

@DogmaHunter

4. It will become more and more obvious that nothing is random.

There is nothing random in the world and this will bring down the evolution model to it's knees.
It will be shown to have been built on the false model of random variation even though no
randomness has ever existed in nature.

The stepping stone to this is the concept of "directed randomness" which will also be shown
to be false. There has never been anything random in biology.

 

[SkyWriting]

@DogmaHunter

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

Any evolution series of any creatures transforming
will be threatened by the discovery of both species
living during the same time frame.

Just as Neanderthals were found to not be a step
in modern man.

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

 

[AV1611VET]

There has never been anything random in biology.

No argument there.

It takes a scientist to set a killer bee next to an open window and create a legacy of death.

 

[SkyWriting]

No argument there.

It takes a scientist to set a killer bee next to an open window and create a legacy of death.

Some scientists will suffer death by killer bees and that is very sad for their families.
We pray for them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some scientists will suffer death by killer bees and that is very sad for their families.
We pray for them.

Yes indeed!

Most aren't playing with a full deck.

 

[Jimmy D]

The quote is from the first paragraph in the link.

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

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

OK - if that's what 'kind' means, it's just stating that offspring inherit their parent's heritable traits. That's consistent with evolution.

You could pick any parents, from the LUSRCA (Last Universal Sexually Reproducing Common Ancestor) to a contemporary organism and that would be true (for sexually reproducing organisms).

If all sexually reproducing parents are 'kinds', then it's obviously false that they were all created at the same time.

Maybe you could clarify?

 

[Aman777]

OK - if that's what 'kind' means, it's just stating that offspring inherit their parent's heritable traits. That's consistent with evolution.

You could pick any parents, from the LUSRCA (Last Universal Sexually Reproducing Common Ancestor) to a contemporary organism and that would be true (for sexually reproducing organisms).

If all sexually reproducing parents are 'kinds', then it's obviously false that they were all created at the same time.

Maybe you could clarify?

There are two kinds. His kind is the kind Jesus made and they are all temporary creatures since they are subject to death. Their kind is the kind the Trinity "creates" eternally, showing that they will be in Heaven.

Living creatures are made so that they can reproduce within His kind, because their common ancestor was made by the Hands of Jesus. That is the way God keeps each of His kinds from developing into Frankenstein monsters. Amen?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Any evolution series of any creatures transforming will be threatened by the discovery of both species living during the same time frame.

That isn't a problem in evolution - it's a common form of speciation, that part of a population of a species becomes isolated in a slightly different environment and different selection pressures result in it becoming sufficiently different from the original population to be a new species, while the original population in the original environment remains relatively unchanged.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Perhaps a concrete, real-world example will help creationists understand what the OP is asking for:

Back in the late 90's Neil Shubin, a graduate student in paleontology at the University of Chicago, along with his professor sought to find a gap in the fossil record with the intention of filling it. They found this gap between 380 and 363 million years where we have lobe-finned fish in older rocks and tetrapods in younger rocks. If evolutionary theory were correct, based on current observations that suggested tetrapods and lobe-finned share a common ancestor then they should be able to find transitional fossils of this common ancestor in rocks in that age range.

The next step was to figure out where they could find rocks of that age and, since they were looking for something that likely lived in shallows where it could go on land as well as water, they needed rocks of that specific type and age and where they were exposed to the surface. Those types of rock are often shales which usually hold oil and coal. So, they consulted Shell Oil geology maps for rocks of that type and age. They found them in Canada in an area of Devonian rocks called Bird Quarry just a few miles below the arctic circle. So they went digging. There were expeditions in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008. It was on the 2004 expedition that they actually found the first specimens of what they were looking for:

Meet Tiktaalik roseae

So, here we have a spectacular example of a prediction of evolutionary theory, based on currect observations that was tested and passed in spectacular fashion. And not only of evolutionary theory, but also of geologic and palaeontologic assumptions as well regarding the age of rocks and the tree of life.

Where are the examples of Creationism's Tiktaalik?

 

[SkyWriting]

That isn't a problem in evolution - it's a common form of speciation, that part of a population of a species becomes isolated in a slightly different environment and different selection pressures result in it becoming sufficiently different from the original population to be a new species, while the original population in the original environment remains relatively unchanged.

I never said it was a problem. I said that it would be
a prediction for Creation believers.

 

[SkyWriting]

OK - if that's what 'kind' means, it's just stating that offspring inherit their parent's heritable traits. That's consistent with evolution.
You could pick any parents, from the LUSRCA (Last Universal Sexually Reproducing Common Ancestor) to a contemporary organism and that would be true (for sexually reproducing organisms).
If all sexually reproducing parents are 'kinds', then it's obviously false that they were all created at the same time.Maybe you could clarify?

Sure, I'll clarify.
This thread has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

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

Hopefully you'll recall this incident when criticizing others for being blind to your truth.
Watch the TV series "Brain Games" and you learn how narrow focused we all are by nature.

 

[Kylie]

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.

And I said it is irrelevant. You have not shown that all life forms can date back to billions of years ago when life first appeared. For the vast majority of life forms, you have not come anywhere close.

 

[Kylie]

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.

Dunno where the author of that article got that idea from (note that the claim was NOT made by one of the scientists, so I suspect it is sloppy journalism). They never define what they mean by "category". But there are plenty of groups which did not appear until long AFTER the Cambrian explosion. Such as birds, reptiles and mammals. They are, I think, quite agreed on as "major categories" of animals, and yet they did not appear until long after the Cambrian explosion.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

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

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. It's so obvious and accepted that they forget that they are making these predictions all the time, and having success all the time. They don't even notice that they are wet.

This is why Creationism is useless. 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.

If the same thing happened with an evolutionary model, the theory would be disproven.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

There are two kinds. His kind is the kind Jesus made and they are all temporary creatures since they are subject to death. Their kind is the kind the Trinity "creates" eternally, showing that they will be in Heaven.

Living creatures are made so that they can reproduce within His kind, because their common ancestor was made by the Hands of Jesus. That is the way God keeps each of His kinds from developing into Frankenstein monsters. Amen?

Oh, still on with these fanciful reinterpretations of the KJV?

-_-

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I never said it was a problem. I said that it would be a prediction for Creation believers.

'Threatened' makes it sound like a problem, but meh; it's not a distinguishing prediction of the Creation hypothesis.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sure, I'll clarify.
This thread has nothing to do with evolution.

Perhaps (there's an argument to make that Creation predictions that don't distinguish it from evolution are uninteresting).

But again, if all sexually reproducing parents are 'kinds', then it's obviously false that they were all created at the same time. So that claim would appear to be false.

 

[SkyWriting]

Perhaps (there's an argument to make that Creation predictions that don't distinguish it from evolution are uninteresting).
But again, if all sexually reproducing parents are 'kinds', then it's obviously false that they were all created at the same time. So that claim would appear to be false.

"Obvious" is about as far from data, evidence, and logic as you can get.
You must be working hard to say nothing.