Creation predictions

[Bugeyedcreepy]

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.

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.

Oh, well that's easy then - all of the evidence shows it to be "By accident". That said, I certainly don't agree with your morality non-applicability though, that's demonstrably false.

 

[Almost there]

That's a broad definition... so the wind used to sail a yacht is "by accident"?

Nope. The sail was made on purpose, for a purpose, by the designer and builder of the sailboat.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

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.

Actually, there's a falsifiability test for Creation, isn't there? This'll be easy. Tell me why I should be moral? Be descriptive and thorough.

Nope. The sail was made on purpose, for a purpose, by the designer and builder of the sailboat.

No, the wind, Not the sail on the yacht, but the point is moot, you explained yourself already... I'm still interested in my perpetual life idea though, how do you categorize that since it would be neither created, nor an accident? kinda like your God.

 

[Almost there]

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

One of my favorite things to do is take a belief and dissect it down to its core implications. Don't condemn me for what I discover.

The good news is that the Romans 2 teaches: Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

So, the good news is that even atheists have the law, though they refuse to accept its source. It's part of the nature of man, given by God. Of course, if you are a devout atheist, you can use your intellect to over-ride your pre-programming, as the main character in "The Vanishing" did.

I do not worship my human intellect and see it as woefully inadequate to compete with God.

 

[Almost there]

Oh, well that's easy then - all of the evidence shows it to be "By accident". That said, I certainly don't agree with your morality non-applicability though, that's demonstrably false.

If it happened by accident, from where does one acquire morals, and why should they be trusted?

 

[Almost there]

Actually, there's a falsifiability test for Creation, isn't there? This'll be easy. Tell me why I should be moral? Be descriptive and thorough.

Exactly! It is because your father teaches you to be moral, and being moral makes you and everyone around you filled with much more joy.

One example: The difference between making love to your wife with a clear conscience vs making love to her while also having an affair. Which is a more pleasurable experience? Why?

No, the wind, Not the sail on the yacht, but the point is moot, you explained yourself already... I'm still interested in my perpetual life idea though, how do you categorize that since it would be neither created, nor an accident? kinda like your God.

Wind isn't life. I'm talking about life.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

If it happened by accident, from where does one acquire morals, and why should they be trusted?

We get our morals from a rational assessment of the consequences of our actions on the people around us, especially for those dear to us. I have a reasonable expectation that my treatment of others will be reflected in their treatment of me. If I'm a brutal dictator, then I'll be hated and my life will come to a short and abrupt end if I'm lucky. If I help people I don't know in my community, then my community is more likely to return the favour, and not just for me, but for those I love too.

Exactly! It is because your father teaches you to be moral, and being moral makes you and everyone around you filled with much more joy.

One example: The difference between making love to your wife with a clear conscience vs making love to her while also having an affair. Which is a more pleasurable experience? Why?

Obviously the first - because I know how it'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot. I'd also hate to have put her in that situation and I'm not certain I could ever make it up to her if I did such a mean thing to her.

...and "Exactly!" what?? My father was only one of many people who helped me build a moral framework to live by - not sure why you centered on this one and only figure? How about my mother, my siblings, other relatives, my social circle, my community, etc.? My morals most certainly aren't dictated from on high if that's what you're angling at.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question because surely, these aren't the only reasons I should have morals? that's not a big list so I imagine you haven't dug very far... Why (else) do you think I should have morals? (I'm going somewhere with this...)

Wind isn't life. I'm talking about life.

Well then, my perpetual life idea, you haven't answered my perpetual life idea. Like I said, it'd be identical to your God - so perhaps just tell us which of these only two mutually exclusive options your God has to be categorised in - is he "created" or "an accident of nature"?

 

[Speedwell]

If it happened by accident, from where does one acquire morals, and why should they be trusted?

Trusted for what?

 

[Aman777]

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 -

Fish are not listed. Whales are not fish, every living creature that moves is not a fish. At the end of the verse it speaks of birds too. IOW, Its every living creature that moves including whales and birds. That is what it's actually saying.

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?

God made the beasts of the Earth after HIS kind, or the kind which LORD God/Jesus made with His Own Hands. Gen 2:19 And cattle after THEIR kind or the kind which God created from water on the 5th Day, Gen 1:21 more than 4 Billion years in man's time, BEFORE L.U.C.A. appeared in the water on our planet. Everything Jesus made is subject to death, including you. The only creature not subject to death is one which has been born again by God the Trinity. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 John 14:16 Good Luck.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Fish are not listed. Whales are not fish, every living creature that moves is not a fish. At the end of the verse it speaks of birds too. IOW, Its every living creature that moves including whales and birds. That is what it's actually saying.

so fish weren't created then? How is it they exist?

God made the beasts of the Earth after HIS kind, or the kind which LORD God/Jesus made with His Own Hands. Gen 2:19 And cattle after THEIR kind or the kind which God created from water on the 5th Day, Gen 1:21 more than 4 Billion years in man's time, BEFORE L.U.C.A. appeared in the water on our planet. Everything Jesus made is subject to death, including you. The only creature not subject to death is one which has been born again by God the Trinity. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 John 14:16

So, I still must be missing something, What's the significance of "His" and "Their" kind then? What you seem to be saying is that there's no real difference between them other than all of God(i.e. Trinity) made everything (which is only some) while a third of God made some others?? If God (Trinity) made everything, then isn't what Jesus makes on top of that redundant?

You're not making sense Aman. If as you say, God(Trinity) created everything, then Jesus created some more (which would logically mean God(Trinity) didn't create everything after all) - why does the bible even make the distinction between firstly everything, then birds, then land animals and cattle if there's no difference between where everything ends up?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

so fish weren't created then? How is it they exist?

So, I still must be missing something, What's the significance of "His" and "Their" kind then? What you seem to be saying is that there's no real difference between them other than all of God(i.e. Trinity) made everything (which is only some) while a third of God made some others?? If God (Trinity) made everything, then isn't what Jesus makes on top of that redundant?

You're not making sense Aman. If as you say, God(Trinity) created everything, then Jesus created some more (which would logically mean God(Trinity) didn't create everything after all) - why does the bible even make the distinction between firstly everything, then birds, then land animals and cattle if there's no difference between where everything ends up?

I've read through Aman's posts before. Be warned and steel yourself. You are about to stare into the abyss.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I've read through Aman's posts before. Be warned and steel yourself. You are about to stare into the abyss.

uh.... -_- yeah, I know all about it. He could drown in logical reason and evidence and still not acknowledge his illogical shortcomings... He just barrels on as if you weren't even there. it really is amazing, and perplexing.

 

[USincognito]

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.

I'm quite aware of what constitutes the scientific method. I'm constantly having to explain it to Creationists. My point still stands however. Making an observation and saying that observation will happen in the foreseeable future is not really a prediction. Take weather forecasting for example. Asserting it will be cold in Canada in January or hot in Texas in August isn't so much a prediction as taking known patterns and saying they will continue. Predicting that a particular weather pattern will bring particular weather to an area at a particular time is closer to a prediction, but it's still based on observations and simply projecting them forward.

On the other hand here are some actual scientific predictions made after observations related to evolution.
- Humans and chimpanzees have a different number of chromosomes (46 and 48 respectively) so it was predicted that we'd observe a chromosomal fusion in the human line. Sure enough after the genome projects were completed, we found that human chromosome 2 was a fusion of chimpanzee chromosome 2a and 2b.
- Neil Shubin, based on the fact that tetrapods are related to lobe finned fish predicted that we should find a "fishapod" in Devonian shallow sea sediment. Sure enough after four years of searching Shubin and his associates unearthed a fossil of Tiktaalik.
- Humans have four different hemoglobin genes which were predicted to be due to gene and genome duplication in ancestral species. Sure enough, analysis showed that whole genome duplication in an ancient species of jawless fish led to the variety of globin genes found in modern vertebrates including humans and a later homoglobin duplication gave us our four different hemoglobin genes.

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.

That's nice.

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.

Actually no one argues that "a single cell", whatever that means, was "accidentally formed". I don't even know that that means.

 

[Jimmy D]

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?

What theory? I was going to attempt to explain why your prediction isn't really a prediction of creationism but I see USincognito has beaten me to it.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Actually no one argues that "a single cell", whatever that means, was "accidentally formed". I don't even know that that means.

As he explained earlier, he means literally everything that wasn't designed. It kinda makes it a useless and misleading term in a conversation like this, because even gravity is an accident under his definition (unless like him, you think a designer designed it all).

 

[Almost there]

What theory? I was going to attempt to explain why your prediction isn't really a prediction of creationism but I see USincognito has beaten me to it.

I normally have images off, but they're on today. Love your avatar!

 

[Almost there]

As he explained earlier, he means literally everything that wasn't designed. It kinda makes it a useless and misleading term in a conversation like this, because even gravity is an accident under his definition (unless like him, you think a designer designed it all).

I think it is possible that gravity pushes and that gravity is God himself actively participating in creation. When he lets go, poof. I just need to come up with a controlled test to prove my theory, but God hasn't answered any of my emails yet.

 

[Almost there]

I'm quite aware of what constitutes the scientific method. I'm constantly having to explain it to Creationists. My point still stands however. Making an observation and saying that observation will happen in the foreseeable future is not really a prediction.

You're playing with plain language. Usually when someone does that it is to protect their ox from being gored. It also reminds me of the arguments I used to have with people on this subject way back in the 70's. It pretty much always ended up being an argument about the definition of "theory" vs "Hypothesis".

But back to your post, are you seriously saying that observing the sun setting in the west for 64 years and then saying that it will do the same thing tomorrow is not making a prediction? Sure, it's an obvious one and few would disagree, nor would anyone take bets that I was wrong, but it is, at the end of the day, a prediction.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I think it is possible that gravity pushes and that gravity is God himself actively participating in creation. When he lets go, poof. I just need to come up with a controlled test to prove my theory, but God hasn't answered any of my emails yet.

lol! Good one!

So then, if God is the reason for Gravity, would that mean something like Mars could then come about naturally (i.e. not designed specifically, but under the power of Gravity acting on rocks)? Would that fall under "Design" or "By accident", and could you explain why?

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is nothing random in the world and this will bring down the evolution model to it's knees.

In what sense is nothing "random"?

In the sense that the laws of nature are fundamentally deterministic and that IF one would be able to know the complete state of things (including where every single particle is at any given time), one would theoretically be able to accuratly predict whatever will happen next with whatever object or thing or what-have-you?
In that sense?

I might agree to that. In the sense that if I throw 10 dice and know exactly what the starting positions of each individual dice is, the angle at which they are thrown, the force with wich they are thrown, the resistance of the atmosphere, the materials they are made from, the materials of the surface they are thrown on, etc etc etc etc.... then we could theoretically calculate exactly the path each of the dice would take and accurately predict the outcome.

In that sense, I might agree.

However, since the mere thought of having all this information - especially if we don't find ourselves in extremely controlled conditions - is rather ridiculous, I'll continue to call a dice throw to be "random" for all practical intents and purposes.

Thoughts?
Or were you talking about something completely different?

It will be shown to have been built on the false model of random variation even though no
randomness has ever existed in nature.

Here's a fact: every human newborn has an average of some 50 mutations in his/her DNA.
Are you saying that none of these mutations are random?

What are they, if not random?
Does your "designer" or "god" or "creator" pre-determine which mutations will happen in which individuals?

There has never been anything random in biology.

So all those birth defects and untold suffering caused by harmfull mutations, were MEANT/destined to happen?

Did the "creator" decide that he'll give some poor kid down syndrom on purpose?