Creation Scientists, please give me....

[Null-Geodesic]

one example of a prediction/hypothesis Creation Science has made that has been validated by experiment/observation?

I cannot think of a single example. Correct me if I'm wrong but are not all Creation Science arguments based upon after the fact apologetics and revisionism or attempts to poke holes in mainstream science. Where are the predictions of this so called science?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you talking about real Scientists that believe in Creation or Scientists that are studying Creation? Or are you talking about people who come here and defend Creation?

 

[Null-Geodesic]

I am talking about people who supposedly research in Creation Science. Who are the drivers behind the theory. What predictions are the making of the Universe that are to be investigaed by observation and/or experiment? What theories of theirs have made previous predictions and what experiments or observations validated these theories?

 

[Vance]

In other words, what puts the "science" in Creation Science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

First of all Creationism is not a theory. It is the process in which God created the universe. Genesis 1 predicts that there was a time when light separated from darkness. Further along it predicts that the sun and moon were created. It predicts that first life would be in the seas and then life would move to land. It predicts an order of that life. The experiments in Creation are the same as are being done in Science because Science is studying Creation.

 

[Null-Geodesic]

First of all Creationism is not a theory. It is the process in which God created the universe. Genesis 1 predicts that there was a time when light separated from darkness. Further along it predicts that the sun and moon were created. It predicts that first life would be in the seas and then life would move to land. It predicts an order of that life. The experiments in Creation are the same as are being done in Science because Science is studying Creation.

That is not prediction it is a narrative. Vance said it succintly, who put the science in Creation Science. That is the point. These Creationist groups like AIG and ICR claim to be scientific. Hence they are supposed to be forwarding scientific hypotheses which means they are to be in the experimental prediction business.

What are these predictions?
What previous predictions did they make that were validated?
What current predictions awaiting experiment and/or observation are there?

 

[HRE]

Oncedeceived, you know what he is talking about...

 

[Loudmouth]

First of all Creationism is not a theory. It is the process in which God created the universe. Genesis 1 predicts that there was a time when light separated from darkness. Further along it predicts that the sun and moon were created. It predicts that first life would be in the seas and then life would move to land. It predicts an order of that life. The experiments in Creation are the same as are being done in Science because Science is studying Creation.

I could do the same with evolution:

Evolution is not a theory, it is the process of how natural mechanisms create biodiversity. It predicts that species change over time.

However, this isn't good enough. If evolution happened, then certain things should be seen in the DNA of extant species and in the fossil record. It is the study of these aspects, and the predictions borne out of the theory of evolution, that makes up the SCIENCE portion of the theory. If creation happened as some people THEORIZE, then there should be evidence to back it up and predictions should be made as to the condition of the fossil record and the similiarities found in the DNA of living species. However, creationists (like yourself) refuse to test creationism and instead blindly assert that it happened. It would be like me asserting that UFO's were around since the beginning of time but refuse to give any evidence to support my view. You need more than a narrative of what the theory states and instead focus on what the theory proposes we should see in the natural world and what experiments would separate the theory of evolution from the theory of creation.

 

[Philosoft]

First of all Creationism is not a theory. It is the process in which God created the universe. Genesis 1 predicts that there was a time when light separated from darkness. Further along it predicts that the sun and moon were created. It predicts that first life would be in the seas and then life would move to land. It predicts an order of that life. The experiments in Creation are the same as are being done in Science because Science is studying Creation.

Actually Creationism is the theory. Creation is the thing being explained.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is not prediction it is a narrative. Vance said it succintly, who put the science in Creation Science. That is the point. These Creationist groups like AIG and ICR claim to be scientific. Hence they are supposed to be forwarding scientific hypotheses which means they are to be in the experimental prediction business.

It is a narrative that implies a certain order. This is what Creation predicts. We need to look at what the narrative says and see if it conflicts with what we know of nature.

I am not involved with AIG or ICR.

 

[Null-Geodesic]

No that is not a prediction. Do you know what the prefix pre means? What you are saying is a postdiction. Do you not see this? I am sorry and i dn't mean to be rude but you are being foolish by saying the Genesis order is a prediction of Creation Science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I could do the same with evolution:

Evolution is not a theory, it is the process of how natural mechanisms create biodiversity. It predicts that species change over time.

Isn't that what you do now?

However, this isn't good enough. If evolution happened, then certain things should be seen in the DNA of extant species and in the fossil record. It is the study of these aspects, and the predictions borne out of the theory of evolution, that makes up the SCIENCE portion of the theory. If creation happened as some people THEORIZE, then there should be evidence to back it up and predictions should be made as to the condition of the fossil record and the similiarities found in the DNA of living species.

I agree.

However, creationists (like yourself) refuse to test creationism and instead blindly assert that it happened.

I have tested it. I do not blindly assert anything.

It would be like me asserting that UFO's were around since the beginning of time but refuse to give any evidence to support my view. You need more than a narrative of what the theory states and instead focus on what the theory proposes we should see in the natural world and what experiments would separate the theory of evolution from the theory of creation

What I see in the natural world does not conflict with what the Bible says.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

It is a narrative that implies a certain order. This is what Creation predicts. We need to look at what the narrative says and see if it conflicts with what we know of nature.

I am not involved with AIG or ICR.

Are you coming up with your own version of the theory of creationism? The falsified one failed in its predictions. How does your narrative (not theory!) compare? Take the easy way out: narratives aren't expected to make predictions. They aren't even expected to be true!

 

[Oncedeceived]

No that is not a prediction. Do you know what the prefix pre means? What you are saying is a postdiction. Do you not see this? I am sorry and i dn't mean to be rude but you are being foolish by saying the Genesis order is a prediction of Creation Science.

You look at nature and make predictions on past or post criteria, is that postdiction?

IF we read the Genesis narrative of creation and it says that there was an order for life on this planet, then that should mean that if we look at the fossil record and nature anywhere it should not conflict. That is a prediction just as looking for DNA proof. Don't you understand that?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you coming up with your own version of the theory of creationism? The falsified one failed in its predictions. How does your narrative (not theory!) compare? Take the easy way out: narratives aren't expected to make predictions. They aren't even expected to be true!

NO, I am not really coming up with my own version of the theory.

I never take the easy way out.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

IF we read the Genesis narrative of creation and it says that there was an order for life on this planet, then that should mean that if we look at the fossil record and nature anywhere it should not conflict. That is a prediction just as looking for DNA proof. Don't you understand that?

I understand that. But nature, including the fossil record, provides evidence that points, inarguably, away from any creation-week scenario. Every species for which we have evidence, simply COULD NOT have existed within a YEC timeframe.

 

[Null-Geodesic]

Oncedeceived,

I don't think you understand what Creation Science is as espoused by the main organisations such as AIG and ICR. They not only utilise Scripture but they also claim to undertake scientific research and to apply science to the Creation. What you are doing is just giving me Genesis. I started this thread asking for what science Creationists have ever theorised and then tested not what apologetic or exegesis they have written.

i.e. Is there any science in Creation Science not is there any waffling, we all know they have that in spades.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I understand that. But nature, including the fossil record, provides evidence that points, inarguably, away from any creation-week scenario. Every species for which we have evidence, simply COULD NOT have existed within a YEC timeframe.

The Creation narrative doesn't say how old the universe is. Although, it does in later passages talk about time but possibilities exist that this is not a problem. YEC and the time line 13.7 billion years can co-exist.

As far as the species, they are in order with the fossil record. Excluding trees which again has some possiblity in interpretations.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedeceived,

I don't think you understand what Creation Science is as espoused by the main organisations such as AIG and ICR. They not only utilise Scripture but they also claim to undertake scientific research and to apply science to the Creation. What you are doing is just giving me Genesis. I started this thread asking for what science Creationists have ever theorised and then tested not what apologetic or exegesis they have written.

i.e. Is there any science in Creation Science not is there any waffling, we all know they have that in spades.

That is why I asked what you meant. I am sorry if you only wanted a support defense for AIG and ICR. I will bow out then.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

NO, I am not really coming up with my own version of the theory.

I never take the easy way out.

Ok. Your hypothesis is that Genesis is a narrative that implies order. Your next step, scientifically, should be to make predictions based on this hypothesis. What predictions do these narrative implications make? Do they agree with nature? If not, what does it mean?