Would Anyone Care To Defend The Creation Model?

[The Cadet]

Here's something that most people don't understand. A theory which is presented with evidence that doesn't fit the model is typically not immediately discarded. Rather, so long as it continues to provide insight into the available evidence, it is maintained until an alternative comes around which does account for all available evidence. A classic example of this was Newtonian physics: the perehelion of mercury's procession was known not to fit into the Newtonian paradigm for at least half a century before General Relativity was shown to be a more accurate paradigm.

So with that in mind, what is the paradigm creationists intend to replace evolution via natural selection with? What natural mechanisms are behind it? What predictions can we make as a result of it, and what testable hypotheses can be put forward as a result of those predictions? How do anti-evolutionists explain the diversification of life on earth?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Here's something that most people don't understand. A theory which is presented with evidence that doesn't fit the model is typically not immediately discarded. Rather, so long as it continues to provide insight into the available evidence, it is maintained until an alternative comes around which does account for all available evidence. A classic example of this was Newtonian physics: the perehelion of mercury's procession was known not to fit into the Newtonian paradigm for at least half a century before General Relativity was shown to be a more accurate paradigm.

So with that in mind, what is the paradigm creationists intend to replace evolution via natural selection with? What natural mechanisms are behind it? What predictions can we make as a result of it, and what testable hypotheses can be put forward as a result of those predictions? How do anti-evolutionists explain the diversification of life on earth?

 

[crjmurray]

Here's something that most people don't understand. A theory which is presented with evidence that doesn't fit the model is typically not immediately discarded. Rather, so long as it continues to provide insight into the available evidence, it is maintained until an alternative comes around which does account for all available evidence. A classic example of this was Newtonian physics: the perehelion of mercury's procession was known not to fit into the Newtonian paradigm for at least half a century before General Relativity was shown to be a more accurate paradigm.

So with that in mind, what is the paradigm creationists intend to replace evolution via natural selection with? What natural mechanisms are behind it? What predictions can we make as a result of it, and what testable hypotheses can be put forward as a result of those predictions? How do anti-evolutionists explain the diversification of life on earth?

I'm curious about this as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's something that most people don't understand. A theory which is presented with evidence that doesn't fit the model is typically not immediately discarded. Rather, so long as it continues to provide insight into the available evidence, it is maintained until an alternative comes around which does account for all available evidence.

I wasn't aware creationism is a theory.

So with that in mind, what is the paradigm creationists intend to replace evolution via natural selection with?

The paradigm that existed before 'evolution via natural selection' ever came out, viz., creationism.

What natural mechanisms are behind it?

None.

What predictions can we make as a result of it,

None.

... and what testable hypotheses can be put forward as a result of those predictions?

None.

How do anti-evolutionists explain the diversification of life on earth?

Creationism.

 

[The Cadet]

...Anyone else want to take a whack?

 

[juvenissun]

Here's something that most people don't understand. A theory which is presented with evidence that doesn't fit the model is typically not immediately discarded. Rather, so long as it continues to provide insight into the available evidence, it is maintained until an alternative comes around which does account for all available evidence. A classic example of this was Newtonian physics: the perehelion of mercury's procession was known not to fit into the Newtonian paradigm for at least half a century before General Relativity was shown to be a more accurate paradigm.

So with that in mind, what is the paradigm creationists intend to replace evolution via natural selection with? What natural mechanisms are behind it? What predictions can we make as a result of it, and what testable hypotheses can be put forward as a result of those predictions? How do anti-evolutionists explain the diversification of life on earth?

All these troubles are not needed. The only thing a creationist needs to do is to show that ANY and EVERY example of evolution has unanswered question. That is enough to show that creation is true.

 

[crjmurray]

All these troubles are not needed. The only thing a creationist needs to do is to show that ANY and EVERY example of evolution has unanswered question. That is enough to show that creation is true.

No it is not.....

 

[Split Rock]

All these troubles are not needed. The only thing a creationist needs to do is to show that ANY and EVERY example of evolution has unanswered question. That is enough to show that creation is true.

But creationism doesn't get that type of scrutiny from you... does it? Kind of like stacking the deck, eh?

 

[The Cadet]

All these troubles are not needed. The only thing a creationist needs to do is to show that ANY and EVERY example of evolution has unanswered question. That is enough to show that creation is true.

That's not even a coherent sentence, man, let alone a coherent thought. Try again.

 

[juvenissun]

But creationism doesn't get that type of scrutiny from you... does it? Kind of like stacking the deck, eh?

Sure it does. If creationism does not make sense, nobody will believe it. For example, you will not.

 

[juvenissun]

That's not even a coherent sentence, man, let alone a coherent thought. Try again.

It is very logic and cohesive. You simply can't get it.

 

[The Cadet]

It is very logic and cohesive. You simply can't get it.

Let me see if I understand it correctly... "Creationism is true because evolution has unanswered questions"? Is that what you were trying to say?

 

[juvenissun]

Let me see if I understand it correctly... "Creationism is true because evolution has unanswered questions"? Is that what you were trying to say?

Exactly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly.

Hey, Juve, just out of curiosity, does sacred geology address cosmic evolution?

 

[The Cadet]

Exactly.

But that's a complete non-sequitur. The veracity of evolution has nothing to do with how true creation is. Even if every single thing we knew about the past was proven wrong tomorrow, the creation model would still need to provide evidence of its accuracy. What's more, you're not even positing that it's false, merely that it hasn't answered every question, which makes the statement even more ludicrous.

Or, alternatively, go to this thread and demonstrate the logical pathway:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...wrong-to-therefore-god.7890879/#post-68045841

 

[juvenissun]

He, Juve, just out of curiosity, does sacred geology address cosmic evolution?

No. It is not a geology business outside the earth. Sorry.
(Take it one step back. Geology now does, at least temporarily, include other celestial bodies in the solar system)

 

[juvenissun]

But that's a complete non-sequitur. The veracity of evolution has nothing to do with how true creation is. Even if every single thing we knew about the past was proven wrong tomorrow, the creation model would still need to provide evidence of its accuracy. What's more, you're not even positing that it's false, merely that it hasn't answered every question, which makes the statement even more ludicrous.

Or, alternatively, go to this thread and demonstrate the logical pathway:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...wrong-to-therefore-god.7890879/#post-68045841

Evolution is a powerful model. If it were true, then it would be applied to anywhere, anytime in this universe or other universes. If the evolution is wrong, then what else (except the creation) could explain the variation (or origin) of life? There is NONE!.

So, if evolution is wrong, then there is no other choice but creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. It is not a geology business outside the earth. Sorry.
(Take it one step back. Geology now does, at least temporarily, include other celestial bodies in the solar system)

Alrighty, thank you.

(And I need to proofread my posts, don't I? )

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Here's something that most people don't understand. A theory which is presented with evidence that doesn't fit the model is typically not immediately discarded. Rather, so long as it continues to provide insight into the available evidence, it is maintained until an alternative comes around which does account for all available evidence. A classic example of this was Newtonian physics: the perehelion of mercury's procession was known not to fit into the Newtonian paradigm for at least half a century before General Relativity was shown to be a more accurate paradigm.

So with that in mind, what is the paradigm creationists intend to replace evolution via natural selection with? What natural mechanisms are behind it? What predictions can we make as a result of it, and what testable hypotheses can be put forward as a result of those predictions? How do anti-evolutionists explain the diversification of life on earth?

First, let's understand that Newton's laws and electrodynamics explains the precession of Mercury just fine without using Relativity at all. It is irrelevant to the outcome.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/mercury/index.html

So your implications of trying to tie the two together are strawmen - since the very theory you claim is replaced always explained it anyways, with a higher accuracy.

So with that in mind - let's take a look.

With exactly what you observe. Breed mating with breed producing a new breed within the species without any mutation needed at all. Nor missing links, nor gaps. Nor excuses about the fossil record. Just you accept how things actually reproduce. Just you accept that when chromosomes combine they do so in different recessive or dominant states of genes. The Husky nor the Mastiff does not evolve through mutation into the Chinook. So when are you going to give up fantasy in favor of real life and start applying what you know occurs in real life to the fossil record?

 

[crjmurray]

First, let's understand that Newton's laws and electrodynamics explains the precession of Mercury just fine without using Relativity at all. It is irrelevant to the outcome.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/mercury/index.html

So your implications of trying to tie the two together are strawmen - since the very theory you claim is replaced always explained it anyways, with a higher accuracy.

So with that in mind - let's take a look.

With exactly what you observe. Breed mating with breed producing a new breed within the species without any mutation needed at all. Nor missing links, nor gaps. Nor excuses about the fossil record. Just you accept how things actually reproduce. Just you accept that when chromosomes combine they do so in different recessive or dominant states of genes. The Husky does not evolve through mutation into the Chinook. So when are you going to give up fantasy in favor of real life and start applying what you know occurs in real life to the fossil record?

He asked you to defend the creation model. Explain how it works, describe it in detail etc. Not pull out a list of pratts. Now, this thread is about creationism. Not evolution. You need to support creationism not flail impotently at evolution. Creeeaaaaationism. Stick with that.