What predictions does Creationism make? (a fundamental requirement in science class)

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

they indicate that Earth developed water around 4.3 to 4.4 billion years ago....much earlier than "quite awhile afterwards"...

Oh. I see you think that 1 to 2 hundred million years is less than "quite a while." I have a different interpretation.

As a result, "we know there was liquid water at some point before 4.4 billion years ago," Peck said. Liquid water had to collect somewhere, raising the possibility of oceans, he added.

.
science.nasa.gov...

So, there might have been oceans 150 million years after the Earth formed. Was the Earth also dark and formless at the time? Like the various versions of Genesis say? It doesn't seem to say, first the Earth formed then there were oceans.
www.biblestudytools.com...

And didn't light show up after the formless Earth with it's waters? Does science back that up?

a reply to: Ghost147

Well you must admit, there are certain passages that ccan be
catagorized as scientific in content, whether or not they are
correct? But I'm not one to make the claim that Creation should
be required in science class. Never would. The subject is
difficult enough without all that. Therefore your heading makes
as much sense to me as my altered version.

a reply to: Phage

Science backs up earth being dark..because the thick atmosphere...@

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Science backs up earth being dark..because the thick atmosphere

The atmosphere was thick? Thick enough to block sunlight? Got a citation for that? Where did all that atmosphere go?

I guess Earth wasn't spinning for a while either, because God made day and night after he made light. Right? That sounds more like ignorance talking. Ignorance that the Earth spins.

a reply to: Phage

I know you are questioning that mainstream creationist view, however I was wondering if the Bible actually expands on what happened to the creation after humans were expelled from Heaven?

In the first book, I think, mankind is expelled from Heaven and everything changes. They have to wear clothes and work to stave of death. Then Angels come down to teach them all sorts of ways of manipulating the world including combining different kinds of animals. Even before all of that it says that humans were created last and from the clay, but does that really exclude a common ancestry with all the other animals?

This whole time the book says that their is a "veil" separating the corrupt and decaying "worldly" things and Heaven.

So, have you come across any creationist material which addresses this? I can't possibly see how their interpretation could even stand up to their own book.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

In the first book, I think, mankind is expelled from Heaven and everything changes.

No. Man was never in heaven.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Science backs up earth being dark..because the thick atmosphere

The atmosphere was thick? Thick enough to block sunlight? Got a citation for that? Where did all that atmosphere go?

I guess Earth wasn't spinning for a while either, because God made day and night after he made light. Right? That sounds more like ignorance talking. Ignorance that the Earth spins.

Maybe they actually meant NO atmosphere, like the moon. That way it would not fit the day and night cycle observed today. Light would technically exist in this scenario too.

-FBB

a reply to: Phage

Yes the atmosphere was thick...as far as th e earth not spinning...like I said previously...some predictions have been falsified while others have been verified

Honestly, all that I can really gather from this topic is that science is willing to cede that creationism can't be refuted, and that this is somehow against the rules. Chalk one up for the good guys, it doesn't happen nearly enough!

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Yes the atmosphere was thick..

No citation?
Where did all that thick atmosphere go?

some predictions have been falsified while others have been verified

None have been verified.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Maybe they actually meant NO atmosphere, like the moon. That way it would not fit the day and night cycle observed today.

What does an atmosphere have to do with day and night?
If there were no atmosphere there could be no oceans.

a reply to: Phage

Where it went? F if I know...I'm not the expert on that matter...as far as a citation goes...I was on my mobile and didn't have much time...but here you go...

When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had almost no atmosphere. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today’s atmosphere (you do know what that implies right?)
source

None have been verified according to who? I already went over how biology and anatomy and physiology have confirmed predictions made by Genesis 3:19...

A2D

originally posted by: onthedownlow
Honestly, all that I can really gather from this topic is that science is willing to cede that creationism can't be refuted, and that this is somehow against the rules. Chalk one up for the good guys, it doesn't happen nearly enough!

it is against the rules of scientific method, thus it is unscientific.
it is not possible to put together a logical, reasonable creationist hypothesis that can be used to make testable predictions, using the genesis creation myth. it is a fallacy to state that creationism is scientific in any way.

i have tried to write a hypothesis from a creationist perspective, but all i end up with is this:
observation : there is varied life on planet earth.
hypothesis : a divine creator created them.
experiment : ummm...Goddidit???????????????????

to reiterate once again for those who do not yet understand..

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it.

If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.

A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic – i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles – cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit.

A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.

A scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Those ideas that survive the test of time, that pass every test to which they are subjected, become generally accepted knowledge and are added to the scientific canon. Nevertheless, no theory is ever considered to be proven beyond any further possibility of doubt, since there’s always the chance that that one startling bit of evidence might turn up tomorrow. In short, doing science means always accepting the possibility of error, and always being willing to test your ideas and accept the results whatever they may be.

This, more than anything else, is the one thing creationists refuse to do. Creationism starts with the Bible and goes nowhere. Most major creationist institutions, despite annual budgets in the millions of dollars, do not fund or perform any original scientific research at all. Indeed, such research would be redundant as far as creationists are concerned; they are already so convinced of the correctness of their conclusions that they see no need to test them.

The moment you say, “I know I’m right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise”, you are no longer doing science.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Phage
None have been verified according to who? I already went over how biology and anatomy and physiology have confirmed predictions made by Genesis 3:19...
A2D

Genesis does not and can not make scientific predictions. It does not use scientific terminology or objective empirical examples, and it is not possible to verify that it is the perfect inerrant word of the Lord. Besides, the Bible itself makes no direct claim to be inerrant or infallible.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

as far as a citation goes

It doesn't say the atmosphere was thicker. It doesn't say the Earth was dark, it says that it was shielded from UV radiation.

The researchers determined the haze of hydrocarbon aerosols was probably made up of fluffy, microscopic particles shaped somewhat like cottonwood tree seeds that would have blocked UV but allowed visible light through to Earth's surface, Wolf said.

www.colorado.edu...

Visible light. There was no water when the Earth was "formless.". There was no ocean when there was no sunlight (or star light, for that matter).

I already went over how biology and anatomy and physiology have confirmed predictions made by Genesis

No. You babbled about how everything in the galaxy is made of the same stuff. And I went over how you were wrong that it supported the Bible.

originally posted by: spygeek

Genesis does not and can not make scientific predictions. it does not use scientific terminology, or empirical examples.

This is where I humbly disagree. You can take the information provided in Genesis and come to conclusions....and then you can test those conclusions scientifically....

A2D

a reply to: Phage

Actually you are the one that babbled about how everything in the galaxy is made of the same stuff....Perhaps your memory is fading old friend...

No water? Sorry but every model I've run across has had the early atmosphere literally DOMINATED by water vapor which would rain out as the temperature cooled and form the oceans....

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Actually you are the one that babbled about how everything in the galaxy is made of the same stuff

Right. You talked only about dirt. I pointed out that everything in the galaxy is made of the same stuff.
You babbled about it backing up the Bible.

Sorry but every model I've run across has had the early atmosphere literally DOMINATED by water vapor which would rain out as the temperature cooled and form the oceans....

Yes. No oceans when the Earth was "formless."

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree

originally posted by: spygeek

Genesis does not and can not make scientific predictions. it does not use scientific terminology, or empirical examples.

This is where I humbly disagree. You can take the information provided in Genesis and come to conclusions....and then you can test those conclusions scientifically....
A2D

i would appreciate you sharing which conclusions can be tested and in what way they infer that creationism is correct.

a reply to: spygeek

step back and take a neutral viewpoint for a moment... can't you appreciate the hypocrisy?

a reply to: randyvs

What predictions does Atheism make?

I love how theists try to attribute so much to atheism! It's constant source of entertainment!

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). That's it. We have zero doctrine we are all mandated to adhere to! In fact, an atheist can even fully deny science! It would be foolish, but there is nothing stoping that person from doing so and still being called an atheist.

Atheism makes no predictions, Randy. You attribute way too much to this. It's your kind that adhere to mandated texts. We don't.