People keep saying that creationism is not a viable theory because it cannot make predictions. I have to disagree with that. I will now make two predictions based on the creationism theory. So far they have been correct.
1. We will not find microscopic life or any sort of incomplete ecosystem on other planets. (Not counting from earthly contamination.)
2. Life will not be able to be formed artificially from basic components.
Life on mars has been shown to be impossible. This was predicted by my theory. I have to think of some more, but those are the main two that affect the origin debate. I know some will say it will take time for those to be shown to be true, but I have no problem waiting. I will respond to answers a little but later. I have to go to lab.
2007-01-30 06:32:45 · 8 answers · asked by The GMC 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Ok thanks for the responses I will now do my best to address all of them.
Ok I will say that if any of my predictions are wrong it would seriously affect my outlook on scripture. I would not scrap anything, but I would need to do some more investigating on what I believe.
Ralfcoder that isn't evidence of anything. It is simply speculating on what could have been. They won't know for sure until they check, and I know if they landed a probe on the ice they still wouldn't find anything.
Gebobs the reason I say #1 is not because I think we are the one and only place of life, but because of what I believe about God. He is a God of order and structure. Nature itself(his creation) reveals His character. If he created life it would be a fully formed ecosystem like earth, although possibly different in many ways. It wouldn't be just be a bacteria colony left on its own to evolve into something wonderful.
Cont...
2007-01-30 10:41:33 · update #1
Although some see it possible for man to create life artificially sometime in the future, I do not see this happening. Even if you could take every part of a cell necessary for function, you could not put them together. Life is more than the sum of its parts. My beliefs are that none can create life but God. You can make tiny little organic machines, but they will always be distinguishable from living organisms. I know I tread on dangerous ground when I say "always" in reference to science. and
you might say "we can't do that now, but just wait..." But that is exactly my prediction. We will be waiting and waiting and it will never happen.
Jonmcn49 I am trying my best to understand your illustration. Are you calling life and cells equivalent to tooth-fairies? I don't see how they equate. Also I suppose you could say that I am hypothesizing about what is NOT, but I think it is valid if someone is asserting something to be true about science, with nothing but speculation.
2007-01-30 11:18:42 · update #2
You are not predicting what will be from your so called " theory ", but what is not. In your spirit.
1. We will not find any evidence that supports the Santa Clause hypothesis.
2.We will not be able to form tooth faeries from artificial ingredients.
Go back to the " drawing board ', creationists, as your logic is pitiful.
PS It is no wonder that you could not understand my simple analogy. You are in logical fallacy; " begging the question ", in the true sense. You premise presupposes a conclusion!! If you do not see this, you are truly delusional.
2007-01-30 06:55:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
With regards to #1, this is a rather spurious claim. First of all, creationism makes no such claim. If God can create life on Earth, he sure as heck can create it elsewhere.
Secondly, claiming that a prediction is supported based upon the incomplete evidence of one investigation is completely without merit. It would be like acquitting a man of murder because you looked at his house from the outside and found no weapon.
Lastly, life on Mars has not been shown to be impossible. There may have been conditions suitable for life millions of years ago.
#2 is also ridiculous. Even if life were to be created artificially in a lab, it would do nothing to support or falsify either creationism or abiogenesis.
The reason why creationism is not a theory, why it can't make predictions, why it can't be falsified, is because as its basis there is an omni-everything supernatural being.
Biblical creationism claims there was global flood. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, all a creationist has to say is that it was miraculously cleaned up.
Biblical creationism claims the Earth is 6000 years old. Despite the mountains of evidence including the fossil record and the geologic column, all a creationist has to say is that God (or Satan) made it appear to be older than 6000 years.
Basically, a theory that can predict anything predicts nothing and ergo is no theory.
2007-01-30 14:50:35 · answer #2 · answered by gebobs 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am a christain creationist, but i have to say your first prediction holds no grounds for 2 reasons.
1. There are probably more than quadrillions of planets within the universe, only looking at one planet being mars (even if you looked at 10,000 planets) proves nothing. The chances of finding something compared to how many possibilities of planets and chances for life there are is miroscopically small.
2. what makes you think God wouldn't create life somewhere else?... there's nothing in the bible against that idea.
But you are right- nothing has come even close to duplicating just the material living organisms are made out of much less creating life from it. But an evolutionist wouldn't necessarily predict anything different regarding creating life artificially. They would say "that's the beauty of nature's creation" instead of "that's the beauty of God's creation".
2007-01-30 14:51:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Life on mars has not "been shown to be impossible"
and creationism does not necessarily conflict with evolution
2007-01-30 15:22:07 · answer #4 · answered by Nick F 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We will not find any verifiable transitional fossils. Animals adapt, they get bigger and smaller but never evolve. So far none have appeared after uncovering millions of fossils. Some frauds have appeared and disappeared but that’s it. Like the famous horse fraud in our kid's text books. There are none, zip and none coming.
2007-01-30 14:42:04 · answer #5 · answered by mikearion 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
So, if you are wrong and either of your predictions come out wrong, are you willing to scrap the idea of creationism?
2007-01-30 14:40:29 · answer #6 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Read it and weep. This says that while life is not possible UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS, it could have been there in the past.
2007-01-30 14:45:51 · answer #7 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am 100 % for your way of looking at the world.
2007-01-30 14:41:56 · answer #8 · answered by swamp elf 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋