Lets try to agree on something?

Question

Ok, so I want everyone here to agree, and I want to see how many people can agree.
Now, please read this with an OPEN MIND, forgetting your prejudices and thinking scientifically.
S: (n) scientific theory (a theory that explains scientific observations) "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
That is Princeton’s definition.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=scientific+theory&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=0
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm
That is the definition and Atheist uses, on his website.
Now based on these definitions, can we at least say that both
creation and evolution ARE theories?
Given that there is evidence, regardless of whether you believe the evidence,
that creation is true.

Now there is alot of evidence on this site, for creation, and everyone has already heard the evidence on evolution.
www.creationevidence.org
Now since were being open minded I will admit that evolution is a theory, a very nice theory, but has some problems.
I will also admit that creation is a very nice theory, and some people have problems with it (there may be problems with creation).
Both are theories on how we got here.
Both have the possibility of being true.
Both have evidence for and against them.
Can we all agree?

The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints www.creationevidence.org

WOULD ANYONE please please please read the evidence before answering my question or are you all going on your predispositions?
And to the big m or whoever you are, the evidence I'm stating is NOT at all evidence from the Bible, I am not usuing the Bible to prove the Bible I'm using fossil records to prove the Bible, this proves you didn't look at the evidence I'm using.
PLEASE, NO MORE ANSWERS WITHOUT HAVING LOOKED AT THE WEBSITE AND INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html

The problems with evolution:
there are alot, most I couldn't even name.
I have to say personaly I have a HUGE issue with being told that I came from nothing, then nothing turned into a dot, then that dot started spinning for no appearant reason, then the spinning continued and suddenly there was dirt, OUT OF NOTHING, and the dirt came into the dot, and the dot exploded and planets formed with mostly hydrogen, and the hydrogen became all chemicals. Which became people.

Ok, how about, we would have proof that apes did NOT turn into human beings, which we have (were still missing that missing link) and we would see absolutly no evidence for any kind of evolution other than micro evolution which happens and have been proven.
Also we would see that the earth has certain aspects, like more chemicals than hydrogen, its hard to fuse past iron. And we would see that there are planets spinning the wrong way which would disprove evolution but would prove that someone must have designed it that way. To prove evolution we would see people still evolving, and we don't see that. Does that meet your requirments?
I liked your statement.

Ok, again, thanks for what you said.
What I meant about the rotation of planets was to disprove evolution, but I threw that in there for fun, it also works with creation, if we had a creator who intelligently said the planets would work best spinning like this we would see that, if evolution is true we would see all the planets spinning the same way because they all came from a spinning dot.
If creation is true we would see:
very complex structures
all living things (even trees) sharing alot of DNA
the smallest known organism being amazingly complex
all 'kinds' staying within kind (no macro evolution being shown as if we always were in this 'kind' admittedly no one is sure where kind lays but it lays somewhere just above species in the taxa in my opinion - NOTE: not species)
intelligent thought (as man was made in the image of God who was the intelligent designer)
lots of different elements, elements that interact and such, as if they were always this way not changing

Answer 1

You pulled a U-turn at the end there. Whether or not evidence exists for creation -- or for evolution, for that matter -- is not the question. Its status as a theory depends on whether it is falsifiable, and whether it can predict natural phenomena.

There can be theories with no evidence supporting them, and theories with lots of evidence. There can be correct theories and incorrect theories.

Does creation qualify? If you can give a few (1) predictions that creationism would produce, that we can go and test (these predictions should be different from those produced by other theories, in order to make these tests worthwhile), and (2) possible experiments that could produce results that, if they occurred, would cause you and other creationists to agree that creation theory has been disproved.

I doubt you can supply item (1). It's no good to find something and then say "see, that fits with creationism." You have to make predictions of observable results, and then do experiments and observe the results.

But item (2) above, I am absolutely certain you cannot supply, because the entire premise of creationism is faith in a certain reading of certain parts of the bible. That faith is primary, and any evidence contrary to it will be discarded or ignored (I am not insulting creationists by saying this -- as christians, they should all agree that this is the case).

So no, I do not believe creationism is a scientific theory in any meaningful sense.

Edit:

Most of your examples seem to focus on disproving evolution, which was not part of your original question. Your original question had to do with whether creationism is a scientific theory.

Please explain how creationism would predict planets spinning in any particular direction vs another -- answer: it doesn't. You are saying that the spin of planets is consistent with creation. That is not the same thing as saying "If creationism is true, then planets must spin counterclockwise (or whatever)", and then going and checking on the spin.

So, please propose an experiment or test, explain why creationism predicts one result vs any other, and then let's go check.

For example, an evolutionist 20 years ago might say, "if multiple species descend from a common ancestor, then different species should share a lot of DNA."
Then, after DNA research advances, we check -- and hey! humans and chimps share a lot, humans and bananas share less but still a lot. . . just as we would predict. If there were zero DNA overlap, there would have been a lot of explaining to do.

We need a few dozen items like that for creation, and then we can get to work.

Answer 2

Sorry, wish it were something I could agree with but Intelligent design/creationsim doesn't meet the criteria for being science.

Can ID/creationism be tested? Are there falsifying observations? ID could potentially be disproved by observing a more primitive intermediate form of some part that has been touted as ‘too complex’ to be natural. But then, the individual running the ID experiment can alter his hypothesis to say that this new structure is that which was installed by the Intelligent Designer. Because of this, there is no part of ID that can be unequivocally falsified by material science.

The second part of ID calls for an external Designer. This idea is neither fully supported nor fully falsified by material observation. There is no scientific way to test for the presence or absence of the Designer, as the Designer is defined as unobservable, or at least, only observable by a chosen few.

One of the most important characteristics of scientific hypotheses and theories is the predictive power they provide. ID does not offer any new explanation or observation about these complex structures that the Theory of Evolution does not already provide. The observation that some structures in organisms are too complex to have originated from gradual change will not help scientists to develop a better antibiotic, for example. In fact, the idea that “some things are too complex” is anti-scientific, since it seems to suggest that we shouldn’t try to understand the origins of the complex structures. ID discourages us from looking and asking questions. True science, however, moves on. If it is later found to be the case that some structures in organisms do not have more primitive counterparts, science will observe and recognize this fact, and the new knowledge will be incorporated into evolutionary theory.

ID is not a scientific theory and should not be taught alongside the Theory of Evolution. It offers nothing to help students understand how science works. It is merely a statement of how complex life seems to be – not even worth an hour of classroom time.

Answer 3

Hm. There really isn't any falsifiable evidence for creation. The only evidence at all is that we exist and that there are some things science can't explain. I am a creationist (Pagan creationist) because that is how I feel, not because that is what science has shown to be true. So no, I don't agree and I don't think many people will. But agreement is less important than the plain FACT that we are all here sharing in peaceful dialogue.

Answer 4

How about this theory - there is 'the Creation' the process. This is the life force in everything, that it is governed by a 'process' and not by an entity, etc.

That the earth is a living entity - that 'it' creates humans as a natural process. That everything on this earth was in harmony, before mankind upset it.. ie. raping and pillaging the earth of it's natural resources, has upset it's balance.

There is no 'creator' of the universe, etc. It is a process, and we are part of that process.
Religion of course screws everything up, because we have various religions making all sorts of claims, none of which are proven. Science is different, at least it looks at the physical evidence here, and notes it. Religion doesn't even do that.. well it will only look at that which supports it, and then ignores everything else.

Answer 5

I hate to do this to you...that is answer your question with a question...But: What evidence exists to support the creationist theory beyond the story in the Bible? If that's all it has to go on than it can't meet the other cirteria you left out of your definitions...Verifiable evidence that can at some point be proven than become building blocks to the eventual movement of the theory to the realm of fact. The Bible was written by man (there is no evidence there that the words are from a creator). Therefore it's just a story and can't ever be veriified. FABLE. PEACE!

Answer 6

Agree.

Answer 7

Evolution is scientific theory, in that it is falsifiable.

Creation as described in the Genesis books of the Bible is not a scientific theory, in that it does not match with the observed physical evidence, and thus must be rejected.

It does not match with the evidence gathered in the scientific fields of genetics, comparative anatomy, geology, physics, astronomy, hydrology, chemistry, biogeography or paleonotology.

UPDATE:

All of the 'evidence' presented above, mostly taken from Creationist websites, are patently untrue, have been explained by actual scientists many, many hundreds of times (in some cases, were explained more than a century ago), or are absolute and complete hoaxes (the trilobite and sandal bit, or the Cretaceous hammer).

Answer 8

Anyone who says there is no objective evidence for creation is either simply ignorant or deluded. I am constantly seeing scientific articles and news stories where yet another bona fide scientist has discovered factual evidence which proves Creation and disproves Evolution.

I agree, though, that both evolution and creation are unprovable theories. The only reason the "scientific" prefix is attached to the theory of evolution -- for there is nothing remotely scientific about it -- is because it omits God from the picture. This is the same reason its proponents refuse to admit that evolutionism is a religion. They think that the term "religion" can only apply if there is a deity in the picture.

Answer 9

The question is, is there any creditable evidence that might raise Creationism from mere speculation to the level of a scientific theory. There is not. After years of being, "open minded", I find this to no longer a valid source of debate. Creationism is a failed idea, and continue to support is to forward a falsehood. That is to say, you must be mislead or a liar to continue this debate.

Answer 10

By that definition, creationism is obviously not a theory. Sorry.

Evolution is a theory, one that explains the origin of the variety of species we see around us. It is also a fact that those species evolved from earlier forms. If your creationist claim is that the species were created in their current form, that claim is simply false.

"Given that there is evidence, regardless of whether you believe the evidence, that creation is true."

Well, if you make a false assumption, you can prove anything you want. But in fact there is no evidence for creationism.
==================
Reciting a litany of nonsense from a creationist website doesn't do what you want it to do, hon. I suggest you find some other topic to discuss.