Creationists: Do your 'theories' make any positive assertions or predictions that can be scientifically tested

Question

Part of doing science is playing by the rules of science. This means that if Creationism or ID wishes to be considered science there must be some positive assertions, or predictions that can stand up to falsification. All I've ever heard from any of you are attacks on the validity of the evidence supporting evolutionary theory or simply a complete lack of understanding of the definition of the word "theory" within a scientific context. So, if you're ready to play by the rules, what are the positive assertions or predictions of ID or Creationism?

PLEASE DON'T VOTE on any of these... they are all bad ansewers... just let the question die.

Answer 1

Read this: http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

Answer 2

This makes me laugh - where is the scientific evidence that can be tested supporting the evolutionary THEORY (ie, No missing links have been found - NOT ONE - yet according to the tenants of evolutionary faith there should be millions, etc., etc.). Still, we have to endure your theories being taught as fact. Do a little research -there is a plethora of sound, scientific evidence to support the assertions of Creationists. The good old Scientific Method and plain old common sense. Check out The Privileged Planet (just one in an entire genre of Creationist Research)- perhaps you too will be convinced!!

Answer 3

A better question is what are Darwinists so afraid of? Why do they censor scientists, or anyone for that matter who has the guts to question evolution? Intelligent Design looks at scientific data and makes an assertion that through the complexity of our universe there had to be a designer. What's so bad about that statement? When you look at this paragraph you can see that its a complex structure that was obviously created by an intelligent force. No one in their right mind would ever say the letters randomly assembled themselves to formulate this answer and it just so happens that the letters fit together perfectly to form this paragraph. So why then must all scientists accept that complex DNA, physics, astromony, geolgoy, biochemistry, etc are all the results of random, blind processes?

Answer 4

The mind set that science is correct is based on faith in the principles and assumptions made by various tests. The mind set that God is the creator is based on faith in the principles and assumptions made by various tests. Neither of these two fields is I am certain....not 100% accurate.

Keep in mind that just a little over 500 years ago, it was believed by the greatest minds of the time that the earth was flat. Prior to that, it was believed that the sun revolved around the earth. What appears to be scientific truth today will in all likelihood change before long to something entirely different. Advances are being made daily....some of which are no doubt irrevocably correct...other so called advances of today will be proven totally wrong within a few years or less.

The power of faith in God has lasted for those that believe because He never falters in his steadfastness. Science is not capable of either proving or disproving God's existance...so your point is totally moot.

I am truly sorry that this arguement is bound to continue for whatever time man has left but God himself foretold this very thing in words written more than 2000 years ago. They have survived the test of time. That is more than I can say about man's so called science.

God Bless You. He believes in you even if you do not believe in Him.

Answer 5

the difference between what I believe to be true and what you believe to be true is that i don't change my opinion as things disprove what you believe, I just learn more about science

darwin wrote the origin of the species, Gould had to fix some problems so we have neo-darwinism

i see atheists saying there is no god when there is no proof, according to the best minds one way or the other

i like to define terms so that when i'm talking and you are talking we understand each other.

I worked for a brilliant Ph.D., whom I could never get to define his terms? why, because evolution will not stand up if you define the terms of it, you have to be liquid and go with the flow

christians live by truth as much as by faith, can you honestly, with a strait face tell me that

it does not matter go in peace

Answer 6

It's more like "Creation Science" proponents are playing with the rules of science...

Answer 7

I've never seen an Evolutionist play by the rules of science yet.

Answer 8

Yes, I predict this will be the only annoying question of yours I will answer tonight. Test it.

Answer 9

Evolution cannot be scientifically proven. not only that, history and the fossil record DISPROVE evolution.

Answer 10

Mr. Evolutionist,
Aren't all these prescription medications that are killing and disabling people for life "scientifically tested"? Your scientific "tests" do not impress me.

Answer 11

Author: Bruce Malone
Many questions are raised by defenders of evolution when presented with the evidence for creation. Of a particular interest is evidence for the worldwide flood which is documented in the Bible and by numerous other historical, anthropological, and cultural sources. This article addresses some of the common questions.

This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth. How did marsupials get to Australia?

Noah was charged with building the vessel to safeguard certain animals during this massive and complex worldwide disaster; not with distributing them afterwards. Once Noah released the animals on Mount Ararat, natural instincts and climatic conditions determined how the redistribution of the animal population took place. As subsequent generations of animals spread across the globe, territorial prowess or chance movements would send certain groups in certain directions. Those animals least suited for or least able to defend a territory would either be forced further from the landing site or face extermination. An immediate consequence of the worldwide flood was a brief but severe ice age which locked ocean water into vast ice fields. This lowered ocean levels and created a land bridge to Australia. A similar land bridge connected Asia to Alaska during this period of Earth history allowing free movement of man and animals between these continents. Land movements during the ice age or subsequent melting of the ice cut off the connection between Australia and Asia effectively isolating the unique animal life to Australia.

How could massive worldwide coal deposits form rapidly?

The first effect of the worldwide flood would have been the ripping up of vegetation worldwide and erosion on an unimaginable scale.

As the water receded from one area, vegetation would have been deposited only to be subsequently buried as the area sank and water brought in more sediment. This, layer upon layer of coal would be formed. Furthermore, it has been shown in the laboratory that vegetation can be turned into coal in as little as 1 hour with sufficient heat and pressure. A recent model of coal formation is provided by a study of the catastrophic explosion of Mount St. Helens in 1980. This explosion knocked down millions of trees which ended up floating on Spirit Lake. Underneath this layer of peat consisting of tree bark and organic matter. If that organic matter were buried by a subsequent eruption, the result would be a coal seam covered by sedimentary rock. Repeated cycles would rapidly produce a series of coal seams with sediment on top of each seam. This small scale model shows that it is reasonable to believe that an enormous flood would rapidly create the worldwide coal seams which we find today.

Is "Survival of the Fittest" part of the evolution?

Modern evolutionists have tried to distance themselves from this concept due to the obvious negative consequences of the social realm. Denying that survival of the fittest is part of the evolutionary process is akin to denying that one type of animal will drive another to extinction given the right conditions. Contrary to the rosy picture of animal co-operation which evolutionists like to portray, one type of animal has no qualms wiping out another in its quest to propagate itself. Survival of the fittest has always been an integral part of the evolutionary theory. Wild dogs introduced to Australia are endangering native species because they are more aggressive and have no natural enemies. Sounds like "survival of the fittest" doesn't it? If we are also animals who have evolved according to this basic principle of evolution, why shouldn't we extend this principle into the social realm? Why shouldn't we eliminate weaker classes of humans which are competing for what we feel we need? Evolution taken to its logical conclusion leads to a savage world akin to Hitler's Nazi Germany when the strong determine what is right. It was no coincidence that Hitler was strongly influenced by the writings of Darwin.

Does it make any logical sense that this method of death and destruction would be a loving God's method for making us???