Creationists: I'm reaching out to you one more time to provide just one testable hypothesis?

Question

If you wish for Creationism or ID to be considered science and have the legitimate opportunity to be taught in science classrooms someone, somewhere will have to provide a testable hypothesis that, if verified through testing, can provide evidence for a creator. No attacks on evolution, we've heard enough of those already... only your positive testable hypothesis please.

DA3:

If you want a level playing field then do what SCIENCE does! Provide testable hypothesis, make predictions based on that hypothesis, and test the dratted thing! Level playing field doesn't mean conjecture receives the same value as tested and verified theory.

And in science (it pains me that i have to say this every time) the word "theory" doesn't mean guess... It means a body of evidence that supports and describes an observed phenomenon.

Answer 1

im going to, rigth now, make half of these poitns worthless

nothing in scinece is 'provable" in the way that so many of these answerers think. EVERYTHING is a theory. that doesn't make everything plausible! Creationism is "possible," not plausible, it hasn't been disproven, but there is no evidence to sya that it exists, all the evidence points toward evolution, which, although it is a theory, is plausible. gravity is a theory too, but people accept that it exists.

evolution doesn't deal with how life started, or even how it HAS evolved, but how it EVLOVES! evolution happens all aorund us, all the time, we can see it when we look at an ostrich and an emu, or a zebra and a horse, or, yes, a human and an ape. but evolution doesn't say that we cam from monkeys, or that we all came from a one single cell organism.

all these ideas that creationists have about what science is can be proken by simply defining the words that they use.

god created man, not the other way around

Answer 2

Here's a testable hypothesis that is necessary for Creationism: "It is possible for matter and energy to be created from scratch in a vacuum, without creating the corresponding antiparticles. (To rule out quantum fluctuation.)

Unfortunately, no test has ever verified that this hypothesis could be true.

My point is that Creationism has some testable hypotheses, but those hypotheses have not proven accurate.

Answer 3

Amazing answers so far. Let's see, evolution doesn't deal with how life came to be, so there's one down. Evolutionary theory has made thousands of testable predictions (and thank Christ it has, otherwise there'd be a lot more sick people), so the "change an amoeba to a horse" just went down the crapper. Oh, and we have a "goddidit". Very reasonable response to your request. I also like the "you can't understand it, so let's teach it! Also very reasonable.

There's another great point next. I don't like/know the science, so I don't believe it exist, therefore any theory is valid, therefore it takes faith.

Next up, the classic rephrasing of "it's just a theory", therefore stop teaching it. While you're at it, stop teaching all theories.

Answer 4

What makes you imagine God needs to educate His existence to you Vernon? I propose if I were God why might want to I care if Vernon asks this question or no longer? If God had to furnish extra evidence from what He already has Im particular He might want to. you seem to be a effective evolutionist, too undesirable they not in any respect taught you that the in basic terms conclusive, testable idea of evolution is the straightforward idea which creation honestly has no argument with. basically about any idea is testable yet even as a end isn't acknowledged what fee is the attempting out? Heres a testable idea for you. website one attempt the position order has unaided emerged out of Chaos. this is what basically about each idea is in accordance to correctly? Sight a case. i might want to like to tutor you as you invited me to yet Im no longer a huge believer in following different peoples data. i change into in anthropology once a number of years in the past and what I realized even as there from experiments i might want to genuinely ascertain change into the biggest rigidity I had in turning from the agnostic i change into on the time to a believer in creation yet I established each thing i might want to and if I couldnt i change into compelled to placed it aside. As an trustworthy agnostic I had no better faith in technology then in God if i might want to no longer ascertain the findings in diverse checks they were rejected. some distance too a lot of those statements might want to no longer be established and this left me with little decision yet to desert innacurate advice. I propose you're attempting a similar problem. The challenged existence is the in basic terms one nicely worth residing. project your self. overlook the internet internet sites and books, attempt each thing. Love Kent

Answer 5

I really don't think creationism or evolution should be taught in public schools. That belief called evolution though, STILL is taught as dogma in schools. Both are beliefs that have little to do with the actual science that is needed to do your job in the workplace.

I've had many public teachers tell me they don't necessarily believe in evolution, but have to teach it because it is curriculum in schools. Sad really.

BTW before you make up the preposterous idea that creationists must test for a spiritual God in a physical lab, MAYBE YOU SHOULD BUILD AND DESIGN A LAB THAT CAN TEST FOR SPIRITS AND GOD FIRST. DEAL?

Answer 6

If anyside of this debate could be proven then there would be no debate. Either you believe or you dont and it is that simple. Im not sure the motive of your question but if you are looking for a real answer it is a far greater leap of faith to believe we happened by accident than by ID. So I guess it all lies in where you want to put your faith. A creator or nothing that is your choices. As far as teaching it in school goes I think schools need to concentrate on teaching kids how to read and write and leave all creation theories out of it.

Answer 7

ChooseRealityPLEASE. I would first of all like to thank you for asking this question and giving me the platform for this. I see you are level five and quite the brain or savant. I do not intend to bash science; I actually am a student of physics. I loved science and fell in love with it when I attended Pepperdine (but enough with that). Probability and powers of 10 for forming complex cells.

From a science standpoint we consider anything beyond one chance in 10 to the 50th power is beyond reason (sorry yahoo answers won't allow mathematical representation/numbering as far as powers are concerned, that's why I have to write in long hand).

According to the COBE program (a team of scientist led by astronomer George Smoot from the University of California, Berkeley. Smoots’ COBE satellite project provided many discoveries about the nature of the universe and formation of galaxies for NASA) and the Hubble space telescope we have been able to calculate with reasonable accuracy, the amount of matter in the universe. Matter in the Universe 10 to the 84power in baryons.

The probability of randomly producing a single living cell can be calculated from physics using the scientific method.

The maximum number of conceivable interactions between subatomic particles is 10 to the 20th(p)ower -events per second. Combing maximum time, maximum matter, and the maximum number of interactions, we can calculate the total number of events possible since the begging of time.

10 to the 17th power-in seconds
X
10 to the 84th power-in particles
X
10 to the 20th power-events per second

Equals = 10 to the 121st power. As I stated earlier in science anything over 10 to the 50th power is beyond reason (in science).

That would be the total number events need to produce a single cell and have it correctly evolve randomly into a complex living organism. To give an understanding that would be like you winning the lottery 1.4 million times in a row, and the money investing itself in Mutual funds, auction rate preferred securities, Keogh plans, and IRAs

Darwin didn't even believe in evolution to be a replacement of I.D. but rather as assistant to it if you read his original work. It was his followers who changed that. Einstein has a famous quote “Rejection of God has become very "unscientific."

I am a scientist but I believe and know who Christ is in my life.


If you would like to know Christ asks Him to come into your life. I promise He will. He did it for me. But you must ask it honestly. Confess this out loud and believe in your heart and you will be saved. http://home.swbell.net/cshann/index0.html

Answer 8

Why place a higher standard of proof on one theory than you do on the other? All creationists want is a level playing field. Evolution cannot be verified scientifically either, that is precisely why it is still called the THEORY of evolution.

Neither theory can be verified scientifically, yet my tax dollars go to have your theory taught, but not mine.

Answer 9

It seems they are not able to understand your question. It is also a telling point that any testable hypothesis related to their belief has failed in testing. They stratified nature of geological formations and the fossil record deny their Genesis theories.

Answer 10

God said he forms Adam from mud. Voila.

HAHA! I gave evolutionists ammo to use to support the "theory" of evolution and got all these thumbs down ! LOL I knew I would get thumbs down! LOL

I knew I needed to come back and look at how many thumbs down i would get. :) I LOVE you guys! I mean it! It is so funny! What you want is right in front of you and you still get mad! So basically.. i am thinking that no matter what I answer.. some of you are just gonna hate me anyway because I believe in God. Ok.. I can take it.