Why creationism is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Didn't you see this response:

[b]1. The Theory of Evolution relies on the supernatural ability of the god called "evolution" to do things that can not be tested. Evolution fails.
[/b]

RJ this is extremely silly. Evolution has a well known and entirely material explanation of its causes. It makes testable predictions, in the sense that one expects intermediate forms in the fossil records and can look for them. Laboratory tests have been performed which demonstrate speciation, and drug resistant bacteria are a known problem. You are accusing the theory of things it clearly doesn't do.

Originally posted by DeepThought
RJ this is extremely silly. Evolution has a well known and entirely material explanation of its causes. It makes testable predictions, in the sense that one expects intermediate forms in the fossil records and can look for them. Laboratory tests have been performed which demonstrate speciation, and drug resistant bacteria are a known problem. You are accusing the theory of things it clearly doesn't do.

As I pointed out before, evolutionists have expanded the meaning of evolution to include many things already known before the theory of evolution came in to being. Those things like adaptation, mutations, variations within species, selective breeding, and genetic inheritance are being used to claim success in testable predictions.

However, the prediction that many transitional fossils showing the progession from one kind of animal to another would be found has not been found. And instead of the slow progression from one kind of animal to another, we have the Cambrian Explosion where many different kinds of complex animals suddenly appear fully formed in the earliest rock layers.

Therefore, the main prediction of evolution that all kinds of animals came from a common ancestor appears to have proven false. Silly or not, the fact is the theory of evolution is a fail.

Originally posted by C Hess
Well, I would argue that there are degrees of faith. The kind of faith you
seem to imply is blind faith, which is certainly not the case when it comes
to science; more specifically, the theory of evolution.

Imagine a murder scene. You have a suspect and a victim. You find the
suspects DNA on the murder weapon, so you know that the suspect held
the ...[text shortened]...
creationist could therefore without any hesitation be accused of holding on
to blind faith.

So you are saying you believe in something different than I believe and you believe your beliefs are more valid than mine.

What a surprise.

By the way, the murder case scenario doesn't work since everyone agrees that there is not miracle in modern crimes. You like to make the assumption that since people can't perform miracles, God can't.

Originally posted by Eladar
So you are saying you believe in something different than I believe and you believe your beliefs are more valid than mine.

Would you say that in my example above that it's equally rational to believe
that the suspect is innocent, as it is that he's guilty?

Originally posted by C Hess
Would you say that in my example above that it's equally rational to believe
that the suspect is innocent, as it is that he's guilty?

In some cases it would be equally rational to believe a magic trick was performed instead of a miracle.

Originally posted by RJHinds
In some cases it would be equally rational to believe a magic trick was performed instead of a miracle.

I wasn't asking him about magic tricks, nor miracles, but about which is the
most rational stance in my murder analogy. I'll ask you too then, is it more
rational to believe that the suspect is innocent, then that he's guilty?

Originally posted by C Hess
I wasn't asking him about magic tricks, nor miracles, but about which is the
most rational stance in my murder analogy. I'll ask you too then, is it more
rational to believe that the suspect is innocent, then that he's guilty?

He needs a fair trial. So I say it is more rational to assume innocence until proven guilty.

Originally posted by C Hess
Would you say that in my example above that it's equally rational to believe
that the suspect is innocent, as it is that he's guilty?

You really aren't too bright either are you? You simply repeat what you are told without thought of deeper meanings. Repeat what you are told, do not think. Just repeat what you are told, start up a new thread about how what you are told is correct. It will make you feel better.

Oh wait, you've already done that.

Originally posted by RJHinds
As I pointed out before, evolutionists have expanded the meaning of evolution to include many things already known before the theory of evolution came in to being. Those things like adaptation, mutations, variations within species, selective breeding, and genetic inheritance are being used to claim success in testable predictions.

However, the prediction ...[text shortened]... stor appears to have proven false. Silly or not, the fact is the theory of evolution is a fail.

Your accusation was that it has no basis in empirical evidence, which there is plenty of so even if it is incorrect it is still a scientific theory. The more detailed versions are testable, which creator theories tend not to be. How exactly does one either falsify intelligent design or verify it in the absence of the designer?

Originally posted by RJHinds
He needs a fair trial. So I say it is more rational to assume innocence until proven guilty.

And in a trial, what could possibly have the suspect found not guilty, but some
extraordinary new evidence, since the evidence found all point to his guilt. I chose that
analogy only...

Originally posted by Eladar
You really aren't too bright either are you? You simply repeat what you are told without thought of deeper meanings. Repeat what you are told, do not think. Just repeat what you are told, start up a new thread about how what you are told is correct. It will make you feel better.

Oh wait, you've already done that.

...as a response to your unreal suggestion that a scientific theory is as much a guess work,
a belief as any other story describing what happened in the past; to clarify why this is not
so. How can you possibly maintain your insipid position to the contrary?

Originally posted by Eladar
By the way, the murder case scenario doesn't work since everyone agrees that there is not miracle in modern crimes. You like to make the assumption that since people can't perform miracles, God can't.

This is precisely why creationism is not a scientific hypothesis. You can't test for the
supernatural, you can't test for miracles. You can believe in the supernatural, you can even
be of the personal opinion that it's true, but you can't rationally argue for it scientifically.
Rationally speaking, you can only support a scientific hypothesis with scientific evidence.
You remove that limitation on scientific explanations and anything goes, which is the same
as making science completely vapid and useful only as philosophical food for thought.

To clarify, stating that creationism is as scientific as evolution, is equal to saying that a
defense for the suspect invoking the supernatural is as plausible as the explanation
derived at from looking at the overwhelming evidence.

Originally posted by C Hess
This is precisely why creationism is not a scientific hypothesis. You can't test for the
supernatural, you can't test for miracles. You can believe in the supernatural, you can even
be of the personal opinion that it's true, but you can't rationally argue for it scientifically.
Rationally speaking, you can only support a scientific hypothesis with scien ...[text shortened]... tural is as plausible as the explanation
derived at from looking at the overwhelming evidence.

What I am saying is that EVOLUTION is NOT TRUE, regardless if we call it a religion, a philosophy, or science fiction. On the other hand, CREATIONISM is TRUE even if you say it is not science.

Originally posted by C Hess
And in a trial, what could possibly have the suspect found not guilty, but some
extraordinary new evidence, since the evidence found all point to his guilt. I chose that
analogy only...

If the prosecuting attorney can limit the evidence to only what he likes, he could probably convict Mother Teresa of numerous crimes against humanity.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What I am saying is that EVOLUTION is NOT TRUE, regardless if we call it a religion, a philosophy, or science fiction. On the other hand, CREATIONISM is TRUE even if you say it is not science.

Yet, you can't escape the fact that evolution fits the evidence perfectly, whereas
creationism takes blind faith to believe. I know blind faith is considered a strength in
religious circles, but in science it's perfectly useless.