The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism

Crevo thread: Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs ^ | 24 March 2003 | PatrickHenry

[PatrickHenry]

This vanity thread was inspired by a provocative question that Junior directed to a creationist: "Biblical prophesies notwithstanding, what biological predictions does creationism make?" The creationist didn't respond, but I did, as follows:

I can think of a few creationist predictions. Because -- according to creationism -- all species were specially created at virtually the same time, and did not gradually evolve from earlier forms:

1. There should be no transitional species.
2. There are most certainly no pre-human species.
3. There should be no evidence, whether in fossils or DNA, showing the chronological evolution of life.
4. There must surely be at least one species, and probably several, having no genetic similarities with any other life on earth.
5. The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs and humans) living together at the same time.

I shall call these The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism.

In fairness to the creationists, although the first three have already been disproved (for example: #1 -- Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, #2 -- Human Ancestors, more #2 -- Comparison of all skulls, #3 -- Tree of Life Project ), the last two (#4 and #5) can't yet be considered to be totally failed predictions. All we can do is point out that the predicted evidence has not yet been discovered. Given the lack of actual research being conducted by creationists, it is unlikely to be discovered.

[Junior]

Over-the-hump placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

Ah, my little vanity thread has past the 100 mark. Now to keep things lively: Creationism is bunk!

[PatrickHenry]

past = passed

[Junior]

Really----then explain how dead chemical became living organisms.

You are showing your ignorance of evolution. The theory of evolution does not cover biogenesis but only deals with extent organisms. You probably already know this, but couldn't resist tossing up a hoary strawman.

[Junior]

Jesus spoke of Lazarus and the rich man as real people, too. We still understand him to be using a parable.

[PatrickHenry]

evolution says life evolved from rocks

Please cite one -- just one -- authority on evolution who makes this claim. And please, spare yourself the bother of giving us some creationism website as your source.

[Junior]

Evolution does not say life evolved from rocks. It says nothing on the matter of the origin of life. At all. Period. You might wish it to, but it doesn't. Evolution does say that all life descended from a common ancestor. Maybe that's where you are becoming confused, though I'm at a loss to understand how any person with even a passing hint of rationality could confuse "common ancestor" with "rock."

BTW, none of the half dozen or so theories competing in the field of biogenesis mention life coming from rocks. The Bible says man was formed from clay. Maybe that's where you heard this.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution does not say life evolved from rocks. It says nothing on the matter of the origin of life. At all. Period. You might wish it to, but it doesn't.

Darwin said no more than this: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

Source: The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin. (Chapter 14, last paragraph.)

[O Neill]

...this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity... -Darwin

Not so fixed, really. Newton's 'law' of gravity was revised by Einstein, who shocked the Scientific Community of his time with the notion that gravity, most likely, was some sort of 'warpage' in the Space-Time Continuum. Scientists don't know what causes gravity...and are ALWAYS changing their story, history shows. Meanwhile, the Bible remains a stable constant. Every skeptic who has stepped forward so far with 'scientific' refutation has been discredited by science itself; particularly Archaeology. This doesn't seem to stop the flow of fresh skeptics, however...another phenomenon prophecied in Scripture with remarkable precision.

"God is dead", said Neitzche (who spent his latter years in raving insanity). In due course, however, Neitzche was dead. If I were a betting man, I think I'd have to bet on Scripture. It's just too infallible.

[Junior]

I have the latest edition of Scientific American. Which article would that be?

[PatrickHenry]

Which article would that be?

I know it's not this one, from the July 2002 issue of Scientific American:
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.

[Junior]

In defense of our esteemed colleague, he did say the article appeared in Scienticif American, which may be an entirely different publication altogether.

[gore3000]

I attack the views held by some Christians

As usual you answer my questions with insults. The reason you do that is that you know quite well that evolution is atheism and that you hold Darwin higher than Christ. Again I ask you the question:

What part of Christianity do you believe in? What part of the Bible do you agree with?

You refuse to answer because you know that evolution = atheism and you wish to deceive good Christians into your atheist ideology - just like Darwin did.