Posted on 04/01/2003 8:12:41 AM PST by 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.I shall call these The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism.
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.
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.
Evolution does not begin until life has already begun; thus the theory of evolution does not address the ultimate origin of life, nor does it need to. Life's origin is an interesting problem, to be sure, but the theory of evolution does not require its solution.
The simple fact is that "evolution" is not empirical science at all, failing to meet any criteria for empirical science, but is in reality a "religion" of pure conjecture based in blind faith.
I see that you are new to these threads. This point of yours has been addressed countless times. For example:
The Scientific Case for the Theory of Common Descent with Gradual Modification.
Is Evolution Science?
I agree. A person of your intellectual standing should not engage in discourse with me.
Acceptance of a literal interpretation of Genesis is not a prerequisite for salvation.
The Theory of Evolution no more needs to account for the origin of life than Meterology needs to account for the origin of water. Both work regardless of the actual mechanism of origin. Or, to put it another way, the Theory of Evolution is not contingent upon the mechanism by which life originated; it works regardless of what the actual mechanism is.
more like an intellectual black out -- coma -- epilepsy !
The Theory of Evolution no more needs to account for the origin of life than Meterology needs to account for the origin of water.
Meterologist weather reporting and forecasting w/o knowledge of the earth revolving on an axis around the sun ... swamp gas (( evolution ))!
Both work regardless of the actual mechanism of origin.
Assteroids work too -- uncharterable // nonsense ... babble // gas science !
the Theory of Evolution is not contingent upon the mechanism by which life originated; it works regardless of what the actual mechanism is.
Evo mythology
Starting that nonsense again? We already now that you in particular and most of your friends are atheists. Your statement is an absolute lie specifically designed to lead people out of their religion.
Very true. If life was made by God, then evolution is totally ludicrous. Evolution is an atheistic/materialist philosophy specifically designed to attack religion. That is why the evolutionists fight so hard and insult so much, it is their faith that is being attacked. As their posts show, they know beans about science.
Yup, all you do is copout. I answered your questions, and now you ignore the answers. You are not here to discuss anything, just to insult.
No, I am not the arbiter, you are. Your own words, your constant attacks on Christians show your atheism. Your lack of belief in anything Christian shows you to be a total phony. We have been through this before and you have shown very well that you prefer Darwin to Christ.
Ah, but that's precisely what he has been claiming. Over and over, he says that Christianity is creationism. Were that even remotely true, Christianity would be the most foolish and discredited religion on earth. Fortunately, that is not the case; but he is the most foolish and discredited poster in these threads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.