Skip to comments.The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism
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.
You constantly attack fellow Christians. Fundamentalists are Christians, they are followers of Christ and you constantly attack them. A good Christian does not visciously attack fellow believers.
Anyway, let's do it again. What part of Christianity do you believe in? What part of the Bible do you agree with?
Nope, what I claim is that evolution is atheism and I can back it up unlike you who just hurl totally unfounded garbage.
Consider how he first invents his own fantasy version of evolution, one where all members of a species decide one day to all switch together into something else, with not a single member of the old species left behind. Then he carries on and babbles and screeches for a year or two about how ridiculous [his perverse version of] evolution is, and how only an idiot could believe such a thing. It never penetrates his intellect that no one but him thinks of that as evolution.
Then he invents a private version of Christianity, one in which creationism is central, and Genesis is really good, solid science, and anyone who doesn't blindly accept his silly notion of things is not only an atheist, but is actually attacking Christianity. (And is also a fraud, slimer, liar, communist, Hitler supporter, etc.)
So, in his mind, he is the sole judge of what evolution is (although he knows nothing about it, not even what it is); and he is the sole judge of what Christianity is (presumably he thinks that he alone follows the true path to heaven); and as all the world can clearly see, he is utterly confused, misguided, and incurably wrong in both matters.
So, what did you expect from someone who thinks that:
1) "a circle is not an ellipse"
2) the planets have "wildly elliptical" orbits
3) "1720" is a really big number
His behavior is somewhat curious, until one realizes that we now can, for the first time anywhere, reveal his likely identity:
Remember how we've all noticed that English is not his native language? Notice how he's been MIA for the past few weeks until today.
It's obvious who he really is: the Iraqi Minister of Dis-Information, "Baghdad Bob." Both use English as a second language, and both misrepresent the truth over and over again, even when the "evidence" is shoved right under their noses.
Notice the similarities:
LBB: "The evolutionists are running like rats; they have been thrashed by the Brilliant Creationists every-time they challenge us."
"Baghdad Bob": "The infidels are running like rats; they have been thrashed by the Republican Guards every time they cahllenge us."
I rest my case.
The similarities are very striking, especially in style and reasoning ability. But I don't think they're the same person. Baghbad Bob at least had the good sense to vanish when the US took over Baghdad. He knows when he's beaten. If he were really LBB, he would still be there in the square, where the toppled statue of Saddam once stood, and he would still be declaring victory, even while surrounded by the infidels. So you see, I think you dishonor Baghdad Bob when you declare that he is LBB.
In "The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy," he argues that the prevailing vision in the press, academy and politics has become so ... dogmatic --- that it has lost touch with reality.
Mr. Sowell labels the competing visions "constrained" and "unconstrained." The constrained vision argues that perfection is impossible, that social policy consists of structuring incentives for self-centered men, that life is a series of trade-offs. This vision is represented by the likes of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke and Alexander Hamilton (and of course, Dick Cheney and the Bush administration mindset).
Rationally, evolution does a far better job at explaining the evidence than creationism does. Why do you think creationists are fighting a rear-guard action? It isn't because of some "conspiracy" -- face it, no conspiracy of such monumental proportions could survive. Instead, rational people, Christian and non-Christian alike, have looked at the evidence and accepted the theory of evolution as the best fit for that evidence. Hell, even the head of my church, the Pope, has accepted the scientific validity of evolution.
Creationists do not even have a dog in this hunt; y'all are reduced to sitting on the sidelines carping at the folks actually doing the research (we posted a thread last year on why creationists do not do research. We could resurrect it for your edification, but I'm not sure you'd appreciate the conclusions). Until such a time as creationists come up with a theory that is a better fit for the evidence, you won't be taken seriously. And, BTW, nit-picking evolution is not considered evidence for creationism. It ain't an either-or game.