Why do people believe in Creationism despite its lack of testable predictions? (reject, Creator)

[FFH]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Firstly are there any testable predictions made by Creationism?

If there aren't why do people still believe in Creationism?
a) A lack of understanding of why testable predictions are so important?
b) There is sufficient merit in the structure of Creationism to warrant belief in it even in the abscence of testable predictions?
c) Something else?

Go ahead and change creationism to evolution, in your sentences, and answer your own questions for me...

There is no evidence for evolution.

[FFH]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Are there any testible predictions made by creationism?

Niagra Falls has been eroding for around 12,500 years, proving the earth cannot be older than that...

Prove me wrong...

Evolutionists have no evidences for their theories, I do..

NIAGRA FALLS: A TIMEPIECE FOR THE EARTH'S ACTUAL AGE

The Niagara River is a connecting channel between two Great Lakes, Erie and Ontario.

Niagara Falls has moved back 7 miles in 12,500 years, from it's starting point and may be the fastest moving waterfalls in the world.


Source

There is a rim from which the river fist began eroding from, which is an indication of the starting point of creation, when the Niagra river began eroding the rim, until the present day...

Could this be an accurate way to date the earth?

Many will say no way, it's just the result of a 40 million year old glacier which started to melt 12,500 years ago. Just the beginning of the end of another ice age, of which there are many...

Prove the existence of multiple ice ages and their length of time. Evolutionists cannot bring forth any proof of multiple ice ages and their length of existence...

Niagra falls is hard proof of an actual age of the earth...

If there are many of these rivers, where is the scarring of the earth's crust made by these large rivers ????

Duh, there is no scarring or proof of any other large rivers like Niagra...

The burden of proof is on evolutionsists, not crationists...

Balls on your court...

Evolutionists, you have no proof an ice age, let alone multiple ones...

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by FFH

Go ahead and change creationism to evolution, in your sentences, and answer your own question for me...

Heya FFH,
Absolutely . Here is a list of testable predictions derived from evolutionary theory that were later verified: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html

Since I have provided some testable predictions made by evolution, the subsequent questions are null and void.

Originally Posted by FFH

There is no evidence for evolution.

That may or may not be the case but since there are variety of threads on that already I don't want to debate that here again although I'd be happy to do so in a new thread if you wish.

Are you suggesting that creationism does make a testable prediction in the age of the earth and that this prediction is verified in the erosion of Niagra falls? I'm not quite sure how the latter verifies the former but are you aware of the wealth of information that supports the existence of multiple ice ages such as, for example, sediment records? I don't want to debate the veracity of your theory but am only asking how it goes about taking into account the evidence that has been used to infer other than what you have inferred.

[FFH]

7,000 years of creation, with 6,000 years of the history of man, from Adam and Eve until the present..

Earth's existance equals 13,000 years, from the beginning of creation until the present day..

You will be hard pressed to find this same belief anywhere on the net...

Most, if not all creationists, believe in a 6,000 year old earth/history of man, from Adam and Eve until the present day, with 7 actual days of creation just prior to that, which is a false teaching..

The earth is not 6,000 years old, but 13,000 years old.

6,000 year old earth creationists, and gazillion year old earth evolutionists, are both wrong...

[FFH]

/

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Are you suggesting that creationism does make a testable prediction in the age of the earth and that this prediction is verified in the erosion of Niagra falls?

No, my prediction.. hehe

If the earth is 13,000 years old, Niagra Falls should have been eroding for the same amount of time...

This is something I've looked into/predicted and verified...

No one else on the net has this position/prediction that I can see.

This is my own, not borrowed from anyone else...

Creationists have the age of the earth wrong. It's not 6,000 years old, but rather 12,000 years old.

Again see this link: NIAGRA FALLS: A TIMEPIECE FOR THE EARTH'S ACTUAL AGE

From my thread:The earth is 13,000 years old and it is soon to be renewed when Christ comes

I'm not quite sure how the latter verifies the former but are you aware of the wealth of information that supports the existence of multiple ice ages such as, for example, sediment records?

Three words, world wide flood, which formed mulitple layers of loose and compact/rock-like and rock sediments.

I don't want to debate the veracity of your theory but am only asking how it goes about taking into account the evidence that has been used to infer other than what you have inferred.

There's no proof of an ice age or multiple ice ages, absolutely none....

Don't want to debate it either...

[Fluffy]

Right but I'm not stating that anybody is right or wrong.

For me, being able to make predictions from a theory is one of the most pointful reasons for believing in it. For me it is a very important aspect of my belief system.

I am asking creationists how important predictions are in their theory of creationism. Science makes the claim that predictions are very important and many creationists claim that their views are scientific. It would therefore follow that predictions should be very important to creationists. However, the lack of predictions made by creationism seem to imply the latter so I am inquiring into which it is and why.

[FFH]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Heya FFH,
Absolutely . Here is a list of testable predictions derived from evolutionary theory that were later verified: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html

Great, that helped me out a lot, by helping me to understand what it was that you wanted to talk about.

Origin-of-Life Predictions Face Off: Evolution vs. Biblical Creation

[FFH]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Right but I'm not stating that anybody is right or wrong.

For me, being able to make predictions from a theory is one of the most pointful reasons for believing in it. For me it is a very important aspect of my belief system.

I am asking creationists how important predictions are in their theory of creationism. Science makes the claim that predictions are very important and many creationists claim that their views are scientific. It would therefore follow that predictions should be very important to creationists. However, the lack of predictions made by creationism seem to imply the latter so I am inquiring into which it is and why.

There are plenty of predictions that have proved evolutionists wrong and creationists right...

Shall I post a gazillion links or do you want to look them up yourself ???

I personally like my prediction the best: NIAGRA FALLS

If you look on Google Earth, you can see the actual 7 mile erosion "timepiece" of Niagra Falls, which took about 12,500 years, according to Niagra Falls Park Services..