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

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

You still don't get it. The "H" in "H2O" is a fuel. The "O" sustains combustion. The question is if it can be predicted that the combination would put out fire if the fact were not already known.

Here's another one: is the fact that a catipiller turns into a butterfly a predictable scientific fact, or is it simply an observational fact?

If you've read any of my posts you know I love science, but "testable predictions" is hardly a the sole criterion of truth.

Fire is a process of rapid oxidation. I predict that if a barrier were to be inserted between the fuel (the substance being oxidized) and any usable oxygen then the fire will be extinguished.

This is a testable prediction based on the scientific theory of chemical reactions.

I will have to get back to you about the butterfly.

But before I do, what is your point? All you are going to show with this is that a bunch of people on an Internet board lack either the scientific understanding or the time needed to explain this to you.


I agree that “testable predictions” are hardly the sole criterion of truth, but it is a major criteria for science.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Here's another one: is the fact that a catipiller turns into a butterfly a predictable scientific fact, or is it simply an observational fact?

That water puts out fire or caterpillars turn into butterflies are observational fact, but any explanation of how these happen would have to contain testable predictions before we could accept them as scientific theory.

[charles brough]

Creationist belief has nothing to do with testing! Creationist belief is a matter of faith to Christians because it is part of the Bible. Christianity is what is intellectually classifiable as a "closed system of thinking." Either you believe it all literally as "the inspired world of God" or you don't. If you do not, you become inconsistent.

The liberal Christian believers in the mainling churches believe a compromised, accomodation to science-belief system that is self-inconsistent. It becomes among them a matter of opinion as to which "miracle" is "true" and which are "not true" or "might not be true," or probably isn't true" etc. This inconsistency is gradually self-destructive and accounts for the political strength in the U.S. had by the Baptist, Evangelical and Penticostal churchs. They have a self-consistency of belief which unites them and enables them to exert an increasing influence in this aging old society and civilization of ours.

The danger of all of this is pointed out in HOME PAGE

charles

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by FFH

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

But it's possible to be more precise. A tree next to my grandparents' house has been growing for 69 years, proving the earth cannot be older than that.

[Don Penguinoini]

Originally Posted by DreGod07

I get it. Until we are able to verify we have no way of doubting the information given. This is another reason why I say science stays clear of religion. Scientist aren't set out put to prove that God does not exist. Religion has given us nothing to test. On the other hand scientist has collected huge amounts of data and as I said earlier the best some creationist can do is send some one with a bachelores degree in chemistry to refute evolution.

YouTube - Earth is 6,000 Years Old

Check this guy out. This stuff is truely funny.

i totally want to meet this guy.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

You still don't get it. The "H" in "H2O" is a fuel. The "O" sustains combustion. The question is if it can be predicted that the combination would put out fire if the fact were not already known.

Yes, it can be.

Water puts out fire by removing heat from the combustion reaction. The amount of energy that it takes to raise the temperature of water can be measured by simple lab experiments (and often is as part of introductory science classes).

Combustion is an exothermic reaction. It takes a certain amount of activation energy to start the reaction; the reaction itself releases more energy than it took to activate it, which provides the activation energy for the reaction of material near it, and so on. The activation energy and the energy released are both dependent on the material involved, and can be measured experimentally and (IIRC) predicted based on the molecular composition of the material in question.

It can also be easily verified, either experimentally or theoretically, that water itself won't burn in a self-sustaining manner, since the reaction to go from H20 (water) to H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) is endothermic; even if a fire burns hot enough to cause some hydrogen peroxide to be formed, this would still be a net energy loss to the reaction and still help to put out the fire.

Absent any problems like immiscibility (i.e. when you throw water on burning oil, the oil doesn't mix with the water, but instead floats on top and continues to burn), which can also either be predicted or experimentally measured, it's a straightforward matter for someone with enough of a background in chemistry to tell you whether dumping X amount of water on Y amount of burning material Z will remove enough energy from the reaction to stop it from progressing, i.e. whether water will put out your fire.

[Ceridwen018]

Originally Posted by Rolling Stone

Here's another one: is the fact that a catipiller turns into a butterfly a predictable scientific fact, or is it simply an observational fact?

If you've read any of my posts you know I love science, but "testable predictions" is hardly a the sole criterion of truth.

I'm glad you love science, but you don't seem to know much about it. Observation comes before prediction. You observe something happening, such as a butterfly emerging from its chrysalis, and then you make a prediction as to why or how it happens that way.

Observations hold merit in their own right, but they are incomplete if not followed up with predictions.

All of that aside, nothing that creationism claims has ever been observed anyway, so its a moot point.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by penguino

i totally want to meet this guy.

I thought some one would ge a kick out of that. Can you imagine......???

This gus has a bachelores degree in chemistry but somebody thought he was qualified enough to be the authority on evolution.

I caould understand it in a way if he, as a "minor" chenist, to the testable data and tested it and gave his opinion.....but the first thing he did was say "Let look at the bible"...... WHAT????????

This is the same book that said insects had 4 legs.....Can you imagine......? A bug with 4 legs instead of six or eight in the case of arachnids?


Just my opinion on it I guess....