• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do people believe in Creationism despite its lack of testable predictions?

Why do people believe in Creationism despite a lack of testable predictions?

  • People do not understand why testable predictions are important

    Votes: 16 48.5%
  • Creationism has merit despite its lack of testable predictions

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • Something else

    Votes: 15 45.5%

  • Total voters
    33

Fluffy

A fool
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?
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
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?
With all due respect Fluffy, and ya know I love ya, I thought the title of this poll was one of the strangest that I've seen in my years on RF. To me, it's like asking, "Why do people eat ice cream despite its lack of meat?"

Just speaking for myself, whether or not I believe in something is not predicated on whether it has testable predictions. It doesn't even occur to me.

My number one question would be:
"Does it fit with what I've experienced in the past?"

And if the answer is no, then my second question would be:
"Do I trust its source?"

It is much less about "logic" and much more about personal experience, and yes, the f-word, faith.
 

Fluffy

A fool
Heya Lilithu,
I think it would only seem strange to a person who understood how one could arrive at a belief outside of the scientific method especially with such a high degree of conviction. I lack this understanding and so I ask only so that I might gain insight into it.

Faith and science are not mutually exclusive. It is only the role that faith should play that is disagreed upon. So when you mention faith, I can completely understand that since I have faith as well but I attempt to restrict my faith to as few assumptions as possible and judge those assumptions that I have faith in according to whether I feel they are worthy of faith.

Surely others must have similar criteria since otherwise they would be unable to distinguish between those beliefs they felt worthy of holding (ie those they hold) and those that are not worthy of holding (ie those they reject).

You list two criteria but I don't see how you arrived at holding them in the abscence of logic or at least according to some level of reasoning.

yossarian22 said:
I despise the "personal choice" and faith arguments more then anything else
At one point I despised such arguments as well but I have since realised that this was a result of my frustration at being unable to understand them.

Heya Buttercup,
Absolutely. Perhaps an example would be the best way of doing so.

Darwin predicted that PreCambrian fossils would be found. Had they not been found then evolutionary theory would need to be significantly altered to account for their abscence. As they have been found, a prediction has been made based on evolutionary theory that was later verified.
 

!Fluffy!

Lacking Common Sense
Well, is it logical to suppose that science can ever disprove a Creator?

And although scientific method may be able to go a long way towards proving certain theories, it fails miserably in the "why" department, imho.
 

Buttercup

Veteran Member
Heya Buttercup,
Absolutely. Perhaps an example would be the best way of doing so.

Darwin predicted that PreCambrian fossils would be found. Had they not been found then evolutionary theory would need to be significantly altered to account for their abscence. As they have been found, a prediction has been made based on evolutionary theory that was later verified.
I had a feeling that was the direction you were headed.

I'm not a theist at the moment :p but, I'm guessing you might hear a few stories of prophesy, especially of Christ's predicted arrival. Other than that I'm surmising most Creationists don't find testable predictions necessary when faith is involved in the equation. :shrug:
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
I despise the "personal choice" and faith arguments more then anything else.
That's nice. :sarcastic


Heya Lilithu,
I think it would only seem strange to a person who understood how one could arrive at a belief outside of the scientific method especially with such a high degree of conviction. I lack this understanding and so I ask only so that I might gain insight into it.
Honestly, I find it strange to think that someone could ONLY believe in things via the scientific method.


Surely others must have similar criteria since otherwise they would be unable to distinguish between those beliefs they felt worthy of holding (ie those they hold) and those that are not worthy of holding (ie those they reject).
Similar criteria to what? (Sorry for being dense.) Everyone has criteria by which they distinguish, yes, but they apparently are based on different things for different people.


You list two criteria but I don't see how you arrived at holding them in the abscence of logic or at least according to some level of reasoning.
Oh, I didn't say that my criteria were devoid of reasoning. I think someone deciding things in a way that is completely devoid of reasoning is almost as hard for me to imagine as someone deciding things based exclusively on reasoning. We say it's one or the other (head/heart) in order to distinguish what we emphasize, but I'm quite certain that most of us use both, to one extent or another.

But while most everyone uses reasoning, "testable predictions" is another level.

And imo, it's not the lack of testable predictions that makes biblical creationism suspect.

IMO, biblical creationism does have testable predictions. It's just that they have failed the tests. For example, if biblical creationism is true, then the earth should only be a few thousand years old. That is a testable prediction. But the earth turns out to be much older.

It's not the lack of testable predictions. It's the fact that the "theory" does not jive with the empirical evidence.
 

Fluffy

A fool
!Fluffy! said:
Well, is it logical to suppose that science can ever disprove a Creator?

And although scientific method may be able to go a long way towards proving certain theories, it fails miserably in the "why" department, imho.

Heya Fluffy :),
It is not logical to suppose that science can disprove anything let alone the Creator.

Likewise, science goes no way towards proving anything in the same way that adding 1 to a number gets me no closer to infinity. However, I think that science manages the "why" of things very well and that is, in fact, the basis for its value. We are probably looking at life through different perspectives.

Buttercup said:
Other than that I'm surmising most Creationists don't find testable predictions necessary when faith is involved in the equation. :shrug:
I would tentatively assume the same thing but would be interested as to whether this was actually the case amongst most Creationists.

lilithu said:
Honestly, I find it strange to think that someone could ONLY believe in things via the scientific method.
Its not that I only believe in things via the scientific method. Its just that I acknowledge that my beliefs that are based upon the scientific method or derived using the scientific method are more valuable and have a higher chance of being true than my other beliefs.

So whilst I might go about believing that doing harm is wrong, I realise that the justification for this belief is lacking compared with, say, my belief in evolution. As such I am more sceptical about my moral beliefs than I am about my scientific ones and I hold them with less certainty.

However, I do find myself to be mentally incapable, thus far, of believing something to be true when I lack a rational justification for that belief.

lilithu said:
Similar criteria to what? (Sorry for being dense.) Everyone has criteria by which they distinguish, yes, but they apparently are based on different things for different people.
To the way I distinguish between one belief and another. So in very general terms such as value or worth.

I agree that everyone has different criteria so essentially I am asking for an explanation for the criteria upon which this particular belief is being judged.

lilithu said:
Oh, I didn't say that my criteria were devoid of reasoning. I think someone deciding things in a way that is completely devoid of reasoning is almost as hard for me to imagine as someone deciding things based exclusively on reasoning. We say it's one or the other (head/heart) in order to distinguish what we emphasize, but I'm quite certain that most of us use both, to one extent or another.

Yes I agree but I think there is a difference between viewing emotion as an equal part of the decision making process and viewing it as an integrated but ultimately inferior component. Just because we are so tied up in emotion that emotion influences every decision we make does not mean that in virtue of being integral does it become valuable. There might be other reasons for taking that step but that alone is not sufficient justification.

lilithu said:
IMO, biblical creationism does have testable predictions. It's just that they have failed the tests. For example, if biblical creationism is true, then the earth should only be a few thousand years old. That is a testable prediction. But the earth turns out to be much older.

It's not the lack of testable predictions. It's the fact that the "theory" does not jive with the empirical evidence.
From my understanding, biblical creationism predicts that the earth was created 6000 years ago and asserts that evidence that suggests otherwise is a peculiarity of the way in which it was created. Therefore this does not constitute a testable prediction but the theory does continue to "jive" with empirical evidence.

Is that an unreasonable assertion for creationists to make? If reason is not the driving force of belief then it does not seem like it should be.
 

Seneca

Atheist Scum
Most Christians I have had long discussions with over this are just too proud of the special place that Creationism gives them in the world and the universe although they will often deny it if you ask them outright. They often see it is as insulting to be related to apes and 'brother' to chimpanzees. Many also don't understand it and you see silly pamphlets like 'The eye. So complex, how can this have spontaneously come into existence?'

I know many, who haven't even read one thing about evolution and yet dismiss it outright!! It is impossible to argue or reason with such ignorance.
 

FFH

Veteran Member
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

Veteran Member
Fluffy said:
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.

Falls_recession.jpg

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

A fool
FFH said:
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.

FFH said:
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

Veteran Member
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

Veteran Member
/
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

A fool
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

Veteran Member
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..
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
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?
Maybe because people don't need science to believe in things. All they really need is evidence.
 

FFH

Veteran Member
My prediction..

If the earth is 13,000 years old, with 7,000 years of creation and 6,000 years, since the fall of Adam and Eve, until the present, the waters being divided from those in the firmament/heavens/skies, in the form of clouds and rain, with those which are upon the earth, in the form of rivers and oceans, then the waters should have started flowing over the earth (with the beginning of rain fall and rivers upon the earth(, on the "second" day, which is the second millenium (1,000 years) of creation, which would have started 12,000 years ago, the same time period Niagra Falls started eroding.

This is/was my prediction, I did not borrow this from anyone else on the net, and I have solid proof, in the form of an actual moving timepiece, giving us the approximate age of the earth.

On the second day of creation, God seperated the waters, the earth being 1,000 years old at this time, "a day is as a 1,000 years unto the Lord," as measured unto man.

Genesis 1: 6-8
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven (skies). And the evening and the morning were the second day.

A day being a 1,000 years...

2 Peter 3: 8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
 
Top