1. 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?

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Fluffy, Aug 18, 2007.

?
  1. People do not understand why testable predictions are important

    16 vote(s)
    48.5%
  2. Creationism has merit despite its lack of testable predictions

    2 vote(s)
    6.1%
  3. Something else

    15 vote(s)
    45.5%
  1. Don Penguinoini

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    9,247
    Ratings:
    +729
    Religion:
    Hindu Atheist
    Becase sometimes faith in something is all some people need to believe, love and cherish something.

    (atheists are things...what a friggin wierdo!)
     
  2. Darkness

    Darkness Psychoanalyst/Marxist

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,806
    Ratings:
    +409
    Explain to us, this encounter?

    I love this guy. :D
     
  3. Rolling_Stone

    Rolling_Stone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,229
    Ratings:
    +254
    Lots of things without testable predictions are thought to be "scientific."

    I wonder...is the fact that H2O puts out fire predictable?
     
  4. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
  5. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    Why don't you think its conclusive?
     
  6. Rolling_Stone

    Rolling_Stone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,229
    Ratings:
    +254
  7. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    I'll have to ask you to explain. The fact that H(2)O puts out fire is testable on the molecular level and beyond, so I guess I don't see your finer point here.
     
  8. astarath

    astarath Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,825
    Ratings:
    +84
    Somethings only happen once take God dying on the cross for our sins. Some thinks need to have a leap of faith in order for us to see the truth.
     
  9. roli

    roli Born Again,Spirit Filled

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,881
    Ratings:
    +103
     
  10. Rolling_Stone

    Rolling_Stone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,229
    Ratings:
    +254
    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.
     
  11. fantome profane

    fantome profane Keep safe, and keep your neighbours safe.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,085
    Ratings:
    +7,486
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. camanintx

    camanintx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,329
    Ratings:
    +137
    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.
     
  13. charles brough

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2006
    Messages:
    242
    Ratings:
    +14
    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
     
  14. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,892
    Ratings:
    +3,252
    :bow:

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Don Penguinoini

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    9,247
    Ratings:
    +729
    Religion:
    Hindu Atheist
    :biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh: i totally want to meet this guy.
     
  16. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    59,659
    Ratings:
    +17,475
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    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.
     
  17. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    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.
     
  18. Dirty Penguin

    Dirty Penguin Master Of Ceremony

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    12,072
    Ratings:
    +615
    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....:)
     
Loading...