what is a scientific theory of creation

Apparently no one is going to provide a scientific theory of creation.It should have:
1) testable hypotheses
2) confirming evidence
3) potential falsificationsNow, if creationism is science this should be a trivial exercise.Cheers,
Larry

Provide a model or admit there isn't one. I'm tired of your whining.

Your 'model' wasn't a model. It was two claims that completely avoided anything unique and testable. Of course, if you would like to stop whining and post it again it can, again, be pointed out why it was useless.

Stop with this nonsense and provide a theory. I've already given you as much latitude as you could possibly have and your response so far was to post a could be scenario that wasn't scientific, but a "could be" scenario that was quickly pointed out to be wrong. Either provide a theory or admit you can't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
I think this is the most common misunderstanding by evolutionists.

---

Gee, where did it come from? Oh, that's right: AIG, ICR, Hovind, etc.

quote:

---

Now if we apply your laws to the theory of evolution we will find that evolution is not a science either.

---

Actually here it is for common descent:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

quote:

---

Non of the evolution theorys could stand up to any of these. (keep in mind microevolution is testible and is part of creation)

​

It should have:
1) testable hypotheses
2) confirming evidence
3) potential falsifications

---

See above and retract.

quote:

---

Here's some important quotes:

---

Quotes aren't science. Take it to another thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
While I'm simply flattered that you hold such a high opinion of my efforts, I still don't see much attempt to thoroughly show why my claims are way off base.

---

So exactly how does your 'model' explain creationism? Elaborate. Repost your theory, explain how the physical evidence fits with it and how it could potentially be falsified.

quote:

---

I also find it interesting that a few posts back, TrueCreation asked for some specifics. Seems to me nobody has offered him any. I would have to conclude that you don't WANT to see a theory of Creation because then your point would be refuted.

---

I find it interesting that he can't provide a theory. I've given him as much latitude as anyone could want. Either he can provide a theory or he cannot. I want one, why is giving him latitude a problem in the provision of one?

quote:

---

It also might be of interest if you post your own theory so that TrueCreation or I could see exactly what your criterion is for a scientific theory.

---

First, let's stay to the subject of this thread, okay? My thery is irrelevant to the status of a scientific theory of creationism.Second, I posted a link to such a theory for common descent in this thread. If you wish to discuss it, let's start another thread.Third, my criteria is the scientific method. What are you unclear about concerning the scientific method?

quote:

---

If you don't feel like spending your time doing this, so be it. It will only show even further that you have no real interest in hearing a scientific theory of Creation.

---

How is providing you a competing theory relevant to the status of the scientific theory of creation? Either it exists or it does not. If you wish to discuss the scientific theory of evolution let's start a new thread. However, the question of this thread is what is the scientific theory of creation.

​

[This message has been edited by lbhandli, 02-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Stop with this nonsense and provide a theory. I've already given you as much latitude as you could possibly have and your response so far was to post a could be scenario that wasn't scientific, but a "could be" scenario that was quickly pointed out to be wrong. Either provide a theory or admit you can't."
--I can provide a theory, and I will (actually I already have),

---

I meant scientific theory. What you proposed was a scenario that you claimed could be. However, it was rather quickly dispatched by gene. You need to provide a scientific theory that has not been falsified, has testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications.

quote:

---

my question is are you looking for a theory on creation, ie, how did god create, or just any old theory involved with a young earth?

---

I want a scientific theory that is 'creationist science.' This would mean that it must fit whatever particular brand of creationism you follow. What is unclear her?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Ilbhandli: I find myself in the rather odd and somewhat uncomfortable position of actually backing a creationist over a fellow non-creationist on this particular issue. Yes, cobra's model wasn't very elegant or refined, and (of course ) it's erroneous - but it's still one of the best "scientific" models of creationism I've seen. It has a hypothesis, assumptions that must be true if the hypothesis is true, and two tentative predictions. It is, in short, couched in nearly scientific form, and well worth the effort to refute. Maybe if I restate it for him, with my comments as to what I consider the current "state of play" in the discussion, you'll see what I mean. (Note: the debate thus far has primarily been focused on the implications of the assumptions. Cobra has not yet gotten to presenting positive evidence for the model.) (Cobra: correct me if I mis-state something.)

---

This is exactly what I was trying to get him to repost and discuss. Thanks. Now maybe we can either spin off each discussion or try and keep it here.