People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

There is no 'innovational and integrative principle' there is random mutation and natural selection. Both of which have, indeed, been observed in the laboratory. Those aren't predictions, they're existing knowledge retrofitted to the idea. In order to be a meaningful prediction it needs to have been predicted before they were discovered like, for example, Archaeopteryx or Australopithecus. On many, many occasions evolution has predicted the existence of fossils based on the existing state of knowledge and then those fossils have, indeed, been found. Creationism has nothing similar to offer.

I'm afraid you've not addressed the point of my post, Kelly.Archaeopteryx is a bird with many features intermediate between modern birds and reptiles (dinosaurs, in fact) and it was predicted by evolution there would be such a fossil discovered before it was found. Similarly with Australopithecus, it is a fossil showing features intermediate between humans and other apes as it was predicted would be found.Now, I'm not interested in arguing about these particular examples here (start a new thread if you are), but in what it means to be a prediction. The important points are these a) that a sufficently precise prediction about something which we will find in the future is made and then b) that prediction is confirmed afterwards. This is a really key feature of a convincing scientific theory and it something that Creationism has simply not produced.You want Creationism to be taken seriously as a science you need to start making detailed detailed predictions about things we haven't found yet.Edited by Mr Jack, : Ungarbling

Hi Kelly,I realise that a lot of people are posting at you in this thread and others, which makes it hard to make quality replies to every message, and I thank you for replying at all.However, you've not still not addressed the point I'm making; instead you're concentrating on the example. Let's drop Archaeopteryx and Evolution altogether and hop over to another science: physics. After Einstein formulated his Theory of Relativity he made a prediction: that during the solar eclipse we would be able to see a certain star behind the sun because the gravity of the sun would bend the light - something that Newtonian physics states wouldn't happen. Lo and behold, that star was observed, and it provided utterly compelling evidence that Einstein's theories were correct*.What I'm looking for from you, and Creationism, is a similar prediction. It's not enough to pattern match things that are already known, to convince people of a new scientific idea you need to make predictions about things we haven't seen yet, and then have those predictions confirmed. Further, those predictions need to be detailed enough and follow coherently enough from the evidence and theory to be convincing.Can you give me such an example? Can you state any predictions that Creationism makes for the still undiscovered?* - technically, of course, Einstein's theories are "correct" - science doesn't really work like that - but the demonstration with the star clearly showed that Einstein was "more correct" than Newton.

Without the first and second laws operating life wouldn't function at all. They're utterly central to the ordered principles of chemsitry and physics that allow basic operations of the body to progress. Without the second law of thermodynamics your body couldn't digest food; your neurons wouldn't function and your whole body would overheat, for, at the most basic level, it's the second law that means that heat flows from hot things to cold and that chemicals difuse from high concentration to low.As a bit of an aside, and in partial answer to your first sentence: it's not really correct to say that the first and second laws operate on anything. They're large scale descriptions of what goes on at the lower level.

A prediction can be about something in the past (a fossil) if that thing is not yet known to us. Accurate predictions about the unknown are the real, beating heart of convincing "proof" of scientific ideas. If you can't make predictions, you're never going to convince anyone and nor should you - anyone can come up with an idea that fits the known facts; but for an idea to accurately predict something we don't yet know? Well, that's another matter, because it's deeply unlikely that an arbitrarily concocted model will produce accurate predictions.Creationism hasn't made these predictions, so it hasn't had predictions confirmed and thus no-one in science takes it seriously. And why is this? It's because it isn't science, and it has never even tried to be.

But still you give no examples, not one case of a prediction made by creationists and then later confirmed; instead you present an irrelevant list of past scientists. Ah, clairvoyant scientists! (You realise most of the people in that list died before The Origin of Species was published?)

Science does two remarkable things: it lets us understand why the world is how it is, and it lets us predict how it will behave in the future. The former is often the more interesting of the two; but it is in the latter that science is able to convince us of it's validity.Creationism and its bastard child misnomer Creation "Science" can do neither of these things.Creation does not offer an explaination because it is unable to explain why things are one way and not another: because God chose to make it that way does not answer anything. And Creationism has made no predictions about the world, save those that have been found to be false.Kelly, in this thread, has failed to show anything about Creation "Science" to demonstrate that the above assessment is wrong. The "predictions" she has offered are, instead, post hoc rationalisations of a kind that could be offered whatever the properties of the world were.