The creation scientists at Answers in Genesis are full of delightful surprises. Look what just appeared at their website: The Creation Model Makes Successful Predictions.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What a title! Who wrote it? As you might have guessed, the author is none other than Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), ol’ Hambo himself — the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He’s the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and for the mind-boggling Creation Museum.
We know how eager you are to learn about creationism’s successful predictions, so let’s get started with some excerpts, and a bit of bold font added by us for emphasis:
There are two primary models of Earth’s history — evolution over millions of years and a young universe specially created by God. Both of these models make scientific predictions, but which one makes successful predictions? Well, as we show in our books, DVDs, and articles, as well as at our conferences, it’s the creation model that makes successful predictions because we start from the truth of God’s Word.
Hambo even gives us some examples:
For example, starting with the Bible, we know there’s only one race — and that’s what science has confirmed. If there really was a worldwide Flood, we should find billions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the Earth. And that’s exactly what we find.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Hey, Hambo, overlooking the fact that creationists came late to the “one race” conclusion, those aren’t predictions. They’re examples of things everybody already knows, about which creationists declare “God did it!” How about — for once! — using your “theory” to predict something that no one has ever seen, like the cosmic microwave background, or the existence of Neptune, or the discovery of a growing list of transitional fossils? Ah well, let’s read on:
When you start with God’s Word, you get successful predictions because observational science, when properly interpreted through the lens of Scripture, always confirms God’s Word.
Uh huh. Yeah. Hambo continues:
Well, our newest research associate, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a graduate of Harvard University, explained in a recent interview how the creation model can be used to make testable predictions that are far more accurate than evolutionary predictions:
[Hambo quotes Jeanson:] Now, one of the things evolutionists commonly challenge us with is, “Well, you’re not scientists. You don’t make testable predictions. You just say ‘God did it, that’s the end of it.” This is a stereotype, a straw man, and it’s not true. For example, the most important question of the evolutionary model is, “How’s evolution supposed to work?” The answer: mutations. Now, young-earth creationists can predict the mutation rate for whatever DNA sequence you want better than the evolutionists can. So, the irony of this, if there’s ever a topic where the evolutionists should excel, that one topic is actually where the creationists are the strongest in terms of the biological model.
Huh? By the way, we recently wrote about Jeanson in this post. Here’s more from Hambo:
So, just like we’ve been showing for years, the creation model makes accurate predictions about observational science. And, of course, this is to be expected because God’s Word is true. Dr. Jeanson explains how this works:
[Hambo quotes Jeanson again:] The reason for this is that we start with the right answer. And if you start with the assumption that animal kinds, or people, or plants, or you name it, fungi, started 6,000 years ago and didn’t evolve over millions of years, you get the right answer. In short, there are far too few genetic differences among species on this planet for them to have been around millions of years. Evolutionists say these guys evolved 50 million years ago, but see if that works. And if it doesn’t work, why should we believe it?
Did you understand that, dear reader? We didn’t either. Here’s one last excerpt from Hambo:
As Dr. Jeanson declared, the creation model makes testable predictions because it starts with the right foundation. Evolutionary models fail because they start with the wrong foundation.
Your Curmudgeon doesn’t know what to say about this. We’ll leave the analysis to you, dear reader.
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.