Is there a creation theory?

[Cabal]

Evolution can not predict anything.

Er, yes, it can.

 

[Hespera]

Evolution can not predict anything.

Nice try at playing Alex vs Gordion knot, but you only betray the deepest and most fundamental lack of comprehension of what ToE is.

 

[ragarth]

Evolution can not predict anything.

Take a basic biology course, or read a biology text book, then come back.

 

[juvenissun]

Er, yes, it can.

Please give me an example.

-----

The following is NOT a prediction:

A exists
C exists
So, we predict B "could" exist.
All A, B, C, are past events

A prediction looks like this:

A, B, C, ... so D, or X.
The current time is at C.

 

[ragarth]

Please give me an example.

-----

The following is NOT a prediction:

A exists
C exists
So, we predict B "could" exist.
All A, B, C, are past events

A prediction looks like this:

A, B, C, ... so D, or X.
The current time is at C.

A scientific 'prediction' refers to the act of gathering the information, not the time period the information is from. Evolution predicts transitional forms in the fossil record. We might dig these forms up in the future even though they come from animals in the past. The *act* of testing the predictions is what's predicted.

 

[juvenissun]

A scientific 'prediction' refers to the act of gathering the information, not the time period the information is from. Evolution predicts transitional forms in the fossil record. We might dig these forms up in the future even though they come from animals in the past. The *act* of testing the predictions is what's predicted.

That is why I bothered to define what prediction is in my post. In fact, my version is a more common one. "Predict" a transitional form is meaningless. Based on the theory of evolution, nobody needs to see any transitional form.

Based on that, I say it again: Evolution can not predict.

 

[AV1611VET]

A scientific 'prediction' refers to the act of gathering the information, not the time period the information is from. Evolution predicts transitional forms in the fossil record. We might dig these forms up in the future even though they come from animals in the past. The *act* of testing the predictions is what's predicted.

This is the way I think these "predictions" and their "discoveries" are fed to the public --- and how I think they're "really" done:

The public is made to think evolution works this way:

1. You're out in the field, and you find the letter A.

2. Later, you find the letter Z.

3. You predict that, in time, you'll find "transitionals".

4. Low and behold --- you find the letter L and place it in the line between A and Z.

5. Later, you find the letter F and place it in the line between A and L.

6. All fed to the public as "just what we expected to find".

But this is the way I think it really works:

1. You're out in the field, and you find a !

2. Later, you find a ¥

3. You predict that, in time, you'll find "transitionals".

4. Low and behold --- you find a Ŧ and place it in the line between ! and ¥

5. Later, you find a Ж and place it in the line between Ŧ and ¥

6. All fed to the public as "just what we expected to find".

Try doing this for once:

1. Make the prediction before you make the discovery.

2. Find it.

 

[Cabal]

This is the way I think these "predictions" and their "discoveries" are fed to the public --- and how I think they're "really" done:

The public is made to think evolution works this way:

1. You're out in the field, and you find the letter A.

2. Later, you find the letter Z.

3. You predict that, in time, you'll find "transitionals".

4. Low and behold --- you find the letter L and place it in the line between A and Z.

5. Later, you find the letter F and place it in the line between A and L.

6. All fed to the public as "just what we expected to find".

But this is the way I think it really works:

1. You're out in the field, and you find a !

2. Later, you find a ¥

3. You predict that, in time, you'll find "transitionals".

4. Low and behold --- you find a Ŧ and place it in the line between ! and ¥

5. Later, you find a Ж and place it in the line between Ŧ and ¥

6. All fed to the public as "just what we expected to find".

Try doing this for once:

1. Make the prediction before you make the discovery.

2. Find it.

Yeah, it was called the Origin of Species, it's been out since the 1850s?

 

[Cabal]

That is why I bothered to define what prediction is in my post. In fact, my version is a more common one. "Predict" a transitional form is meaningless. Based on the theory of evolution, nobody needs to see any transitional form.

Based on that, I say it again: Evolution can not predict.

Ah right. "I don't like those predictions, and by my definition evolution can't predict therefore I win."

What nonsense.

Bye now

 

[ragarth]

Try doing this for once:

1. Make the prediction before you make the discovery.

2. Find it.

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.


So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a “fishopod,” beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.

NeuroLogica Blog The Judgement of Tiktaalik

1)done.
2)done.

 

[ragarth]

That is why I bothered to define what prediction is in my post. In fact, my version is a more common one. "Predict" a transitional form is meaningless. Based on the theory of evolution, nobody needs to see any transitional form.

Based on that, I say it again: Evolution can not predict.

From now on I'll define 'fecal matter' to mean 'yummy delicious cheesecake'. So, do you like eating fecal matter? I do, I love baking fecal matter, and there's so many ways you can modify fecal matter, adding strawberries, chocolate chunks, layering it's crust with chocolate. I love chocolate and fecal matter- they go so well together.

Language is malleable, one can define anything into anything else. I could play endless games with you by defining words in new and wonderful ways. This does not, however, change the meaning of the word to other people. By supporting your evidence by redefining a word so that you can interpret the statements of others in ways not intended, this is intellectually dishonest.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction
A prediction is a statement or claim that a particular event will occur in the future in more certain terms than a forecast. The etymology of this word is Latin (from præ- "before" plus dicere "to say"). In regards to predicting the future Howard H. Stevenson Says, "Prediction is at least two things: Important and hard." Important, because we have to act, and hard because we have to realize the future we want, and what is the best way to get there.

Evolution makes predictions, it predicts 'an event will occur in the future' by stating we will in the future find transitional forms. This has born fruit.

On a personal note, I'm getting very tired of debating the definitions of words with you. This will be the last time I provide you with the definition for a common word.

 

[Hespera]

Since juv thinks that "Based on the theory of evolution, nobody needs to see any transitional form.

Based on that, I say it again: Evolution can not predict."

I would like him to... CHALLENGE him to... produce any form of documentation for this belief about ToE not involving transitional forms.

Ragarth, i couldnt agree ore about the word definition game. Debate with Humpty dumpty definitions is utterly pointless. its like in jr high when i beat this kid in chess, and he cant accept that a GIRL could beat him, so he makes some ridiculous move that turned it all around, saying to my protest that its "French rules".

Either debate with what the rule book / dictionary say or walk away.

Regarding predictions, ToE would predict that a population of any organism will change and adapt to changing environmental conditoins.

To look at how quickly domestic plants and animals changed to suit environmental pressure and then say that it cant happen under natural conditions is going off into a level of absurdity that should not be dignified with further discussion.

 

[juvenissun]

From now on I'll define 'fecal matter' to mean 'yummy delicious cheesecake'. So, do you like eating fecal matter? I do, I love baking fecal matter, and there's so many ways you can modify fecal matter, adding strawberries, chocolate chunks, layering it's crust with chocolate. I love chocolate and fecal matter- they go so well together.

Language is malleable, one can define anything into anything else. I could play endless games with you by defining words in new and wonderful ways. This does not, however, change the meaning of the word to other people. By supporting your evidence by redefining a word so that you can interpret the statements of others in ways not intended, this is intellectually dishonest.

from Prediction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A prediction is a statement or claim that a particular event will occur in the future in more certain terms than a forecast. The etymology of this word is Latin (from præ- "before" plus dicere "to say"). In regards to predicting the future Howard H. Stevenson Says, "Prediction is at least two things: Important and hard." Important, because we have to act, and hard because we have to realize the future we want, and what is the best way to get there.

Evolution makes predictions, it predicts 'an event will occur in the future' by stating we will in the future find transitional forms. This has born fruit.

On a personal note, I'm getting very tired of debating the definitions of words with you. This will be the last time I provide you with the definition for a common word.

A "transitional form" is a thing made in the past.

Well, struggle with definition is the fact of life. If you do science, you will live with it for the rest of your life. The more you know, the more often you will revisit definitions. And the more you will see that people are arguing because the difference on the very basic definitions.

For example, what is "God"? We can stay on the definition of this word indefinitely.

 

[ragarth]

A "transitional form" is a thing made in the past.

Well, struggle with definition is the fact of life. If you do science, you will live with it for the rest of your life. The more you know, the more often you will revisit definitions. And the more you will see that people are arguing because the difference on the very basic definitions.

For example, what is "God"? We can stay on the definition of this word indefinitely.

You have some very peculiar and fallacious ideas. In any case, it's apparant you want only to engage in a 'nuh uh' 'uh huh' game. I stated my point showing the fallacy of your statement, you restated your statement without engaging in my post at all. My conversation with you is at an end.

 

[juvenissun]

Since juv thinks that "Based on the theory of evolution, nobody needs to see any transitional form.

Based on that, I say it again: Evolution can not predict."

I would like him to... CHALLENGE him to... produce any form of documentation for this belief about ToE not involving transitional forms.

Ragarth, i couldnt agree ore about the word definition game. Debate with Humpty dumpty definitions is utterly pointless. its like in jr high when i beat this kid in chess, and he cant accept that a GIRL could beat him, so he makes some ridiculous move that turned it all around, saying to my protest that its "French rules".

Either debate with what the rule book / dictionary say or walk away.

Regarding predictions, ToE would predict that a population of any organism will change and adapt to changing environmental conditoins.

To look at how quickly domestic plants and animals changed to suit environmental pressure and then say that it cant happen under natural conditions is going off into a level of absurdity that should not be dignified with further discussion.

This is not prediction. It is observation+interpretation.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

NeuroLogica Blog The Judgement of Tiktaalik

1)done.
2)done.

Quoted just so AV1611VET doesn't miss it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Quoted just so AV1611VET doesn't miss it.

Ya --- one example out of how many quadrillion?

How many misses have there been?

And I'll point out the language used ---

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik.

--- but I'll overlook it and give you guys credit for one hit.

 

[ragarth]

Ya --- one example out of how many quadrillion?

How many misses have there been?

And I'll point out the language used ------ but I'll overlook it and give you guys credit for one hit.

How many misses have there been in modern evolution? Provide me with a prediction it's made that's been proven false. I provided you with a prediction that has been proven true, but you have failed to counter with anything but empty, meaningless words.

 

[AV1611VET]

How many misses have there been in modern evolution? Provide me with a prediction it's made that's been proven false.

I can't --- I don't know evolution --- I don't know how it works --- I don't think like an evolutionist --- and I surely don't debate it.

I wasn't aware it had a different definition of "prediction" than what I'm familiar with --- and I know absolutely zero about it.

I think the technical definition of evolution is: the change of alleles over time --- or ∆[sub]alleles[/sub]/T --- but I've read the definition of alleles in Wikipedia several times, and I still don't know [or care] what they are.

I provided you with a prediction that has been proven true, but you have failed to counter with anything but empty, meaningless words.

That's your opinion.

 

[Hespera]

Originally Posted by Hespera

Since juv thinks that "Based on the theory of evolution, nobody needs to see any transitional form.

Based on that, I say it again: Evolution can not predict."

I would like him to... CHALLENGE him to... produce any form of documentation for this belief about ToE not involving transitional forms.

Ragarth, i couldnt agree ore about the word definition game. Debate with Humpty dumpty definitions is utterly pointless. its like in jr high when i beat this kid in chess, and he cant accept that a GIRL could beat him, so he makes some ridiculous move that turned it all around, saying to my protest that its "French rules".

Either debate with what the rule book / dictionary say or walk away.

Regarding predictions, ToE would predict that a population of any organism will change and adapt to changing environmental conditoins.

To look at how quickly domestic plants and animals changed to suit environmental pressure and then say that it cant happen under natural conditions is going off into a level of absurdity that should not be dignified with further discussion.


Juv sez....

​

This is not prediction. It is observation+interpretation.


hespera sez. we know by now that you can and will try to define everything / anything to fit your ideology.

i guess you missed the challenge?

​

juvenissun View Public Profile Send a private message to juvenissun Send email to juvenissun Find all posts by juvenissun Add juvenissun to Your Contacts