Scientific prophecies

Loudmouth · Jul 24, 2012

juvenissun said:
The first thing I argued: Everyone (evolutionist or creationist) is capable of making that prediction. And it does not have to be based on evolution (one could, of course, but is not necessary).

Any problem with that?

Yeah. You are making assertions without any rationale behind it. Why would creationism predict that we would find a fossil that has a mixture of theropod dinosaur and derived avian features but not a fossil with derived avian and mammalian features? How does young earth creationism predict that these fossils will be found in strata that date to millions of years old?

juvenissun · Jul 24, 2012

Loudmouth said:
Please show us how creationism can be used to predict a fossil with a mixture of tetrapod and lobe finned fish features in strata that dates to the Devonian by way of radiometric dating. How would creationism also predict that we would not find a fossil with a mixture of mammalian and avian features.

I don't know the content. If you can tell me how does evolutionist do that, then I can tell you how would a creationist do that (without using evolution).

Loudmouth · Jul 24, 2012

juvenissun said:
I don't know the content. If you can tell me how does evolutionist do that, then I can tell you how would a creationist do that (without using evolution).

Since modern birds evolved from basal theropod dinosaurs then we would expect to see fossils with a mixture of basal theropod features and modern bird features. Mammals did not evolve from birds. Therefore, we would not expect to see a fossil with a mixture of bird and mammal features.

So how does creationism make predictions of what mixtures of features we should and should not see in the fossil record, and in modern species for that matter?

juvenissun · Jul 24, 2012

Loudmouth said:
Yeah. You are making assertions without any rationale behind it. Why would creationism predict that we would find a fossil that has a mixture of theropod dinosaur and derived avian features but not a fossil with derived avian and mammalian features? How does young earth creationism predict that these fossils will be found in strata that date to millions of years old?

Of course one can make that prediction. Why not? If we could find it or not is another matter. One does not need any idea of evolution to make such simple predictions.

And at least I assume bat fits that category. Isn't it? (see, I am not so bad in biology, am I?

)

RickG · Jul 24, 2012

juvenissun said:
Of course one can make that prediction. Why not? If we could find it or not is another matter. One does not need any idea of evolution to make such simple predictions.

And at least I assume bat fits that category. Isn't it? (see, I am not so bad in biology, am I? )

No, bats are mammals, not aves.

juvenissun · Jul 24, 2012

RickG said:
No, bats are mammals, not aves.

It can fly.

Skaloop · Jul 24, 2012

juvenissun said:
It can fly.

Flying is neither a necessary nor sufficient avian characteristic.

Loudmouth · Jul 24, 2012

juvenissun said:
Of course one can make that prediction. Why not?

I would love to see you answer your own question. Without knowledge of evolution, why would we expect to find a fossil with a mixture of basal theropod and avian features. Why wouldn't we expect to find a fossil with a mixture of bird and mammal features?

And at least I assume bat fits that category. Isn't it? (see, I am not so bad in biology, am I? )

What bird features do bats have? They don't have feathers. They don't lay bird eggs. They don't have bird wings. They don't have a flow through lung system. they don't have a single middle ear bone. All of the features that bats have are like those of mammals, not birds. Bats have fur, give birth to live young, lactate, a mammalian lung system, membrane wing spanning across phalanges, and three middle ear bones. A bat is a mammal. There is no derived bird feature in bats. Why can't we find a flying creature with feathers and three middle earbones who lactates? What is it about creationism that precludes such animals from existing?

RickG · Jul 24, 2012

juvenissun said:
It can fly.

And alligators have legs, but we are not reptiles.

Loudmouth · Jul 24, 2012

juvenissun said:
It can fly.

Ostriches can't fly, and yet they are a bird.

LifeToTheFullest! · Jul 24, 2012

juvenissun said:
It can fly.

And whales can swim. Your point?

Smidlee · Jul 24, 2012

juvenissun said:
It can fly.

Don't be silly. Everyone knows eyes and wings have evolved multiple times but boobs can only evolve once. Boobs are more important than wings when it comes to man. All boobs came from one ancestor; Boobzilla.

LifeToTheFullest! · Jul 24, 2012

Smidlee said:
Don't be silly. Everyone knows eyes and wings have evolved multiple times but boobs can only evolve once. Boobs are more important than wings when it comes to man. All boobs came from one ancestor; Boobzilla.

Does this explain why males have nipples?

Did you know that bats have evolved at least thirteen different types of sonar?

Smidlee · Jul 24, 2012

LifeToTheFullest! said:
Does this explain why males have nipples?

Did you know that bats have evolved at least thirteen different types of sonar?

Yes, Boobzilla found males with nipples more attractive while the non-nippled males stayed cold-blooded.

juvenissun · Jul 24, 2012

Loudmouth said:
I would love to see you answer your own question. Without knowledge of evolution, why would we expect to find a fossil with a mixture of basal theropod and avian features. Why wouldn't we expect to find a fossil with a mixture of bird and mammal features?

A bird flies and has two feet, a mouse runs and has 4 feet. So, there could be something which has three feet, can run and can fly.

As simple as that. We may not find it on the earth. But how do you know it does not exist in other earth-like planet?

That is all a prediction takes.

juvenissun · Jul 24, 2012

All right, Aggie. This thread is done for me.

RickG · Jul 25, 2012

juvenissun said:
A bird flies and has two feet, a mouse runs and has 4 feet. So, there could be something which has three feet, can run and can fly.

As simple as that. We may not find it on the earth. But how do you know it does not exist in other earth-like planet?

That is all a prediction takes.

Yes, that is a prediction, a philosophical prediction, not a scientific one. You present no data to support your claims.

juvenissun · Jul 25, 2012

RickG said:
Yes, that is a prediction, a philosophical prediction, not a scientific one. You present no data to support your claims.

Philosophical and scientific predictions are the same. You can not predict without having something at hand.

CabVet · Jul 25, 2012

8pm -

juvenissun said:
All right, Aggie. This thread is done for me.

9 hours later -

juvenissun said:
Philosophical and scientific predictions are the same. You can not predict without having something at hand.

Keep going...

But just FYI, a scientific prediction is based on a scientific theory. That means in particular it is reproducible (by everybody with the appropriate education), consistent, and the theory it is based on is not in conflict with available data already.

mzungu · Jul 25, 2012

juvenissun said:
A bird flies and has two feet, a mouse runs and has 4 feet. So, there could be something which has three feet, can run and can fly.

As simple as that. We may not find it on the earth. But how do you know it does not exist in other earth-like planet?

That is all a prediction takes.

You looking for a square wheel

Function dictates form and three legs lack function!

Scientific prophecies

Contributor

... and God saw that it was good.

Contributor

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

Question everything

INVICTUS

Similar threads