My Evolution Challenge

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Creationism, the antithesis of evolution, has no predictive power.

It simply was a fact of history -- nothing more, nothing less.

Whereas evolution is considered an ongoing process.

No, yes, no and no (at least in the way you mean "no").

1/4 = 25% = F

 

[rockaction]

Creationism, the antithesis of evolution, has no predictive power.

It simply was a fact of history -- nothing more, nothing less.

Whereas evolution is considered an ongoing process.

But evolution DOES have predictive power! So which should we got with - the theory that helps us better understand the world or an idea that has no predictive power that seeks to impede legitimate scientific pursuit?

 

[kharisym]

Creationism, the antithesis of evolution, has no predictive power.

It simply was a fact of history -- nothing more, nothing less.

Whereas evolution is considered an ongoing process.

If it makes no predictions and has no evidence supporting it, then you have no reason to claim it as true- unless you're deluded.

Evolution, on the other hand, does have evidence supporting it, and it does have predictive power, therefore it's reasonable to claim it as true.

Thus far in this thread, AV, you've happily admitted that you believe in something with no proof, no hope for proof, nor any reason to think there's proof. This is a state that I pity- humans are better than such mental squalor.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

If it makes no predictions and has no evidence supporting it, then you have no reason to claim it as true- unless you're deluded.

Evolution, on the other hand, does have evidence supporting it, and it does have predictive power, therefore it's reasonable to claim it as true.

Thus far in this thread, AV, you've happily admitted that you believe in something with no proof, no hope for proof, nor any reason to think there's proof. This is a state that I pity- humans are better than such mental squalor.

That's ok bro, he's got his kjv. Plus he gets bonus points for being "persecuted" while on this earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

But evolution DOES have predictive power! So which should we got with - the theory that helps us better understand the world or an idea that has no predictive power that seeks to impede legitimate scientific pursuit?

You go with both, until one contradicts the other, then you jettison the right one.

That's what I call Boolean standards.

So you predicted Tiktaalik -- big deal.

Now go out there and predict a whole species of displaced animals returning to their point of origination, and I might -- just might -- consider evolution to have a modicum of equivalence to God's predicitive power.

I know challenging you guys to stack your predictions up to God's predictions will just bring out you "experts" hooting & hollering that all these predictions were done after-the-fact.

For every prediction evolution makes, there are probably 10 or more in the Bible that have a much greater probability of failure (yet didn't) than your predictions.

I hope you can see that I'm not impressed with having Tiktaalik being touted as an example of evolution's predictive power.

 

[kharisym]

That's ok bro, he's got his kjv. Plus he gets bonus points for being "persecuted" while on this earth.

KJV isn't proof of science. It's unsourced and makes claims that have been well falsified. The only reasons I've ever read to use it as a source for anything other than a historical document were obvious logical fallacies.

Again, he has no proof of his position. It's sad. I'm reminded of a common tale we've all heard- the king in his new robes, strutting through town not realizing he's stark naked. Creationists wave around these fallacies and PRATTS as if they meant anything, ignoring those around them explaining why their 'proof' is a load of bollocks. Creationists bear their ignorance and egotism before everyone, strutting them about naked before all those who know better.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it makes no predictions and has no evidence supporting it, then you have no reason to claim it as true- unless you're deluded.

Evolution, on the other hand, does have evidence supporting it, and it does have predictive power, therefore it's reasonable to claim it as true.

Thus far in this thread, AV, you've happily admitted that you believe in something with no proof, no hope for proof, nor any reason to think there's proof. This is a state that I pity- humans are better than such mental squalor.

And you can keep your pity -- until you learn the difference between 'mental squalor' and 'faith'.

This is what you guys don't understand at all -- our faith; and you're getting a good dose of it on this website.

And frankly, you sanctimonious scientists come across as being disgusted by it; and that's just too bad.

 

[kharisym]

You go with both, until one contradicts the other, then you jettison the right one.

That's what I call Boolean standards.

So you predicted Tiktaalik -- big deal.

Now go out there and predict a whole species of displaced animals returning to their point of origination, and I might -- just might -- consider evolution to have a modicum of equivalence to God's predicitive power.

I know challenging you guys to stack your predictions up to God's predictions will just bring out you "experts" hooting & hollering that all these predictions were done after-the-fact.

For every prediction evolution makes, there are probably 10 or more in the Bible that have a much greater probability of failure (yet didn't) than your predictions.

I hope you can see that I'm not impressed with having Tiktaalik being touted as an example of evolution's predictive power.

"Now go out there and predict a whole species of displaced animals returning to their point of origination, and I might -- just might -- consider evolution to have a modicum of equivalence to God's predicitive power."

I still don't understand what it is you're asking for here.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's ok bro, he's got his kjv.

That's right.

Plus he gets bonus points for being "persecuted" while on this earth.

Those 'bonus points' -- we call the martyr's crown.

Only being called a liar, troll, omphalos, and everything else but what I claim to be -- I don't really consider persecution, per se.

So, no, I doubt I'll ever wear that crown.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

"Now go out there and predict a whole species of displaced animals returning to their point of origination, and I might -- just might -- consider evolution to have a modicum of equivalence to God's predicitive power."

I still don't understand what it is you're asking for here.

That's ok, neither does he.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's unsourced and makes claims that have been well falsified.

Falsifying a claim by a false claim is not legitimate falsification.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Now go out there and predict a whole species of displaced animals returning to their point of origination, and I might -- just might -- consider evolution to have a modicum of equivalence to God's predicitive power."

I still don't understand what it is you're asking for here.

Predicting a Tiktaalik -- meh.

Predicting the return of Israel to her homeland -- now that's a prediction!

(Okay, "experts" -- let's hear it. )

 

[kharisym]

And you can keep your pity -- until you learn the difference between 'mental squalor' and 'faith'.

This is what you guys don't understand at all -- our faith; and you're getting a good dose of it on this website.

And frankly, you sanctimonious scientists come across as being disgusted by it; and that's just too bad.

Sorry if you feel I'm adding to your persecution complex, but the fact is science by its very nature has the facts on its side.

As per mental squalor being equatable with faith, I would agree that some faith is, but I don't think all faith is. When the object of your faith is obviously wrong, then it is mental squalor, if the object of your faith isn't clear cut or not yet dis-proven then it's not. Creationism is mental squalor, god is not. Creationism is thoroughly debunked, god is not.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Predicting a Tiktaalik -- meh.

Predicting the return of Israel to her homeland -- now that's a prediction!

(Okay, "experts" -- let's hear it. )

I'm not as impressed as you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry if you feel I'm adding to your persecution complex, but the fact is science by its very nature has the facts on its side.

Uh-huh -- that's why it changes with the weather.

You might claim you have the facts on your side, but you don't have enough of the facts to call it 'truth'.

What is 'factual' today, will be 'wrong' tomorrow.

Creationism is thoroughly debunked, god is not.

Says you.

By you guys' own admission, there is not a shred of evidence supporting creationism; so please don't think I'm going to accept it when you tell me it's been 'thoroughly debunked'.

You can't 'thoroughly debunk' something you can't analyze.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Uh-huh -- that's why it changes with the weather.

You might claim you have the facts on your side, but you don't have enough of the facts to call it 'truth'.

What is 'factual' today, will be 'wrong' tomorrow.

Says you.

By you guys' own admission, there is not a shred of evidence supporting creationism; so please don't think I'm going to accept it when you tell me it's been 'thoroughly debunked'.

You can't 'thoroughly debunk' something you can't analyze.

Sure you can. Google "PRATTS."

 

[kharisym]

Falsifying a claim by a false claim is not legitimate falsification.

The earth is not flat, it doesn't have four corners, towers made of brick and mud cannot be built tall enough to reach the heavens. That's just off the top of my head. Are you going to claim that the earth is flat, that it does have four corners, that towers made of brick and mud can reach the heavens?

On a more sophisticated level, the bible claims that all the people working on the tower of babel had a single unified language. We know from history this isn't true, the babylonians conquered territories all over the place and resettled them to fill space in their territories, so the babyolonians didn't have their peoples broken up and scattered with new languages at all- rather they expanded outward and brought new languages from the regions of mesopotamia into their territory. The babylonians themselves show no hint of ever undergoing a scattering and linguistic shift.

 

[kharisym]

Uh-huh -- that's why it changes with the weather.

You might claim you have the facts on your side, but you don't have enough of the facts to call it 'truth'.

What is 'factual' today, will be 'wrong' tomorrow.

Says you.

By you guys' own admission, there is not a shred of evidence supporting creationism; so please don't think I'm going to accept it when you tell me it's been 'thoroughly debunked'.

You can't 'thoroughly debunk' something you can't analyze.

"[science] changes with the weather." I'm pretty sure you make statement like this to try and goad others, knowing full well why it's completely inaccurate. That's the only explanation I can think of after seeing it be explained to you so often yet you never even change your usage.

I also have a feeling your playing an equivocation game, using the word 'truth' with a definition attached to it that's not standard. This is also a Creationist tactic, this way when an argument is provided that relies upon the regular definition, you can hide behind your secret definition and proclaim the opposing ideas inferior because the people making them aren't mind readers.

Creationists have made claims regarding creationism, these claims have been debunked. Further, creationism is a proposal that has real world consequences, therefore it has an amount of predictive capacity- predictions made with it have been proven false. Given this, creationism has been debunked.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists have made claims regarding creationism, these claims have been debunked.

So?

I might debunk one or two of them, myself if someone started going on to me about claims regarding creationism.

I'm sure claims regarding evolution have been debunked as well?

Further, creationism is a proposal that has real world consequences...

No, it doesn't, kharisym.

I don't know where you're getting this; but certainly not from me.

Creationism is an act of history -- nothing more, nothing less.

People who try to make creationism into some kind of philosophy deserves to be pwned -- in my opinion.

... therefore it has an amount of predictive capacity-

Bologna.

-predictions made with it have been proven false.

Good.

Given this, creationism has been debunked.

Ya -- given that -- and again I say: big deal.

 

[Split Rock]

Uh-huh -- that's why it changes with the weather.

You might claim you have the facts on your side, but you don't have enough of the facts to call it 'truth'.

What is 'factual' today, will be 'wrong' tomorrow.

And you don't have any facts on your side at all... yet you claim to know "The Truth!"

By you guys' own admission, there is not a shred of evidence supporting creationism; so please don't think I'm going to accept it when you tell me it's been 'thoroughly debunked'.

You can't 'thoroughly debunk' something you can't analyze.

Certain aspects of creationism have been debunked:
1. Global Flood
2. Man has no common ancestor with any other creature
3. Embedded Age
4. Earth is the center of the universe
5. Created "Kinds"