Jump to content


Predictions


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
67 replies to this topic

#41 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 February 2010 - 04:02 AM

No one is claiming evolution is scientific either,which means all empirical data will always be discarded in favor of the assumptions. All "sciences" rely on testable predictions and the hallmark of a pseudoscience is a group of scientists clutching at staws and making excuses why the data always fits the competeing model.
It does'nt exactly pin down a flood bottleneck 4-5,000 years ago,but once you carry along pre-existing mutations and how the mutation rate would have been much faster with a very small population starting with only 8 people,then the numbers are nearly a perfect prediction that would be made by Creationists.
Enjoy.

View Post



Yet you are claiming that Parson's empirical evidence supports your view.  How do you reconcile that claim with what I emphasized in your response?  Either you accept and analyze empirical evidence, or you do not.

View Post

Most of the claimed empirical evidence does not even meet the criteria of being empircal.

Empirical: The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.

How much evidence can you name that meets:

1) Being observable.
2) Having experienced it.
3) Can be proven and retested through experiments?

I find that:

#1) Cannot be done in over 95% of the evidence because of the time factor involved. So the claims are made by interpreted evidence and animation. Nothing observable to the point evolution is claimed to have happened.
#2) We cannot experience what we cannot observe.
#3) What cannot be observed cannot be tested or retested. For if it takes a controlled condition, which does not exist in the "real world", then it does not happen because then you are dealing with math and odds that this condition ever really existed.

And as I have been told, math is an exact science. And if the math does not support it, then the likely hood of it ever coming to pass is Nil.

As one mathematician (masters in math) told me a couple of weeks ago... He is not welcome in evolution circles because he can run the numbers of odds and chance of things happening right before their eyes. Mathematicians have more or less been expelled from "all" evolution circles. This is why you don't see any website that promotes evolution displaying the math of the odds that it can happen, because the actual math does not support it.

If the actual evidence were empirical, then the math of it would show this. But it does not. And math is no longer allowed in evolution. Don't believe me? Start a thread on the odds of different things happening in evolution and watch how quickly it goes silent. Or someone will try to derail it by changing the subject.

Anyone can make a prediction about evidence that has to be interpreted. You just make the next interpretation match the prediction and poof, there it is.

#42 Wallace

Wallace

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Portsmouth

Posted 10 February 2010 - 07:46 AM

There is no evidence for any population bottlenecks in any of the groups of organisms that the YEC 'model' demands.

rIlWKp44T50

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam are not population bottlenecks at all.

#43 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 February 2010 - 08:46 AM

There is no evidence for any population bottlenecks in any of the groups of organisms that the YEC 'model' demands.

rIlWKp44T50

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam are not population bottlenecks at all.

View Post


Sorry, but any video that cannot stick to science, but resorts to belittling people to "help" make a "weak" point. I don't accept as science.

So you video has no bearing on this conversation.

Also I would ask you to find better videos than what is put out from Thundrf00t and his friends like Don exodus. If you cannot, then I will have to ask you to quick posting videos.

Debates on this forum are no won or lost by how much one side can belittle the other. Neither will it be tolerated.

If thunderf00t, Don exodus and their Christian hate group cannot put out videos that are strickly scientific, don't bother posting them.

Question: Does stereotyping and belittling people because they disagree represent what science is all about? Does it prove a theory that is supposed to have so much evidence that these things should not be needed? Of course not. So why is it done?

Besides, are videos going to be your debate and practically no conversation? That's lame.

#44 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 February 2010 - 08:55 AM

Evolution certainly predicts a chronological sequence of fossils through the layers.

Fossils rewriting the story of evolution happens all the time and it always will. It only predicts that no rabbit will ever be found in the precambrian to keep itself safe from falsification.

View Post


No fossil has yet disproven common descent.

#45 Wallace

Wallace

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Portsmouth

Posted 10 February 2010 - 09:56 AM

Videos help explain points much more easily and efficiently than could be done by writing out entire paragraphs. I notice that you have no response. For what it is worth, DonExodus2 was a Christian when he made that video, although he appears to no longer be one. You are the one resorting to ad hominem attacks because you can't respond to the evidence. The YEC model absolutely demands that all 'kinds' went through a very recent bottleneck. Not only is there absolutely no evidence for this in modern organisms, there is overwhelming evidence that it is false. It's worth bearing in mind that the genetic variation across the entire cat 'kind' should be far more limited than that which we observe among just cheetahs.

Regarding fossils, my question would be this; if anything other than common ancestry is responsible for the fossil record can anybody point me to a single fossil that doesn't fit into the universal family tree? How about some anachronistic fossils? The old Precambrian bunny would be fine, but so would Triassic humans, Permian poodles, or Devonian birds. Or how about some organisms that common descent couldn't explain? Such as half bird-half mammal or half amphibian-half mammal chimeras? The possibilities are endless but yet they are never found. Every fossil ever found fits perfectly into place, just like a piece in a jigsaw. Wonder why.

#46 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 February 2010 - 11:09 AM

Evolution certainly predicts a chronological sequence of fossils through the layers.
No fossil has yet disproven common descent.

View Post



No living animal has disproved common descent.

I addressed the genetic bottleneck issue earlier in this thread. That was a good video though Wallace.

#47 Wallace

Wallace

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Portsmouth

Posted 10 February 2010 - 04:24 PM

No living animal has disproved common descent. 

I addressed the genetic bottleneck issue earlier in this thread.  That was a good video though Wallace.


Here's another video that I especially like to link YECs to, especially when they say that they don't believe in 'evolution'. Of course they believe in far more evolution than any evolutionary biologist would accept.

5mPPnN1c0jk

As usual YECs of course offer no response. Their standard tactic is to demand infinite detail from real science (eg. precise step-by-step pathways by which every single biological system could evolve) while holding to models that offer no predictive power and are contradicted by every single shred of empirical data that has ever been discovered.

#48 Guest_TeslaNick_*

Guest_TeslaNick_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 February 2010 - 05:50 PM

Sorry, but any video that cannot stick to science, but resorts to belittling people to "help" make a "weak" point. I don't accept as science.

View Post


Surely you can do better than a DH2

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.



#49 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 10 February 2010 - 10:29 PM

"Make a creationist prediction"

"okay, the amount of junk DNA in the genome will decrease"

I reiterate, that is not a prediction.

View Post

If the current understanding is one way, but a person says what the future understanding will be which is different from the current understanding; how is that not a prediction?

Declarations can be predictions or not... but McStone is not the arbiter of which they are.

#50 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 February 2010 - 05:27 AM

Surely you can do better than a DH2

View Post


You are not a mod, so don't try to be one.

#51 Guest_TeslaNick_*

Guest_TeslaNick_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 February 2010 - 09:29 AM

I wasn't. I was merely pointing out that responding to tone doesn't represent a strong counterargument. Even worse than that, you claim that those who take on a tone that you disapprove of are unlikely to make a valid point (or, with a stricter reading of your previous comments, are incapable of making a valid point).

If you choose not to address points made by an author whose tone you disagree with, you may do so. Just say as much. Don't pretend that dismissive or unpleasant people don't make cogent arguments. I suspect that, rather than dismissing such authors outright, requesting a synopsis in a more neutral tone would further the dialogue more effectively.

Also, I'm surprised that your response didn't include, "...and don't call me Shirley." :lol:

#52 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 February 2010 - 02:23 AM

I wasn't. I was merely pointing out that responding to tone doesn't represent a strong counterargument. Even worse than that, you claim that those who take on a tone that you disapprove of are unlikely to make a valid point (or, with a stricter reading of your previous comments, are incapable of making a valid point).

If you choose not to address points made by an author whose tone you disagree with, you may do so. Just say as much. Don't pretend that dismissive or unpleasant people don't make cogent arguments. I suspect that, rather than dismissing such authors outright, requesting a synopsis in a more neutral tone would further the dialogue more effectively.

Also, I'm surprised that your response didn't include, "...and don't call me Shirley." ;)

View Post


Here again you are dictating to me and others here how to respond. And what will be accepted on this forum and what will not.

Civil debate requires as much a neutral tone as possible. How do you expect to get a point across to someone you are calling an uneducated moron, and explain what makes that remark even remotely scientific? It is not.

But since you are implying that it is okay. And refuse to heed how we run things here. And you have tried to tell everyone how to respond as if you own this forum. We will see you later.

You may run things in other circles that you belong to. But this is not one of them. Refusal to even listen shows that you have no respect for any authority here. And will argue each point until "we" concede to your views of how this forum should be run.

#53 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 February 2010 - 07:44 AM

If the current understanding is one way, but a person says what the future understanding will be which is different from the current understanding; how is that not a prediction?

Declarations can be predictions or not... but McStone is not the arbiter of which they are.


Because it is catagorically not a prediction. Simply saying "our current understanding might change in the future" is not a prediction. It is a wish. Considering YEC has been "complete" since the books of the bible were put into one volume, i doubt anything else is going to come along.

#54 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 13 February 2010 - 08:39 AM

Because it is catagorically not a prediction. Simply saying "our current understanding might change in the future" is not a prediction. It is a wish. Considering YEC has been "complete" since the books of the bible were put into one volume, i doubt anything else is going to come along.

View Post


Not exactly, the Bible still has predictions/prophecies that have yet to come to pass, therefore it still has predictability.

" Our current understanding might change in the future" That isn't even close to a wish, and you know it. It's a maybe, a prediction. If it was a wish, the person making a statement would've said... " I wish our current understanding will change in the future... Now that's a wish. You have to completely change the wording of the sentence to make it a wish.

Now if I made a prediction I would say: " I believe my current understanding might change in the future, because of new information." Now that's a prediction.

#55 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 February 2010 - 10:57 AM

Now if I made a prediction I would say:  " I believe my current understanding might change in the future, because of new information."  Now that's a prediction.

View Post


No scott, you wouldnt. Lets imagine your doing some nice worldview-neutral research on cell diffusion gradients or something. You have a meeting with your supervisor who wants you to write a preliminary report for the hypothesis your going to test, and how your going to test it. Your prediction is "I believe my current understanding might change in the future, because of new information". If you make a sensible prediction, as part of a sensible hypothesis, your current understanding might increase. Otherwise, you and your supervisor are going to have a bumpy time.

#56 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 13 February 2010 - 05:32 PM

Because it is catagorically not a prediction. Simply saying "our current understanding might change in the future" is not a prediction. It is a wish. Considering YEC has been "complete" since the books of the bible were put into one volume, i doubt anything else is going to come along.

View Post

McStone; you need to be more honest about your discussions. I did not say "our current understanding might change in the future". Any high school level reader would have been able to figure this out. I don't think you are a less-than-high-school-level reader. But that only means you are not interested in having an honest conversation.

I'm sure you are incapable of admitting your mistake, but I'll spell it out for you anyway. I said "the current understanding is wrong, and in the future we will find the situation is really 'thus'".

#57 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 February 2010 - 04:04 AM

McStone; you need to be more honest about your discussions. I did not say "our current understanding might change in the future". Any high school level reader would have been able to figure this out. I don't think you are a less-than-high-school-level reader. But that only means you are not interested in having an honest conversation.

I'm sure you are incapable of admitting your mistake, but I'll spell it out for you anyway. I said "the current understanding is wrong, and in the future we will find the situation is really 'thus'".


Sorry, i was actually talking about scott's similar statement. Sorry it wasnt clear, and i readily admit when im wrong. Nevertheless the point is exactly the same

the current understanding is wrong, and in the future we will find the situation is really 'thus'


But that statement in itself is neither the product nor the source of a new understanding. It like me saying: "im going to get older". Saying as much doesnt make it a prediction; it doesnt make me older. It just happens to be true, as is your statement. Of course refinements in technique and theory will occur - but not on a dramatic scale as too make the past few hundred years of science redundant and to make us suddenly realise that people, 2000 years ago, actually knew more then now.

#58 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 14 February 2010 - 05:53 AM

There is no evidence for any population bottlenecks in any of the groups of organisms that the YEC 'model' demands.

rIlWKp44T50

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam are not population bottlenecks at all.

View Post

Cheetahs were bred. It's historical.

Selective breeding is a forced narrowing of the gene pool, also called artificial selection if I recall correctly.

So what does that have to do with Noah's Flood?

"Indeed, many evolutionary biologists view domestication as a type of natural selection and adaptive change that occurs as organisms are brought under the control of human beings." http://en.wikipedia....icial_selection

#59 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 14 February 2010 - 07:00 AM

Cheetahs were bred.  It's historical.


Cheetahs were kept as pets and used for hunting by the ancient Egyptians who passed this on to other cultures.

Cheetahs were not bred, but are an ancient species dating back over 4 million years.

Selective breeding is a forced narrowing of the gene pool, also called artificial selection if I recall correctly.


Cheetahs were not selectively bred, so this has nothing to do with the topic.

So what does that have to do with Noah's Flood?


The whole point is to show the effect of a small genetic population (gene pool) on the fitness of a species...you did watch the entire video, didn't you?

"Indeed, many evolutionary biologists view domestication as a type of natural selection and adaptive change that occurs as organisms are brought under the control of human beings."


While your statement is true, it still has nothing to do with the video about the genetic bottleneck that cheetahs went through.

Peace

#60 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 14 February 2010 - 07:48 AM

Cheetah's have less genetic variation than deliberately inbred mice. It is assumed to be from a bottleneck followed by imbreeding,but it is more likely evidence against common descent. If cheetah's evolved from cheetah's only a few thousand years ago,then we would expect it to show very little genetic variation.

In 1983, scientists found that the south African cheetah'sgenetic makeup had a potential flaw. The animal's lack of genetic variation, even more pronounced than that found in deliberately inbred mice or livestock, is striking. Thought to be caused by a population contraction, or "bottleneck," in the past--followed by excessive inbreeding--the genetic homogeneity has been blamed for this cheetah's poor reproductive performance. A recent look at the other subspecies in Africa, the east African cheetah, reveals the same story.


http://findarticles......./ai_4664241/




Enjoy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users