Jump to content


Photo

Half-Baked "predictions"


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 July 2015 - 05:20 AM

I've been wandering the internet and I keep finding sound-bites made by evolutionists in order to try and prop up their failing "theory".
 

Among the many that are both amusing and frustrating are the claims that "evolution predicted X"

 

 

Firstly, such a claim implies that evolution is a conscious entity, capable of making sentient thoughts such as being able to "predict" something.

Secondly, considering that evolution is founded on mutations which are random, this means there can be no prediction. Since the process relies on a random element, can randomness be predicted? Not at all if you are going off the standard definition of random.

Thirdly, when one makes a prediction it is being made about something that is going to occur in the future. Hence when evolutionists find fossils (or DNA) that are similar and then claim that such is a "prediction". Then the evolutionist is being either incredibly ignorant of science, or intellectually dishonest, since such cannot be deemed a "prediction of evolution" because there was no prediction of such until after the fossils (or DNA) were found.

 

 

I'd like to open this up to the rest of you guys, who here agrees or disagrees?


  • Mike Summers and Genesis6:4 like this

#2 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 23 July 2015 - 05:57 AM

I've been wandering the internet and I keep finding sound-bites made by evolutionists in order to try and prop up their failing "theory".
 

Among the many that are both amusing and frustrating are the claims that "evolution predicted X"

 

 

Firstly, such a claim implies that evolution is a conscious entity, capable of making sentient thoughts such as being able to "predict" something.

Secondly, considering that evolution is founded on mutations which are random, this means there can be no prediction. Since the process relies on a random element, can randomness be predicted? Not at all if you are going off the standard definition of random.

Thirdly, when one makes a prediction it is being made about something that is going to occur in the future. Hence when evolutionists find fossils (or DNA) that are similar and then claim that such is a "prediction". Then the evolutionist is being either incredibly ignorant of science, or intellectually dishonest, since such cannot be deemed a "prediction of evolution" because there was no prediction of such until after the fossils (or DNA) were found.

 

 

I'd like to open this up to the rest of you guys, who here agrees or disagrees?

 

Nope. You're right on target.



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2015 - 06:41 AM

Yeah I agree, they tend to state it ad nauseam. We all know the type of articles you are describing, here is a fictional example;

 

"Smith and Jones found that in fact those protein-code similarities were exactly what evolution would describe."

 

A true prediction is stated apriori, not posteriori, as with Einstein's famous prediction that if gravity bent light, then at the eclipse we should see a shift in the stars' position near the eclipse. He said this before the eclipse, and indeed a shift in the stars' position was observed.

 

I think the writers are just sloppy, they are falling all over themselves to say it's evolution.

 

I think evolution is becoming embarrassing in some ways, I wonder how long it can be propped up. It's pretty obvious that it is becoming so speculative, and the facts are not agreeing with it to the point that they are having to use more and more creative ability to twist it around to tell us it is evolution that is responsible. I think some of the things they say sound a bit like what the Iraqis said when Iraq was about to fall. We would hear deluded officials of Saddam Hussein saying things like this on the news, even when Iraq had fallen; "we are winning the fight. There is no problems within our government, we are in complete control".

 

That's what evolutionists remind me of when they say; "we have complete acceptance of evolution within science, nobody questions the truth of evolution", yet it is obvious that on a logical level, evolution is failing more and more, to explain the facts. It is only a matter of time before they find fresh fossils in layers they thought even older than jurassic-layers. It is inevitable that one day an out-of-place fossil will be found, that can't be reconciled with evolution.  

 

We might even get to a point where more of the public disbelieve in evolution, yet the scientists stick by evolution. 

 

This will go on for some time though, but people do smell a rat - and they do wonder WHY the evolutionists are so dogmatic against creationists and IDists. Their behaviour just doesn't match up, and I think the likes of Dawkins does more harm to his cause, because people must think, "why" is he doing this, "why" is it such a crime to believe God made the universe, anyway, with these people? But unfortunately a lot of the public are still heavily duped by their own ignorance, they fall for the argument-from-authority. I done this to myself once, I BELIEVED subconsciously that "science can't be wrong" and, "scientists can't be wrong".

 

It took a good year or so of investigation and self-education to begin to realize all of the fallacies we commit in our thinking.


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#4 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 July 2015 - 06:57 AM

That's what evolutionists remind me of when they say; "we have complete acceptance of evolution within science, nobody questions the truth of evolution", yet it is obvious that on a logical level, evolution is failing more and more, to explain the facts. It is only a matter of time before they find fresh fossils in layers they thought even older than jurassic-layers. It is inevitable that one day an out-of-place fossil will be found, that can't be reconciled with evolution. 

 

That has already happened

http://www.evolution..._wat030621.html

Though evolutionists tend to ignore the evidence for this one ;)

 

 

We might even get to a point where more of the public disbelieve in evolution, yet the scientists stick by evolution. 

 

That is what we all hope for, just some intellectual honesty towards what people tell the public would be nice.



#5 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 July 2015 - 08:55 AM

Yeah there are quite a few out-of-place fossils, I think there is a tendency in evolutionist-thinking, to treat it this way; "this is an exception to the rule, generally fossils are not out of place". So they will try and explain away what they see as a few exceptions.

 

The problem with that type of evolutionist-reasoning, is that it ignores the problem of the fallacy-of-exclusion.

 

The fallacy of exclusions is when people dismiss a piece of evidence, even only one piece of evidence, that can turn over a whole case.

 

For example, here is an example of the fallacy.

 

Let's say someone was accused of being racist (person x). Now let's say we had a witness that said the person accused had said insulting racist things, that he repeated the same racist statements all of the time, in the bathroom, on the train, in their presence. Let's say that some racist literature was found on the person's computer, the very same statements. Let us pretend the person accusing person x, wanted to make people believe that person x was a racist. All of the evidence seems damning, but imagine if the person accusing person x of racism, was leaving out one crucial piece of evidence. It wouldn't matter how large that induction of evidence was if the excluded evidence changed the whole picture of this scenario.

 

Let us imagine the evidence that was excluded, and was not brought forward, was that person x was an actor, who had a role in a play where racist language was used, and they had to recite their lines constantly. Can you see how that would swing the whole case, even though it is only one piece of evidence.

 

Similarly, because T-Rex with soft tissue was found, it can't be argued that, "this is just a one-off, all of the other dinosaurs in that jurassic layer don't have younger tissue". The reason that can't be argued is because since they all lived at the same time, if one of them is found with young flesh, they all would have had to be young. Deductively that is inescapable, because it would be the same as finding a sunken ship that hasn't been found or touched by anyone, or went near by anyone. Let's say it's a ship like the titanic, buried deeply. Now let's pretend we find coins on the ship. Each coin is from the 1960s. You have a 1960, 1961, 1962, lots of coins from the sixties. Now you could argue the ship was sunk no earlier than the 1960s. Even if you found one hundred coins and they were all from the sixties, it would not matter if you found one coin that was a 1992 coin. That ship MUST have been sunken after 1991 AT LEAST.

 

So it's not as though you could say, "well, even though we find a 1992 coin, that coin is an exception to the rule, we must focus on the majority of the evidence which is sixties coins".

 

This is what we see with young dino-flesh. Logically, if a dinosaur taken from provably jurassic rock even by evolutionary reasoning, is found with young flesh, then all of the dinosaurs in the jurassic rocks logically, MUST be as young as the one dinosaur. For how could the same era be both old and young? No - so then finding ONE young one is all you need.

 

Sorry for the rant, but this is my opinion of their attitudes towards out-of-place fossils. There is a very strong case for pre-cambrian pollen also. They choose to ignore the most crucial evidence, by focusing on the majority of the circumstantial evidence, which is not consequential. You can only focus on the majority of the evidence if the majority-evidence is extremely consequential, then to only focus on the minority of evidence would be slothful-induction fallacy.

 

(And I really am on one of those days where I can't stop writing. Lol. It would be understandable if you were to even say of me, "and I must say El-stiffo is really starting to freak me out!" - Dustin Hoffman)



#6 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 328 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 23 July 2015 - 03:59 PM



“The theory predicts” is really a short hand for “based on the general principles of the model we can deduce the following specifics”. Example: high atmospheric pressure is known to coincide with low cloud cover; therefore, in such circumstances an old-fashioned wall barometer will point to the sunshine symbol thus predicting the weather even though the apparatus is itself not conscious.

Such deductive predictions can also be derived from the common ancestry model. It is obvious that biological families and genera indigenous to specific large land masses include species adapted to diverse ecologies – consider varying Eucalyptus trees in Australia, 100 species of lemur in Madagascar, antelope in Africa etc. – and this grouping of apparently related species by land mass (rather than by similar environments spread across the globe) is what one would expect to see had evolution occurred. This principle thus predicts that newly discovered extant species will conform to this pattern.

#7 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 23 July 2015 - 04:19 PM

I've been wandering the internet and I keep finding sound-bites made by evolutionists in order to try and prop up their failing "theory".
 

Among the many that are both amusing and frustrating are the claims that "evolution predicted X"

 

 

Firstly, such a claim implies that evolution is a conscious entity, capable of making sentient thoughts such as being able to "predict" something.

Secondly, considering that evolution is founded on mutations which are random, this means there can be no prediction. Since the process relies on a random element, can randomness be predicted? Not at all if you are going off the standard definition of random.

Thirdly, when one makes a prediction it is being made about something that is going to occur in the future. Hence when evolutionists find fossils (or DNA) that are similar and then claim that such is a "prediction". Then the evolutionist is being either incredibly ignorant of science, or intellectually dishonest, since such cannot be deemed a "prediction of evolution" because there was no prediction of such until after the fossils (or DNA) were found.

 

 

I'd like to open this up to the rest of you guys, who here agrees or disagrees?

 

A prediction made by a scientific theory in no way implies that the theory is a conscious entity, you are just unfamiliar with how scientific models work and how scientific predictions are defined.  It is almost as if you are mixing up the terms as people commonly do with the word "theory."

Maybe this explanation from the Berkeley website will help you.

Prediction: In everyday language, prediction generally refers to something that a fortune teller makes about the future. In science, the term prediction generally means "what we would expect to happen or what we would expect to observe if this idea were accurate." Sometimes, these scientific predictions have nothing at all to do with the future. For example, scientists have hypothesized that a huge asteroid struck the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, flinging off debris that formed the moon. If this idea were true, we would predict that the moon today would have a similar composition to that of the Earth's crust 4.5 billion years ago — a prediction which does seem to be accurate. This hypothesis deals with the deep history of our solar system and yet it involves predictions — in the scientific sense of the word. Ironically, scientific predictions often have to do with past events. In this website, we've tried to reduce confusion by using the words expect and expectation instead of predict and prediction.

http://undsci.berkel...ceptions.php#a9



#8 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 July 2015 - 08:35 PM

“The theory predicts” is really a short hand for “based on the general principles of the model we can deduce the following specifics”. Example: high atmospheric pressure is known to coincide with low cloud cover; therefore, in such circumstances an old-fashioned wall barometer will point to the sunshine symbol thus predicting the weather even though the apparatus is itself not conscious.

Such deductive predictions can also be derived from the common ancestry model. It is obvious that biological families and genera indigenous to specific large land masses include species adapted to diverse ecologies – consider varying Eucalyptus trees in Australia, 100 species of lemur in Madagascar, antelope in Africa etc. – and this grouping of apparently related species by land mass (rather than by similar environments spread across the globe) is what one would expect to see had evolution occurred. This principle thus predicts that newly discovered extant species will conform to this pattern.

 

I refer you to the fact that predictions are made BEFORE an event, rather than deduced AFTER... 

To call these "predictions" is in fact a false use of the word. Rather you should be calling them 'observations that fit the model', since that is what you are explaining...

However I hypothesize that the reason why the term "observation" isn't used is because observations are only used for the creation of a hypothesis, whereas experimental analysis and predicting the results of an experiment (If X then Y happens), is used in support of a hypothesis... Hence to use the term "prediction" rather than "observation" could be seen as a dishonest attempt to imply more authority to said observations.

 

 

A prediction made by a scientific theory in no way implies that the theory is a conscious entity, you are just unfamiliar with how scientific models work and how scientific predictions are defined. 

 

The ability to make a prediction is a conscious act by a sentient being... Do you deny this? 

If you don't deny this, then to claim that "evolution predicts X" is to claim that evolution is indeed performing a conscious act...

 

 

Otherwise if you want to claim otherwise then demonstrate how the act of making predictions is not a conscious act..... 

 

 

 

 

It is almost as if you are mixing up the terms as people commonly do with the word "theory."

 

Its almost as if you are mixing up the terms of science in assigning sentience to a process of investigation...

science doesn't claim anything, scientists do...

 

 

On the same line of logic, evolution doesn't predict anything evolutionists do...

 

 

 

Maybe this explanation from the Berkeley website will help you.

Prediction: In everyday language, prediction generally refers to something that a fortune teller makes about the future. In science, the term prediction generally means "what we would expect to happen or what we would expect to observe if this idea were accurate." Sometimes, these scientific predictions have nothing at all to do with the future. For example, scientists have hypothesized that a huge asteroid struck the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, flinging off debris that formed the moon. If this idea were true, we would predict that the moon today would have a similar composition to that of the Earth's crust 4.5 billion years ago — a prediction which does seem to be accurate. This hypothesis deals with the deep history of our solar system and yet it involves predictions — in the scientific sense of the word. Ironically, scientific predictions often have to do with past events. In this website, we've tried to reduce confusion by using the words expect and expectation instead of predict and prediction.

http://undsci.berkel...ceptions.php#a9

 

 

Then your website is misinformed.... And is advocating for a method of "predicting" which goes beyond the scope of the scientific method, hence these "predictions" are only scientific in name only... If something defies the scientific method do you think it is still scientific? Or is this specific case allowable since it allows you to believe in your narrative? (It frustrates me how evolutionists prefer to play "fast and loose" with the scientific method, since to do such bastardizes science and makes it a children's game of story-telling rather than a reliable method of inquiry about the natural world... People like you are the reason why we have so many young students who think opinions are facts and can be used as "evidence" despite not following the scientific method).
 

 

 

We have the obligatory "wiki" source lol


In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what will happen under specific conditions; for example, if an apple falls from a tree it will be attracted towards the center of the earth by gravity with a specified and constantacceleration. The scientific method is built on testing statements that are logical consequences of scientific theories. This is done through repeatable experiments or observational studies.

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Prediction

 

 

Interesting, so predictions are made BEFORE the event.. In fact normally require the use of experimentation in order to verify the cause-effect relationships of the event, as per the scientific method... So you aren't assuming that something was the cause... Hmmm I wonder... What experiments can be performed on the past?... (Pro-tip: Experiments are performed in the present).

 

So if evolutionist "predictions" do not involve the use of experimentation then how are your causal links to "evolution did it" supported? Additionally how can you claim such is scientific, when the scientific method requires the use of experimentation?...

 

 

 

What is a scientific prediction?

 
After my bachelor's degree I changed field from mathematics to physics. I wanted to understand, at least to some extend, the world around me. Mathematics seemed to entail an infinite amount of possibilities whose each and every relevance wasn't clear to me while physics is tied to reality by experiment. Basically the reason why I'm a phenomenologist today is that I know how easy it is to get lost in the mathematical universe, and that this getting lost has clearly addictive qualities.

In the last decade in high energy physics one could notice a trend towards more phenomenology. While I welcome this for obvious reasons, here as in any aspect of life one can desire too much of a good thing. I've read quite a few of papers where the word "phenomenology" was used merely as decoration, and in other cases "phenomenological" is essentially an excuse for inconsistency. Such fashion trends in the community and their side-effects however aren't really surprising. What is surprising though is that the demand for "predictions" has been picked up by the public and has been used sometimes inappropriately as a measure for scientific quality. Thus I thought it would be worth clarifying what a scientific prediction is and isn't.

1. A scientific prediction is a statement about a future event.

normal_idiotparkingru10080520.jpgThat is to say the prediction was made without knowing whether it is correct. Strictly speaking this doesn't necessitate it to be about a future event, but it's hard to reliably show one didn't know about a measurement that was already made (a possible scenario is that available data wasn't analyzed with regard to a specific hypothesis). If you calculate the cosmological constant to be in agreement with the today measured value it's not a prediction, it's a postdiction. While it is certainly preferable to calculate the outcome of an experiment before it was done to avoid confirmation bias, this isn't always how it works. Sometimes theory is ahead, but sometimes the data is in already and awaits a theoretical explanation. Science is in the first line about understanding. Explanations, even if not predictions, are valuable. However, if there is something genuinely new about an explanation it will typically also imply new predictions.

2. 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.

crystal%20ball.jpgIf you dreamed a meteoroid will crash into the White House on New Year's day, that's a prophecy, not a scientific prediction. Same for the recurring remark that the LHC might create angels at 14 TeV collision energy. That's funny, but not a scientific prediction. You may find it inconvenient that your theory be reproducible because this means other people must be able to understand it without your help. However, if you aren't able to communicate how your theory connects to state-of-the art science, it's your fault and not everybody else's fault. Likewise, if your theory comes with a prescription only to use it for this effect, but not for this effect because it doesn't work there for reasons only you understand, that's not a scientific theory. If your theory predicts a fourth lepton generation but has the side-effect that atoms are unstable, tough luck. See here for what it means for a theory to be consistent.

3. A scientific prediction is falsifiable. In practice this means often it's implausifiable.

Falsifiable means that your prediction can be shown to be wrong.measurement.jpg This typically though not always implies the prediction has to be quantitative. "You will die" is not a scientific prediction: if you're still alive in 200 years, it could still be you will die someday. "At least 99.99% of people your age who smoke 1 pack per day will be dead 80 years from now," is a scientific prediction because 80 years from now you can look at the data and see whether I was correct (or rather somebody else will have to look, cough).

In physics, scientific theories often contain parameters and a measurement does not indeed falsify the theory but constrain the parameters until they are constrained so much it's point- and useless to consider a theory further. A good example is Brans-Dicke theory. If there are deviations from general relativity of the Brans-Dicke type, they are so small you can forget about them. Same for violations of Lorentz-invariance, time-variation of the structure constant, and so on. These are not falsified but tightly constrained. Reason why in high energy physics new theories are often not actually falsifiable is that for a new theory only small deviations from already extremely well confirmed theories are allowed. We know that our present theories are correct to high precision and new theories cannot differ by much or they are false already. If the deviation is too small however, it becomes unmeasurable.

As you can guess, implausibility is not binary but a continuous scale, thus people frequently disagree on exactly when to discard a theory. (MOND anybody?) As far as I am concerned everybody can decide for themselves how to waste the time of their life, as long as they don't waste other people's time.

That a theory is implausified rather than falsified is quite common if very good theories are available already as in theoretical physics. But in other fields falsification is easier. The dopamine level might just not correlate with schizophrenia. Holy water doesn't sanitize your hands. The world is older than 10,000 years, etc.

A statement is a scientific prediction if all three above explained requirements are fulfilled. If you you have suggestions for improvement of my definition, please leave in comments.
 
 
 
Biology Online disagrees with your link...

Prediction

The act of making an educated guess as to the outcome of a situation

Educated guess: guess based on previously found information.

http://www.biology-o...nary/Prediction

 

 

 

 

Here is another website explaining the scientific method. It is written for kids so should be understandable for you :) 

http://www.sciencema...fic_method.html

 

 

 

 

 



#9 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 24 July 2015 - 12:18 AM

Wow, you really don't believe a scientific theory can make predictions about what happened in the past?  Can I get you to say this in a sentence, as in: 

"I do not believe a scientific theory can make predictions as to what has happened in the past."

You really show a complete and total lack of understanding what scientific theories are all about.  
 



#10 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 24 July 2015 - 12:25 AM

THEORIES allow PREDICTIONS
 

 A theory is a human attempt to describe and/or explain our observations of what happens, or (in historical science) what has happened.  A descriptive theory claims only to describe what happens.

 

Introduction To Scientific Method

 

http://www.asa3.org/...ific-method.htm



#11 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2015 - 01:35 AM

Wow, you really don't believe a scientific theory can make predictions about what happened in the past?  Can I get you to say this in a sentence, as in: 

"I do not believe a scientific theory can make predictions as to what has happened in the past."

You really show a complete and total lack of understanding what scientific theories are all about.  
 

 

As I said, you cannot make predictions about the past... You can only make predictions about the future...

What does the prefix of PRE in PREdiction indicate?...

Additionally you're completely ignoring the sources I provided...

Care to explain how a "prediction" of the past can be verified by experimentation? Try and consider that experiments are performed in the present and thus cannot represent a past event.This demonstrates that attempting to make a "prediction" about the past defies the scientific method, as I said you are bastardizing science in an attempt to support your faith in your worldview....
 

 

THEORIES allow PREDICTIONS
 

 A theory is a human attempt to describe and/or explain our observations of what happens, or (in historical science) what has happened.  A descriptive theory claims only to describe what happens.

 

Introduction To Scientific Method

 

http://www.asa3.org/...ific-method.htm

 

 

This link does nothing to refute the fact that predictions are made about future events only...

Perhaps consider the use of the word OBSERVATION in your quote... and remember what I said to Cheeseburger in post #8?
 

 

I refer you to the fact that predictions are made BEFORE an event, rather than deduced AFTER... 

To call these "predictions" is in fact a false use of the word. Rather you should be calling them 'observations that fit the model', since that is what you are explaining...

However I hypothesize that the reason why the term "observation" isn't used is because observations are only used for the creation of a hypothesis, whereas experimental analysis and predicting the results of an experiment (If X then Y happens), is used in support of a hypothesis... Hence to use the term "prediction" rather than "observation" could be seen as a dishonest attempt to imply more authority to said observations.

 

Gotta love it when atheist's own links prove my point  :checklist:  :consoling:
 

 

Historical science... I wonder why that was used... Perhaps by posting this you are admitting that such does defy the scientific method, (since that is what historical science is known to do).

 


  • Enoch 2021 likes this

#12 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 July 2015 - 03:06 AM

I've been wandering the internet and I keep finding sound-bites made by evolutionists in order to try and prop up their failing "theory".

Among the many that are both amusing and frustrating are the claims that "evolution predicted X"

 

 

Firstly, such a claim implies that evolution is a conscious entity, capable of making sentient thoughts such as being able to "predict" something.

Oh come on.  You're a lot smarter than that.  Every time I see you, or Mike, or Enoch claiming that's a logic fallacy, the first thing I think is "can't we even use normal conversational tones of grammar?"

 

We all know that evolution is a process not a "conscious entity ....."   We also know science isn't one either.  For those who like to go on about logic errors .... can you say "straw man?"

 

 

Secondly, considering that evolution is founded on mutations which are random, this means there can be no prediction. Since the process relies on a random element, can randomness be predicted? Not at all if you are going off the standard definition of random.

Mutations are claimed to be random.  There is also claimed to be a selection process at work.  Because of selection, the result is not entirely random.

 

 

Thirdly, when one makes a prediction it is being made about something that is going to occur in the future. Hence when evolutionists find fossils (or DNA) that are similar and then claim that such is a "prediction".

Moving this slightly to an area that is more in my comfort zone...... 

When the nebular theory of planetary formation was proposed, part of that theory was that stars with solar systems would be common.  Astronomers "predicted" that planets would be found around other stars in the future.  Twenty years ago the first exoplanets was discovered.  Now we know of around 2000 of them.  It turns out that planetary systems around stars are common.

 

I happen to have witnessed a great .... um.... evolution of YEC attitudes on extra solar planets.  When I was in school in the 1960's, the claim was that our sun is unique because it is the only star with planets.  In 1995, when the first exoplanets was discovered, the claim shifted to "but they're all super-Jupiters."  Well, technology has a way of improving over time and another planet of the right size and in the right position to support life was announced in the last couple days. 

 

 

Then the evolutionist is being either incredibly ignorant of science, or intellectually dishonest, since such cannot be deemed a "prediction of evolution" because there was no prediction of such until after the fossils (or DNA) were found.

More likely it's just a matter of sloppy grammar or a minor difference in definitions.  For example, even science professors misuse the word "theory" when it more correctly means "hypothesis."  As in: "I have a theory that...."

 

 

 

I refer you to the fact that predictions are made BEFORE an event, rather than deduced AFTER... 

To call these "predictions" is in fact a false use of the word. Rather you should be calling them 'observations that fit the model', since that is what you are explaining...

However I hypothesize that the reason why the term "observation" isn't used is because observations are only used for the creation of a hypothesis, whereas experimental analysis and predicting the results of an experiment (If X then Y happens), is used in support of a hypothesis... Hence to use the term "prediction" rather than "observation" could be seen as a dishonest attempt to imply more authority to said observations.

I have some different hypothesis.

 

First:  With regard to the comment that this "could be seen as a dishonest attempt...."  I realize it's not an actual accusation, but it's pretty hard to miss the "suggestion" of dishonesty.  I hypothesize that if one is looking for an issue with someone (ie: intellectual dishonesty), they will find it .... whether it's there or not.

 

Second: I hypothesize that "evolution predicted DNA" (even if only stated in precisely those terms until after the discovery of DNA) is really shorthand for:

"If the Darwinian theory of evolution is true and traits are passed down with modifications from generation to generation, there must be a mechanism for communicating those traits from ancestors to descendants.  For that reason, the discovery of DNA is an observation that supports what could be expected if Darwinian evolution is true."

 

Please note.... If I happen to say something like: "The nebular theory predicted other stars would have planets."  I don't mean the nebular theory is a sentient being capable of making a prediction.  It's simply shorthand for something a lot more technical.


  • Bill Ludlow likes this

#13 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2015 - 04:26 AM

Oh come on.  You're a lot smarter than that.  Every time I see you, or Mike, or Enoch claiming that's a logic fallacy, the first thing I think is "can't we even use normal conversational tones of grammar?"

 

We all know that evolution is a process not a "conscious entity ....."   We also know science isn't one either.  For those who like to go on about logic errors .... can you say "straw man?"

 

How is this a strawman? I am correcting evolutionist's use of language :)

 

 

Mutations are claimed to be random.  There is also claimed to be a selection process at work.  Because of selection, the result is not entirely random.

 

It is random none-the-less since the mutations that natural selection has to work with are random... Hence a future trait cannot be predicted due to this since the mutations leading to said future trait cannot be known.

 

 

Moving this slightly to an area that is more in my comfort zone...... 

When the nebular theory of planetary formation was proposed, part of that theory was that stars with solar systems would be common.  Astronomers "predicted" that planets would be found around other stars in the future.  Twenty years ago the first exoplanets was discovered.  Now we know of around 2000 of them.  It turns out that planetary systems around stars are common.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with what was quoted. If you want to start a new conversation please start a new thread.
 

 

More likely it's just a matter of sloppy grammar or a minor difference in definitions.  For example, even science professors misuse the word "theory" when it more correctly means "hypothesis."  As in: "I have a theory that...."

 

Then I hope you and other evolutionists who read this will try and educate your fellows.
Its because of silly things like this that leads to people believing that opinions are evidence and other such nonsense.

However I will say that it seems that the evolution area of "science" (and for this I use the term loosely) seems to be inundated with occurrences of using "sloppy grammar"... I have yet to see a single occurrence in my field of Biotechnology, so the frequency of the occurrences for evolution / evolutionists does make me wonder....

 

 

I have some different hypothesis.

 

Go on.

 

 

 

First:  With regard to the comment that this "could be seen as a dishonest attempt...."  I realize it's not an actual accusation, but it's pretty hard to miss the "suggestion" of dishonesty.  I hypothesize that if one is looking for an issue with someone (ie: intellectual dishonesty), they will find it .... whether it's there or not.

 

For someone who is hard up against "accusations" you seem to be doing the same in implying personal bias.... Or are evolutionists allowed to use double standards?

 

 

Second: I hypothesize that "evolution predicted DNA" (even if only stated in precisely those terms until after the discovery of DNA) is really shorthand for:

"If the Darwinian theory of evolution is true and traits are passed down with modifications from generation to generation, there must be a mechanism for communicating those traits from ancestors to descendants.  For that reason, the discovery of DNA is an observation that supports what could be expected if Darwinian evolution is true."

 

This isn't a hypothesis Piasan... Rather it is a statement, attempting to claim that merely the discovery of DNA supports evolution... IF this was predicted by evolutionists BEFORE the advent of DNA, (and was predicted by using evolution) THEN I would agree with you. However you have yet to demonstrate this.

 

 

Please note.... If I happen to say something like: "The nebular theory predicted other stars would have planets."  I don't mean the nebular theory is a sentient being capable of making a prediction.  It's simply shorthand for something a lot more technical.

 

Thanks for the clarification. If only all other evolutionists could do the same it would help the lay-person who may not understand your (or others) use of "shorthand".



#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 July 2015 - 05:40 AM

Whether a prediction can be made that is posteriori is of little relevance. Bill, you should know that the power of a prediction is if it is apriori. You have equivocated without knowing it, between something that is posteriori and something that is historical.

 

You can make an apriori prediction about a historical evidence, but that is not the same thing as making a posteriori-comment that was not truly a prediction, but was in fact an implication.

 

You see an implication of gravity is that if you jump from a cliff you will fall down. That is an IMPLICATION, not a prediction.

 

In the opening post, I suspect Gilbo was referring to the latter, he was saying that a posteriori-comment after a new-breakthrough, can hardly be called a prediction, if your first mentioning of the prediction was post-news.

 

Dude, I am only in third gear, don't have me put this thing in overdrive, or "I'll give you a war you won't believe" - Rambo, First Blood. 

 

;)

 

:acigar:

 

"Is there no-one on this planet to even challenge me!?!" - General-Zod, Superman 2. 

 

(forgive me Mike, once I pop, I can't stop.) ;)


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#15 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 328 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 24 July 2015 - 06:33 AM

"The theory predicts” is really a short hand for “based on the general principles of the model we can deduce the following specifics”. Example: high atmospheric pressure is known to coincide with low cloud cover; therefore, in such circumstances an old-fashioned wall barometer will point to the sunshine symbol thus predicting the weather even though the apparatus is itself not conscious.

Predictions about the nature of future data can be drawn from the TOE: in which layer the earliest appearance of a specimen will (future tense) be discovered, whether newly discovered extant species WILL adhere to patterns of biogeography etc etc.
  • Bill Ludlow likes this

#16 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2015 - 06:48 AM

"The theory predicts” is really a short hand for “based on the general principles of the model we can deduce the following specifics”.

 

You can't deduce something once it is observed... As I said it is merely "an observation that fits the model"...

 

 

 

Example: high atmospheric pressure is known to coincide with low cloud cover; therefore, in such circumstances an old-fashioned wall barometer will point to the sunshine symbol thus predicting the weather even though the apparatus is itself not conscious.

 

How is the barometer "predicting" something when that thing is occurring, (the high atmospheric pressure is occurring in order to move the barometer)?... Do you think statements or observation about the present are predictions?

If I use a pH meter to determine the pH of a solution does that mean the pH meter is "predicting" the pH of the solution?
 

 

Predictions about the nature of future data can be drawn from the TOE: in which layer the earliest appearance of a specimen will (future tense) be discovered, whether newly discovered extant species WILL adhere to patterns of biogeography etc etc.

 

Wrong... Once a specimen is discovered isn't "future tense"... An actual prediction from evolutionists could be...

' We predict that in 300 years humans will have evolved a third eye'

See how it is a claim about the FUTURE, about something that has yet to happen. That is what a PREdiction is... Note the PRE in PREdiction...



#17 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 July 2015 - 08:19 AM

Cheeseburger, predicting you will find a marine-form in the cambrian rather than a bunny, is not a prediction, any more than if I were to predict that your car will have four wheels, tyres and a steering wheel. Claiming you will never find a wheel above the height of the roof, is also an absurdly weak statement.

 

We know the fossil record, nobody can change it no matter how it got there, so your predictions would also work if evolution was not true, because the true cause of the rocks isn't a shifting, mutating force, the rocks are already laid down, so the they are predictable because we already know about them.

 

Furthermore, there are incorrect predictions using your own logic.

 

Using your definition, evolution would predict that as we go back in time, if snake hips/girdles/legs were more primitive, and they are now in modern form, retrogressive, then evolution would predict a more limb-like, primitive snake.

 

Recently they found the earliest snake ever, way earlier than any previously found, and it was 100% modern snake. 

 

Do you admit that if they had found a snake more primitive in form they would have said, "this is what evolution predicts"? Of course they would, how couldn't they, they would shout it from the rooftops? (reductio ad absurdum)Or are you saying they would say something like this; "now calm down, it's not necessarily what we think." Lol - where have you been, this is reality, sir. ;)

 

(I PREDICT the answer from evolutionists; "evolution doesn't state snakes MUST evolve". You will "push back" none-existent evolution to an earlier date.)



#18 Mambo

Mambo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Glasgow, Scotland

Posted 24 July 2015 - 11:11 AM

I'm finding this thread pretty excruciating. I don't post much here, but I do lurk a fair bit. Enough to predict that if I were to search through threads from about this time last year, I'd find some of them just as excruciating as this one.
  • Bill Ludlow likes this

#19 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2015 - 01:20 PM

I'm finding this thread pretty excruciating. I don't post much here, but I do lurk a fair bit. Enough to predict that if I were to search through threads from about this time last year, I'd find some of them just as excruciating as this one.

 

It must be, watching the "intellectual elite" getting trumped ;)



#20 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 847 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 24 July 2015 - 02:22 PM

Firstly, such a claim implies that evolution is a conscious entity, capable of making sentient thoughts such as being able to "predict" something.

It's a figure of speech. Sometimes a term that is associated with the actual thing being referenced is used in the place of naming (or describing) that actual thing. When someone says "Hollywood made a lot of movies last year", they're not saying that the geographical entity of Hollywood, CA made the movies, they're using "Hollywood" to refer to the film industry as a whole, since most of it is in Hollywood. Similarly, "evolution predicts" isn't claiming that evolution is itself sentient, it's using "evolution" to refer to the scientists doing work and making predictions based on evolution.
 

Thirdly, when one makes a prediction it is being made about something that is going to occur in the future. Hence when evolutionists find fossils (or DNA) that are similar and then claim that such is a "prediction". Then the evolutionist is being either incredibly ignorant of science, or intellectually dishonest, since such cannot be deemed a "prediction of evolution" because there was no prediction of such until after the fossils (or DNA) were found.

I think something you quoted later touches on this:

1. A scientific prediction is a statement about a future event.

That is to say the prediction was made without knowing whether it is correct. Strictly speaking this doesn't necessitate it to be about a future event, but it's hard to reliably show one didn't know about a measurement that was already made (a possible scenario is that available data wasn't analyzed with regard to a specific hypothesis). If you calculate the cosmological constant to be in agreement with the today measured value it's not a prediction, it's a postdiction. While it is certainly preferable to calculate the outcome of an experiment before it was done to avoid confirmation bias, this isn't always how it works. Sometimes theory is ahead, but sometimes the data is in already and awaits a theoretical explanation. Science is in the first line about understanding. Explanations, even if not predictions, are valuable. However, if there is something genuinely new about an explanation it will typically also imply new predictions.

Bolding mine.

The important part isn't the timing of the prediction and observation, it's whether the result of the observation was known to the people making the prediction. If the observations already exist but are unknown when making the predictions, their potential to confirm (or disconfirm) the predictions of the theory is the same as newly made observations.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users