Correctly qualified predictions evidence a flood and evolutionists usurp it

(You need to read all of this post to understand the fullness of my argument.)

Imagine if you were born in a time before they discovered the rock record and the whole thing was about to be uncovered. Of course in real life it didn't happen that way as gradually a picture of what was in the record would emerge in it's generality over time. But suppose from the point of view of people at that time, you knew about the bible's claims but were sceptical and there was some machine they made which would allow them to uncover the fossil record in it's entirety, at least generally speaking, all at one time. 

I think what's really obvious is you could have at that time made a genuine prediction against the bible, predicated on the fact that you would not be partaking of any hindsight-bias. (Because you wouldn't yet know what the rock record consisted of, pertaining to the fossil record, so as to then circularly pretend it is what evolution would predict)

So a correct thing to predict would be to say, "well, I think this bible flood is nonsense, and is a myth, so I don't think we will find a variety of animals preserved dead in that record, because if the bible was true and all life perished there would be every type of phyla in that rock record that were buried by this absurd flood, so this is really going to be funny when we dig up an entirely different picture to what the bible says occurred and every type of form is not found and we find nothing or we only find one type of thing such as only insects or only plants."

That would be a correct prediction against the flood. The correct predicted evidence for a flood would of course be to find evidence the whole world perished, and therefore every type of lifeform. (Meaning a correct logical prediction for the flood is such evidence, so there is confirmation evidence for the flood in this regard very powerfully because we do find preserved types from every phyla as would unavoidably have to be the case had the flood buried all life). (yes, technically not everything would be preserved but generally it would show that picture.)

Now had you accepted evolution back then (of course evolution had not been invented yet), you would no doubt have added scorn by predicting correctly, what evolution's evidence would be, by saying, "and I bet what we will actually find is a history of evolution's ancestors, not today's creatures, but a myriad of intermediate forms showing how all the present forms came to be."

And you would be correct on both counts because logically that is the correct apriori prediction of evidence for evolution, which was actually not found in the fossil record.

In other words, you couldn't use HINDSIGHT-BIAS to create a pseudo posteriori prediction where you PRETEND the opposite for each scenario. Because that is what happens with today's evolutionists; they pretend the flood evidence is the prediction of evolution when in actual fact an evolutionary history would be the correct prediction. They then pretend "no evidence" of a flood exists, which is retarded propaganda.

CONCLUSION: It's real easy to spot false predictions of evidence, all you do is figure out the OBVIOUSLY correct ones that would fit, so if this is a logic puzzle it's about as EASY as you can get. For If a flood had happened we expect to find pretty much every kind of animal to ever exist preserved in that record, with no evidence of evolution which is what we see. If evolution was true we wouldn't expect to find all sorts of extant kinds such as crocs, pines, jelllyfish, bats, whatever, what we would expect is to find a history of how those things evolved.

So it's an easy one to see through, instead of gullibly accepting what evolutionists say, which is usually something as dumb at this propaganda-assertion; "there is NO evidence for a flood, and 100% evidence of evolution", the best thing to do is actually reason it out properly.

Not only do we expect to find all of the lifeforms that perished in the flood, we would expect the extant ones that still exist today to look identical to the fossilised ones if as the bible says creatures were created according to their kinds. We would also expect where you can find it, signs of fossils being killed by the flood. A correct predicted evidence for a flood is to find animals preserved as fossils that were killed when they were preserved or close to that time. Since the flood killed them, we expect them to be preserved while in the act of living, and sure enough we find many such examples such as critters giving birth, fighting with prey, food still in their stomachs, in the asphyxiation position with their necks thrown back. Even fossil graveyards of all types, which is highly unlikely under a, "slowly die and rot over eons" type scenario.

Of course we can't always find those signs as it is all situation-dependent, but we also find many scurrying tracks made in water, and we always find that fossils tend to be very well preserved, some even have soft tissues such as with Armitage/Schweizer. 

These things are correctly predicted evidence for a flood, so there is evidence for a flood and the evolutionists assertions there aren't, are incorrect based likely on low IQ or mendacity.

The true predictions for evolution's proper evidence to back it's claims, don't exist. If they do show me the intermediate stages for bat wings or insect wings. Show me the intermediate stages for the Bombardier beetle. Show me the intermediate stages for reproduction. For why wouldn't we expect to uncover those things with evolution if that is the history that you allege occurred?? Of course we would! But to only ever find everything to be viable and complete in every way, at every time, is a prediction for special creation/design. But you have to argue it's a prediction of evolution don't you, because hindsight has cornered you!

It's obvious that the cleverer argument is that the evidence for a flood is found in abundance when we apply proper critical analysis from someone like me, who knows how to properly do it. We expect these things with a flood, and even if you do use ad-hoc ways to excuse the evidence and pretend it fits with evolution, that still doesn't support the propaganda you spread that, "there is zero evidence for a flood and all the scientific evidence is for evolution."

EXAMPLES of CIRCULARITY that depend on HINDSIGHT-BIAS.

A type of circular reasoning can be spotted where reasonably we're sold a prediction that isn't really true, but is only argued to be predicted by X theory because that particular evidence has already been found which is a false way to qualify the prediction.

EXAMPLE 1, of abusing hindsight: A criminal suspect tells the police that "he was never near the scene of the crime ever before in his life", they tell him they found his finger print then he changes his story and says, "I forgotten I was at that place once for P reason." (hindsight...he only argued this AFTER the data came in.)

EXAMPLE 2: "We don't have a theory for abiogenesis but we know it occurred, after all, we exist don't we?" (This supposes that our existence would be predicted from an abiogenesis, so assumes the conclusion. In actual fact this would fit with a creation scenario also but the person simply selects the natural scenario because they want to. In actuality predicted evidence of abiogenesis would be some actual evidence it is true, of which there isn't any.)

EXAMPLE 3: "Humans happened upon language and higher functioning because evolution led them in that direction." But in this example they only reason evolution done it because they know they have to because only humans have been found to have sophisticated language (hindsight). Other animals have communication but realistically the prediction for evolution is not the scenario the bible would predict, which is that we are made in God's image. Because with the bible, if only humans are made in God's image we would only expect the one human kind to behave on our level of sentience and be different, but with evolution why wouldn't we expect perhaps 500 other species with language of our sophistication, out of millions and millions of species since time began over hundreds of millions of years? More realistically we would not just expect one, but because we do only find one (hindsight), they argue it's something expected from evolution when in actuality it is a falsification of evolution.

EXAMPLE 4: unchanged organisms. It wasn't predicted, the prediction for evolution by Darwin was to find it's transitionals but we generally find fixity of animal kinds unchanged, they now only argue it is evolutionary stasis and SELECT the reason that this is because of a lack of envrionmental change because they have to because they know they find a general fixity. (hindsight). They then conclude the environments were unchanged ( circularly concluding their conjecture that they were unchanged rather than going with the correct prediction that the bible would predict, of a lack of evolution generally.)

CONCLUSION: Can you see what happens with these examples? When people know something by hindsight that they can't change but it doesn't really fit with what they believe or argue such as evolution, they then change their story to match the evidence. These days the evidence for creation (unchanged kinds) is evidence of "evolutionary stasis". LOL. So they changed the story because they couldn't fit the evidence!

Even recently with the knew pithecine finds, it's real obvious the australopithecines (can't spell it no doubt), were just a bunch of a few extinct apes, and the primate anatomy is far more plastic than was predicted. Instead of saying evolution didn't predict this, they now call it an "evolutionary bush", and say things like, "the evolution of humanity isn't what we previously thought." What they should have said is, "a few extinct apes we could fit in a car trunk is hardly an evolutionary history is it? After all there are more neanderthals by far than there are pithecine remains"

Wake up - the news line is always, "we were wrong about evolution", so why not start believing they are wrong about evolution? They seem to believe it...........ahh but no, it's never evolution that's wrong is it? Because that is the idol that must be worshipped as fact even though it's clearly not even close to one!

(Of course I really write topics like this for reasonable lurkers and neutrals that are open minded and don't see evolution as victorious and true like the mainstream scientists make out. I know the local long time posters here are a waste of time, and will just fire the usual ad homs at me.) Lol.

Edited to add: For those hoping to counter by saying, "but if a flood was true it would produce P evidence, and because P evidence does not exist, there was no flood", you should know this type of popular evolutionist attempt to rebut a flood is not valid BECAUSE IT MAKES THE SAME ERROR of using HINDSIGHT-BIAS.

Think about it! You look for some kind of evidence YOU ALREADY KNOW does not exist (hindsight), then you reason the flood would produce that evidence BECAUSE you know that evidence does not exist.

That is not the correct way to qualify predicted evidence. I am not going to tell you how you properly do it, I know how you properly do it, but I am not going to do your homework for you, instead I will use my knowledge against you as a tactical advantage.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

You know, if you didn't make such an effort trying to sound profound, we might actually be able to discern what you're trying to say.

Adminnemooseus

Admin writes: You know, if you didn't make such an effort trying to sound profound, we might actually be able to discern what you're trying to say.

Moose, this doesn't seem to be an impartial act of an objective admin. That so many think it's admirable for an admin to respond with a personal attack, strikes me as only that type of peculiar behaviour preserved for the self-righteous anti-theists, whom talk morality, then act poorly.

At the very least I think you "owe me one", by attacking me in an unprovoked way. With the admins permission can I decide the penalty? My reward is to post my views here on abiogenesis for those more impartial lurkers that are willing to "hear out" then one who has been cornered and bullies because he won't get in line with believing in evolution.

For a common ancestor is indeed part of the evolution theory, indeed it only comes from evolution theory, and is not found outside of it (you know, in the real world.)

Whether it is a premise of evolution or a conclusion, evolution must back it up because it is an implicit claim. Popoi the evolutionist said it is a conclusion, so I addressed this here for anyone who would like to read it; people of course think I try to avoid debate, but it's more of that "trying" again isn't it, with the old motives and applying them once you think them up from nowhere. In actual fact I find it much easier to write things in length, and then put it out there for potential readers rather than get into petty arguments;

And my hope is there are SOME people willing to hear me out, rather than letting it just be this personal war. Surely some undecided readers are willing to hear my case, and you are not obliged to agree with BLATANTLY OBVIOUS logical notation, if you so wish to commit intellectual suicide on behalf of your religion of evolution.

mike the wiz writes: If there is an induction of evidence that points to Mary being the murderer, if that leads to another claim as part of the conclusion then it can be shown that indirect evidence of that second claim within the claim, is not the proper way to support the claim. A claim within a claim must also be backed or we assume the claim circularly, and indirectly. It's the same with evolution's common ancestor of all life. The incorrect way to say that a common ancestor can be inferred as existing is to base it on an induction of evidence for evolution, an inductive argument. Because that's an indirect way to prove it can be caused. The correct way is to show that nature can create a primordial form. (causation) For example, let's say there truly is a fairly impressive list or tally of inductive evidence against Mary. Her finger prints and DNA at the scene, witnesses against her, lies she wasn't in the area and no alibi, and other evidences pointing to her guilt. But if we conclude the person that murdered the victim MUST have had the strength to kill the victim, if we infer Mary did have the strength BECAUSE of the inductive argument against her, rather than establishing whether she has the strength, then this is also INDIRECT.(non-causal) The correct way to back up that claim within the claim is to show she has the physical strength. We cannot infer she had the physical strength indirectly, just as we cannot infer a common ancestor indirectly because of an inductive argument that would point to one/imply one, in evolution. EXAMPLE: "we infer she had the physical strength to do it because of the evidence against her." Is a non-sequitur. If the victim was certainly not murdered by a hired person as we pretend is proven, and if we pretend the murderer MUST have the physical strength to murder the victim, then logically it's still possible Mary is not the killer if she didn't have the strength. But to ASSUME she does have the strength is a type of circular reasoning. That is PRECISELY why we cannot accept an indirect inference of her physical strength, and why we can't accept a common ancestor existed based on the argument from evolution. Logically that would then mean the theory she is the killer must be wrong if she doesn't have the physical strength and she must be innocent, and it is the inductive argument against her which is wrong. That is because a contradiction is a deduction, and a deductive inference is PROOF, whereas an induction is only a tally of confirmation evidence. That is to say, a contradiction can disprove a matter but inductive evidence pointing to a conclusion, does not prove a matter. If you don't believe me believe Einstein; "a hundred experiments won't prove me correct but one can prove me wrong." (paraphrase) To make this easier to understand, I will give an example of induction versus deduction, and this shows why there is no proof in science. I will show why Einstein said what he said, because he understood this matter well; RED BALL THEORY. We have a factory that is stacked with bags. There may be some missing (uncertainty principle), but of the 4,000 bags we have opened, we have only found red balls, and our figure is 48 million red balls, and the theory is there are only red balls in the bags. Why can't even an incredibly confirmed theory with this huge confirmation evidence count as proven? (I am not saying evolution is this type of theory, the nature of evolution is an inductive argument, which is my only statement about evolution.) Answer; because deduction deals in proof. A contradiction is not evidence the theory is wrong, it is a flat out PROOF it is wrong. All it takes to knock down an induction of 48 million balls, is one blue ball. We use the modus tollens to do this, thus; "If red ball theory is true, it will follow we will only find red balls in the bags. We don't (contradiction; one blue ball), therefore red ball theory is WRONG, and one piece of deductive proof has smashed millions of confirmation evidences into shredded duck.) That's why no matter how impressive you think your inductive case is, there is always the logical possibility that your conclusion is wrong. Otherwise you are saying that something is "absolutely proven" from an inductive argument. ADVICE: Don't fall into the popular layman-evolutionist mistake, because most laymen atheists online argue macro is a proven fact. This is not what the scientist evolutionists are arguing and they have never argued that something can be proven by a tally of inductive evidence. If anything it shows that fanboy "evolutionists" on forums, just aren't on the same level as the scientist evolutionists. With Mary it turns out she was having an affair with the man and didn't want it to come out, so she lied. But she didn't have the physical strength to have murdered him, which was scientifically proven. (in other words, IT MAY SEEM only one conclusion could have been correct; that she murdered him, but there was an explanation. This is why logical rules exist, no matter how much you think your inductive case is "proven", merely because it is a possibility your case isn't true, means you cannot infer it certainly is. That's why we use affirmation of the consequence and let the theory take the place of the antecedent and the evidence the consequent, so that we can take the induction and put it into a formal deductive model, so that deduction can falsify it. (2 add 2 is 4 stuff, but I believe the likes of Popoi simply doesn't know about these things. I don't say that as a personal attack, it's just obvious he doesn't know anything about these things.) In the same way there simply is no abiogenesis and a primordial form is reasonably fictional, which is a contradiction of all of the so called "evidence" of evolution. In reality there is nothing in nature that INSISTS the "evidence" points to the conclusion of evolution and an ultimate ancestor. To INSIST, once again breaks logical rules. Why? Because as an example, Darwin argued a monophyletic trunk on the phylogenetic tree of life, and he argued a common ancestor. Now they argue horizontal gene transfer of a possibly polyphyletic system of roots, if I am to borrow those phrases. Which logically PROVES it was not the facts that led Darwin to the conclusion there was one ancestor, because now the facts have shown there is no evolutionary trunk, and if there was it wouldn't be possible to argue LUCAS rather than a LUCA. So logically that proves when evolutionists say "we infer evolution and the ancestor from facts", that they are simply wrong, and are not thinking capably. Because a capable thinker thinks this; "Logically Darwin was wrong about this and scientists are wrong about many conclusions all of the time, meaning the inferences they draw are not coming from the real world facts, but the from the theories they create to explain those facts." Therefore you can't argue the common ancestor is inferred from the facts. If anything the Cambrian explosion (as explained in my short book, is massive evidence against the tree of life because of disparate phyla and 100% missing ancestors, but not only that, because there isn't time to diversify the level of phyla. Even evolving a human from an ape they say took about 5 million years but that is only classified as the primate level within that clade, the phyla level takes hundreds of millions of theoretical years meaning the disparate phyla in the Cambrian, is massive evidence against any Darwinian trunk, with any primordial ancestor/s at the base. There isn't the time available in the record. The correct prediction would also be to see these ancestors, to see all of that diversification because it would represent hundreds of millions of years of change. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Evolution as a case, as an induction, however strong, however weak, does not remove the possibility that evolution is false, according to logical rules because a contradiction deals in proof. If it is not possible for a common ancestor to exist then evolution is false and like with Mary, we then explain the evidence of design without evolution. (which is actually a much more parsimonious and stronger argument anyway.) 2. The way to prove such an ancestor can be caused is not an induction of evidence for evolution. Indeed you can't be two faced and argue that the common ancestor is not a matter for evolution to back up but rather an explanation of life's biodiversity and on the other hand say that evolution is evidence for a common ancestor. For that is a tacit admission that evolution does provide evidence of it's claim of such an ancestor, and it is it's job to back that claim. 3. A common ancestor COMES FROM evolution theory. It only pertains to evolution theory, so it only has relevance to it. Evolution brought us the common ancestor, as it is an invention of that theory, there is no fact in the real world that would allow anyone to "infer" it, it was an invention of Darwin's mind, so it is only a matter for evolution theory. FINAL CONCLUSION: Whether you say the common ancestor is a premise of evolution theory, OR a conclusion of it, nevertheless it is a claim within itself, that exists INSIDE of evolution theory, for common ancestors and talk of them, are only a matter of the evolution-invention of Darwin's imagination. LOGICALLY, you have to actually prove there is a realistic cause for such an ancestor, you cannot indirectly infer one, just as you cannot indirectly infer from indirect evidence that Mary had the strength to kill her husband, you must in fact establish cause. YOU CAN'T. Abiogenesis is simply a BAD argument, and only a belief of atheists by faith in Darwinian magic. There is no reason to believe a primordial form is anything other than science fiction, therefore evolution is false.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : 1,23, not 1,24. But for those hoping I can't count, it was an inherited mistake when I chopped out number 3. Keep on hoping!!! Ho, ho!

Hi Mike,

I carefully read your first post, and also your second post up to the quoted portion - sorry, it was just too long. I have only one question: Are you drunk?

Propose something of reasonable length (a few paragraphs) that makes sense and it will get promoted. Also, please leave out comments like "low IQ and mendacity."

A side comment in case you decide to attempt a rewrite: You seemed to believe hindsight is crippling science's ability to create accurate models of reality, i.e., to theorize. While science wouldn't normally choose that term, hindsight is a very common component of science. One can't theorize about a phenomenon until after one has observed it.