(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.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
