Heaven's eternity or eternal earthly wealth?

[harvey19]

"A true science must make predictions"

Therefore evolution is only a theory the same as creation.

This leads to the possibility that man was created in his present form.

Which leads us back to where I came into this debate about Believers, Non Believers and Undecided. Undecided is a valuable and logical position to hold.

[SnailyBoy]

"A true science must make predictions"

Therefore evolution is only a theory the same as creation.

This leads to the possibility that man was created in his present form.

Which leads us back to where I came into this debate about Believers, Non Believers and Undecided. Undecided is a valuable and logical position to hold.

 

I think you've quoted from a creationism website.

 

Which let's face it, is nonsense.

[harvey19]

I think you've quoted from a creationism website.

 

Which let's face it, is nonsense.

 

The first sentence is from the link you provided.

I have never viewed a creationist site, in fact I was not aware such sites existed.

All I was trying to do is illustrate why the Undecided position is valid.

[SnailyBoy]

The first sentence is from the link you provided.

I have never viewed a creationist site, in fact I was not aware such sites existed.

All I was trying to do is illustrate why the Undecided position is valid.

 

You should have read a little further. The first sentence was a claim from a creationist website, the rest of the page is the response.

[harvey19]

You should have read a little further. The first sentence was a claim from a creationist website, the rest of the page is the response.

 

I apologise, I took it as an opening statement.

I still think the argument sustains the validity of maintaining an Undecided option.

I'm going to finish now as I am getting too bothered about the wording of something which won't alter anyone's viewpoint.

Thanks for the debate, Goodnight.

Edited January 27, 2015 by harvey19

[SnailyBoy]

I apologise, I took it as an opening statement.

I still think the argument sustains the validity of maintaining an Undecided option.

 

Yeah, well that's confirmation bias for you.

[flamingjimmy]

I apologise, I took it as an opening statement.

 

To be fair it's entirely true. Without testable predictions a thing just isn't science.

 

What I'm guessing you don't know is that you can make lots of testable predictions about evolution.

 

People have done, and so far every single time it's passed the test with flying colours.

 

Here's one example:

 

"Biologists have, for a long time, grouped organisms into classifications based on their apparent similarities. Dogs and wolves are similar, dolphins and whales are similar, zebras and horses are similar.

 

So, they constructed a tree of life which groups living and extinct species by similarity.

 

This was all done before evolution was formalized.

 

Now, one of the outgrowths of evolutionary theory is that change will accumulate over time, and therefore the longer it has been since two species had a common ancestor, the farther apart their genetic code will be.

 

Or, to put it another way, we expect that the genetic similarity between organisms will be correlated with the similarity from existing classification systems.

 

We’ve only recently been able to do genome mapping, and when we do it on organisms at various points on the tree of life, we find that their genetic similarity is pretty much exactly what we would expect to see based on existing classification.

 

So, we had some existing data, evolutionary theory made a prediction about what some other not-yet-available data would be, and when we were finally able to collect that new data, it agreed with the prediction.

 

There are lots of other examples, but many require a bit of biology to understand."

 

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/364-is-evolution-testable/

[Ryedo40]

"A true science must make predictions"

Therefore evolution is only a theory the same as creation.

This leads to the possibility that man was created in his present form.

Which leads us back to where I came into this debate about Believers, Non Believers and Undecided. Undecided is a valuable and logical position to hold.

 

Harvey, try this: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html

[harvey19]

Thankyou for the 2 above links.

What I would like to know is the prediction for man in the future.

[flamingjimmy]

Thankyou for the 2 above links.

What I would like to know is the prediction for man in the future.

 

Unless you can understand everything about society, how people choose mates, how people will survive, how other diseases will change, etc. etc. you can't really do that.

 

You're asking the impossible.

 

You made the point that for something to be a proper science it has to make testable predictions.

 

We have supplied you with examples of some very good predictions that people made based on the theory of evolution, they have all been correct so far.

 

You can make other predictions about things yet to happen too, for example I can predict that you will never ever find a fossilised human in a rock dated to be the same age as rocks in which dinosaur fossils are found.

 

We can't however, predict with any degree of accuracy what humans will look like in a few hundred thousand years.

 

What we can do though is predict some things about the future evolution of some other creatures with shorter generations, for example bacteria.

 

In fact the clever folks designing the antibiotics we all guzzle down to help our bodies fight off infections have to do just that all the time.

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/relevance/IA1antibiotics.shtml

 

"Doctors miss the “good old days,” when the antibiotics they prescribed consistently cured their patients. However, evolutionary theory suggests some specific tactics to help slow the rate at which bacteria become resistant to our drugs."

Edited January 27, 2015 by flamingjimmy