False. Just because things happened in the past, it doesn't mean that you cannot predict what evidence you'll find of those events. Evolution has made many "before the fact" predictions of observations. The nature of the entire ERV evidence was predicted before any genomes had been sequenced and once the genomes were sequenced they beautifully matched the evolutionary predictions.
I guess I'm not making myself clear. When I say "predictions", I'm requesting a prediction of how a particular organism will look like in the far future, given it's past that we already know about, and it's environmental conditions. Not what we'll find in terms of what has already happened.
I did not say that it is impossible to make predictions at all, and you are a liar for claiming that I said as much.
I never said that you said it was impossible to make any predictions. You did say, though, that you cannot make the type of prediction I was asking for. My intent is not to create strawmen, or take what you say out of context. I'm just saying that evolution, as a theory, cannot predict what organisms will look like in the future. Since it cannot take known data and create future predictions, it cannot be science.
Don't get so upset. We've not talked before, and I know what these threads can deteriorate into. I don't want to get into that. With that, I'm outta here as I've got errands for the rest of the evening. I may check back in tomorrow.