Replies

...it doesn't mean that you cannot predict what evidence you'll find of those events.

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.

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.

What you are wanting is a specific class of prediction that you know in advance it is impossible to make. It is a chaotic system and chaotic systems cannot be predicted in that way. What do you find unsatisfactory about the numerous successful predicted observations that evolution *does* achieve?

Since it cannot take known data and create future predictions, it cannot be science.

Are there any other sciences who receive such approbrium from you for this one characteristic, or is it just evolution?

How about meteorology, geology, biology, history, medicine, even computer science, etc. Are all of them able to make long term predictions of similar events?

Perhaps there is something wrong with your definition of science?

Parhaps this definition of theory will help:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Since it cannot take known data and create future predictions, it cannot be science.

Meteorology can't predict what the weather will be exactly one year from today. Is it also not science?