Real Reality

RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Assuming What You’re Proving

Posted on February 21, 2021February 21, 2021 by Petros

As mentioned previously, scientism is irrational. And yet, the evolutionists’ definition of science makes scientism more irrational:

Science is a method plus a body of knowledge.

That definition might not cause a problem if it weren’t for the meaning evolutionists give to the term “body of knowledge.”

In the evolutionists’ definition, “science” is a method plus a “body of knowledge.” This “body of knowledge” includes the favored stories. Those stories include the following:

big bang
billions of years
no Flood
molecules to humankind
inability to know God

Of course, circular reasoning guarantees science will support the favored stories if we define “science” as including the favored stories.

#RealFaith&Reason

You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

Follow on

RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Package-Deal Fallacy of the Body of Knowledge

Posted on February 20, 2021February 20, 2021 by Petros

Satan uses lies, fallacies, and confusion to deceive God’s people. Beware of the religion of “scientism.”

The Body of Knowledge as a Way of Knowing

Scientists talk about a “body of knowledge.” However, this so-called “body of knowledge” is a hodgepodge. Part of this “body of knowledge” is scientific, a mix of sensory-data, tentative pseudo-knowledge, and divine revelation. Scientists confirm this part of the “body of knowledge” by repeated testing and observation, while the other part of this “body of knowledge” is unscientific, based on made-up stuff. These two parts of the “body of knowledge” are different from each other. And yet, evolutionists make no distinction between the scientific part and the part based on made-up stuff.

#RealFaith&Reason

You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

Follow on

RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Predictions As Limits

Posted on February 19, 2021February 19, 2021 by Petros

Prediction-as-Proof Stops Scientific Progress

We’ve only touched on a small part of the problem with predictions. Prediction limits human thinking. Prediction is a great limiter. Predictions bind our minds. We all predict. We have expectations. That limits us since we don’t see what we don’t predict. Our minds fight what we don’t predict. We deny it. We don’t notice it. We think it’s a glitch. We think we didn’t see what we just saw. We’re afraid to tell anyone else for fear of what they will think. We have trouble seeing what we don’t expect. The culture persecutes what it isn’t used to. The culture considers you weird if you don’t fall in line. If we want innovation, we have to think outside the box. Predictions keep us in the box.

If only one person sees something, few others can see it. At that point, most people resist the new observation or try to suppress it. But this censorship changes suddenly when enough thinkers admit they see it. When enough people see it, the herd follows the groupthink momentum. At momentum, most thinkers jump on the bandwagon and can easily see the observation. Unfortunately, the herd also follows groupthink momentum when false claims hit critical mass. Then, those false claims become “common knowledge.” They become settled science. Therefore, groupthink isn’t a reliable way of knowing anything.

We don’t predict unpredictable observations. We don’t expect unexpected observations. And yet, evolutionists would exclude these new, unexpected observations from science. Therefore, the evolutionist definition of science would severely limit the possibility of future progress since the evolutionists’ definition would keep the box small and constrained.

Maintaining the Current Lies

Scientists run into trouble if they discover anything that refutes the long-dead story about molecules turning into people over billions of years. The establishment persecutes them. They don’t get promotions. They lose their jobs. If possible, those in power will keep them from ever working again. Teachers who teach anything against the stories of evolutionism can lose their jobs.

Once a lie becomes national groupthink, powerful forces protect it. The most powerful forces protect the most insane lies. Ungodly people have even coded certain sexual sins into laws. Those who commit these sins now get special rights and protections. An ungodly culture seeks to cancel anyone who says these sins are sins.

Establishing New Lies

As I write this, a famous billionaire is backing an education project that says math is racist. It says arriving at an objective answer is white supremacy. Unless God intervenes, the schools will add this new lie to their brainwashing agendas.

A powerful false-prophet system has been promoting something called “critical theory.” It’s a new form of racism. The news-education-government cabal is bringing racism to critical mass. It’s becoming the new normal. It’s becoming “common knowledge.” “Critical theory” is part of that effort.

At the same time, a state legislature is working to mandate “woke” ideas in schools. Teachers must teach unlimited genders. They must teach racism. If they refuse, they lose their teaching license. The schools have already brainwashed several generations into ever-increasing godless thinking. They’ve campaigned against Jesus Christ and the Bible. This is just the next step in creating antichrist strongholds in individual minds and strongholds across society. Those strongholds are likely to limit thinking and understanding for generations.

#RealFaith&Reason

You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

Follow on

RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Bias

Posted on February 18, 2021February 18, 2021 by Petros

Bias causes problems with predictions. A biased person wants to confirm his or her bias. When biased people have no real proof, they find ways to create the illusion of proof where no proof exists. Here’s one of the ways. Evolutionists use prediction as “proof.” That’s how they create the illusion of proof. Of course, and as we’ve already discovered, predictions aren’t proof even if we see the predictions fulfilled.

#RealFaith&Reason

You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

Follow on

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Endless Fallacies

Posted on February 17, 2021February 17, 2021 by Petros

Adding Other Fallacies to Predictions

When ungodly thinkers add other fallacies to predictions, they have endless possibilities. Someone could write a book on prediction plus fallacy and never cover all the clever ways to think irrationally. We’ll look into one example.

We can use Quantum Mechanics to predict what semiconductors will do. Therefore, we can use the Theory of Evolution to know how living organisms evolved. ~ Internet Intellectual

We can see this nonsense popping up in discussion groups with many irrational variations. Perhaps someone is teaching this. The statement above looks like what many evolutionists post. However, the full logic blows our minds away if they’ll show us how they reason. When we lay it out, we can’t easily follow it. Check it out:

Quantum Mechanics guesses what happens behind the scenes in the present.
Semiconductors follow the predictions of Quantum Mechanics.

o Therefore, we can consider Quantum Mechanics a scientific theory.

 Therefore, we can extrapolate from Quantum Mechanics to other conclusions.

 We can test those conclusions by making products that work.

Big Bang guesses what happened in the past.
Some observations are what we would expect if a big bang took place billions of years ago.

o Therefore, we can consider Big Bang a scientific theory.

 Therefore, we can extrapolate from the Big Bang to other conclusions.

Therefore, a Big Bang happened 13.82 billion years ago.
When we look at a supernova exploding through a spectrometer, we detect all the known elements.

o Therefore, an exploding supernova formed all the elements.

 Therefore, all elements on earth formed in a supernova (perhaps multiple successive supernovae) billions of years ago.

Therefore, we’re made of stardust.

I hope you found this irrationality as hard to follow as I did. If you ask these people to share their logic, some of them will. They aren’t likely to follow the pattern of the person just mentioned, but they will be irrational.

First Problem: We can see, even with all this complexity, we’re missing some logical steps. We can imagine those logical steps, but we can’t know them for certain. Complex logic and missing logical steps make logical errors easier to hide. Most thinkers don’t bother thinking things through once they get to the conclusion they desire.

Second Problem: Once we allow assumptions into our thinking, our reasoning can go anywhere without limitation. That means you may have heard this argument stated another way. Evolutionists and old-earthers rarely make these claims without smokescreens and innuendo. They use smokescreens and innuendo to hedge their logical errors. If you pin them down, they can change their explanations. They try to wear you out.

Third Problem: The big bang story has repeatedly failed to predict. Scientists continue to adjust it using just-so stories and fudge-factors like dark matter and dark energy. They re-imagine dark matter and dark energy so these mystical phantoms can perform whatever they need them to perform to save the big bang story.

Fourth Problem: Even with the fudge-factors, the big bang story doesn’t predict anything useful. It doesn’t predict anything we can use to make a working product. Quantum Mechanics predicts something scientists and consumers can test. Big bang tells a story about the distant past we can’t test. Therefore, this argument uses mismatched theories and implies what’s true for one is true for the other. But they’re different from each other, so the comparison fails.

Fifth Problem: We can’t test the claim that supernova exploded forming all the elements now on earth. We can look through a spectrometer and see colors (which we interpret to be elements) in the exploding supernova. However, we can’t test whether the elements on earth formed this way. Claiming we’re made of stardust is just an emotional fairytale for adults.

Sixth Problem: The logic uses invalid form, so we can’t trust it to yield a true conclusion even with true premises. At the same time, we must remember no one proved the premises. The premises are bare claims. The premises consist of made-up stuff.

Seventh Problem: If they observe all the elements in supernova, it doesn’t prove their conclusion. They observe something in distant space. They conclude all elements on earth formed in supernovas billions of years ago. That’s irrational. They haven’t proved we’re made of stardust. It doesn’t disprove what God says about how He formed the earth.

When we challenge this logic, persuaders who make this claim may finally tell us their real reasoning. They might change the subject. They might say, “We have to trust science on this issue.” Of course, “science” means the opinion of those scientists who control the message right now. Defining “science” this way is a bandwagon fallacy. The Pope who was the leader of the Holy Roman Empire made this exact mistake when Galileo discovered the earth rotates around the sun. The Pope enforced the opinion of the loudest scientists (the earth-centered universe) and stopped scientific progress. By the way, the earth-centered universe theory, with the Sun going around the earth daily, included a just-so story about mysterious “ethers” that postdicted the observations. The supposed “ethers” did the same work the supposed “dark matter” and “dark energy” now do.

#RealFaith&Reason

You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

Follow on

https://parler.com/profile/Petros542287384712/posts

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Affirming the Consequent Fallacy

Posted on February 16, 2021February 16, 2021 by Petros

This is the eighth in our series of posts about types of predictions. We saved the most deceptive for last. God hates lies. Lies are an abomination to God. Lies oppose God. Sometimes, ungodly thinkers commit fallacies of prediction to oppose God. This quote explains one level of prediction. Some levels of prediction are helpful. Others are deceptive. Speaking about predictions without pointing out the difference between various levels of prediction is deceptive. It’s an equivocation fallacy and a package deal fallacy. You can look those up in The Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies free for download from RealReality.org.

Level-7 Predictions:

Level-seven predictions pretend to prove theories, but they’re actually affirming-the-consequent fallacies and Texas-sharpshooter fallacies.

Examples:

Evolutionists’ predictions are level-7 predictions. If an observation proved a theory, the theory would no longer be a theory. We could see it. We could watch it. It would be an observable scientific fact.

Imagine a scenario. You’re in your bedroom, and you hear a crash in front of your house where you had parked your car on the road. In your mind, you form a theory that someone has crashed into your car. But the theory is gone as soon as you look outside to see a cement truck just demolished your car. Observation replaces the theory, so observation can eliminate a theory by either confirming it or showing it false. The theory stopped being a theory. The theory was no longer theoretical. All theories are theoretical, so the theory vanishes. You have an observed fact. Your car has merged with a cement truck. You can see it.

However, we can’t confirm or falsify some claims by observation because we can’t observe them. For example, we can’t observe events of the distant past repeatedly or confirm the observations by multiple witnesses.

Ed, the owner of a small gas station in the 1960s, owned a phone booth on his property. He controlled the light in the phone booth from a switch in the gas station. When someone came into the phone booth at night, Ed would wait for a while and then switch off the light. The person in the phone booth would react by doing something like pounding on the door, rattling the door, tapping the light, or hitting the phone. It didn’t matter. Ed watched and flipped the light back on and waited a while before turning the light off again. The person repeated what “worked” the first time to turn the light back on. Ed never disappointed these people. Whatever they did the first time “worked” the second, third, and every time after that since Ed watched and turned the switch back on.

Each of these people predicted a way to turn the light back on. “If I pound on the door (or whatever), the light will go back on.” They each tested their hypotheses. They verified them. They thought their hypotheses were valid theories. Then, they converted their theories into facts in their minds.

This story doesn’t mean God is tricking us by creating a false cause and effect. It does mean we often think one cause is responsible when that cause isn’t responsible. God doesn’t trick us. We trick ourselves. Persuaders trick us. Satan tricks us.

Affirming the consequent tricks us. What is affirming the consequent? We covered it earlier, but it’s tricky, so we’ll cover it again. It’s saying, “If such and so is true, I would expect or predict this other thing.” We could write that like this:

If A is true, I would predict to see B.

I see B.

Therefore, A is true.

That sounds like it makes sense, but it doesn’t. Consider the following classic example.

If it’s raining outside, I would predict the sidewalk would be wet.

The sidewalk is wet.

Therefore, it’s raining outside.

Here’s the problem. It’s not raining outside. Someone sprayed the sidewalk with a hose. There could be another cause. Affirming the consequent tricks us.

Since scientists can’t observe their stories about the distant past, they have a problem. They want to confirm them. They like those stories. What do they do. They affirm the consequent. They say, “If the stories of evolutionism were true, I would expect to see rock layers with fossils in the rock layers sorted from smaller and simpler to larger and more complex. I almost observe that. Therefore, the stories of evolutionism are true.” Just like the hose and the sidewalk, another explanation exists. God says He brought a worldwide flood about 4,000 years ago. That flood predicts the same rock layers and fossils. And what we see looks more like a worldwide flood than billions of years.

#RealFaith&Reason

You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

Follow on

https://parler.com/profile/Petros542287384712/posts

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Level-5 Predictions: Postdictions

Posted on February 14, 2021February 14, 2021 by Petros

This is the sixth in our series of posts about types of predictions. God hates lies. Lies are an abomination to God. Lies oppose God. Sometimes, ungodly thinkers commit fallacies of prediction to oppose God. This quote explains one level of prediction. Some levels of prediction are helpful. Others are deceptive. Speaking about predictions without pointing out the difference between various levels of prediction is deceptive. It’s an equivocation fallacy and a package deal fallacy. You can look those up in The Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies free for download from RealReality.org.

Level-5 Predictions:

Level-five predictions are historical science postdictions someone made after observations.

Examples:

Postdiction is hindsight bias, and postdictions say, “Since we’ve observed X, we’ve decided X is what we would expect if Y happened in the past.” We can sense there’s something squishy about this prediction argument. If we could rationally link expected behavior to reality, it shouldn’t matter whether scientists made the “predictions” before or after the fact. However, the human mind is tricky, and we can easily rationalize we would have predicted an observed behavior had we predicted it before we observed it. “Oh. This observation is what I would have expected.” We might also shoehorn an observation into an actual prediction once we know about the observation. Often, an unexpected observation causes a problem for a sacred-cow theory.

How do scientists protect the sacred-cow theory? They make up a just-so story to explain how the unexpected observation fits into the sacred-cow story. Then they claim the just-so story “predicts” the unexpected observation. The unexpected observation was a problem for the theory. And then, scientists cleverly transform the troublesome observation into proof for the theory. They say the observation fulfills the prediction of the story they made up to explain the observation. Scientists make up just-so stories for unexpected observations like antibiotic resistance or the millions of missing transitional fossils. They’re making up stories to explain the absence of “junk” DNA and soft tissue in dinosaur fossils.

“Postdiction involves explanation after the fact. In skepticism, it is considered an effect of hindsight bias that explains claimed predictions of significant events such as plane crashes and natural disasters.” ~ Wikipedia

Irrationally, scoffers claim the prophecies of Scripture were postdictions. So what’s the basis of this skeptical claim? Scoffers postulate, and the word “postulate” is a fancy way of saying “making up stuff and calling the made-up stuff true.” That means the basis of the skeptical claim is made-up stuff (postulation). And this postulation (made-up stuff) is another example of the way ungodly thinkers project their problems and limitations onto God and onto those who follow Christ.

Biblical predictions aren’t postdictions. For example, we read the Bible and find the human race is all from one bloodline, but science is just discovering this fact. Scripture also told us the earth is a sphere and described the water cycle long before scientists discovered either of these. God recorded these in Scripture long before we confirmed them by observation. Of course, God makes many other true predictions in the Bible.

Consider the following answer to the prediction problem as discussed by evolutionists.

“Evolutionary theory can predict that if a new species is to arise, it will be through modification of another(s) previously existing now: or by anagenetic change inside a lineage, or by cladogenetic splitting originating 2 or more species, or by merging of 2 or more species (hybridization, polyploidy, symbiogenesis, etc.).” ~ researchgate.net, What are the testable predictions of Darwin’s theory of evolution?

But this statement isn’t a prediction at all. Instead, this quote tries to explain away the observations with just-so stories. Then it claims just-so stories are predictions. Then it claims just-so stories prove the conclusion of evolutionism.

Evolutionists sometimes claim the story of molecules-to-humankind evolutionism predicts antibiotic resistance. But evolutionists didn’t predict antibiotic resistance. Rather, they didn’t expect it, yet they falsely claim they predicted antibiotic resistance. By rewriting history in this way, they ignore what really happened.

Antibiotic resistance surprised scientists who, up until 1969, didn’t predict this resistance. They only “predicted” antibiotic resistance after the observation. They had no reason to expect the observation based on the story of evolution. Consider what we observe versus what evolutionism demands. We observe a loss of information that results in antibiotic resistance. However, evolutionists would expect to observe random events adding new information systems. Evolutionists would expect to see bacteria creating new coded information systems. (creation.com/cis-3) But they don’t observe the spontaneous creation of such complex systems. The molecules-to-humankind story wouldn’t predict what we observe. It wouldn’t predict the cells turn on or off preexisting functions, and this on-off action causes positive changes we observe. Therefore, the observation of antibiotic resistance fits better into the Creation model than the evolution model.

“Many evolutionists claim mutations and antibiotic resistance in bacteria (operational science) as being some sort of prediction of evolution (origins science). In fact, genetics (operational science) was an embarrassment to evolution, which could have been a factor in Mendel’s pioneering genetics research going unrecognized for so many years (Mendel’s discovery of discrete genes did not fit Darwin’s idea of continuous unlimited variation). When mutations were discovered, these were seen as a way of reconciling Darwinism with the observations of operational science—hence the ‘neo-Darwinian’ synthesis of Mayr, Haldane, Fisher, etc. . . . Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, none of the cases of antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, etc. that have been studied at a biochemical level (i.e. operational science) have involved de novo origin of new complex genetic information. In fact, evolutionists never predicted antibiotic resistance, because historically it took the medical field by surprise” ~ Don Batten, ‘It’s not science’

The word “prediction” has two parts, “pre” meaning before, and “diction” meaning putting it into language. So prediction must foretell what we will see. A true prediction doesn’t predict what happened previously since that wouldn’t be prediction but postdiction. We could call it second-guessing and confirmation bias. Here’s the point. Real prediction doesn’t claim an observation is what we would have predicted if we would have predicted it. Instead, prediction plainly states what we will observe before we observe it. Prediction has to happen before the observation or it’s not prediction.

When persuaders want to push a certain story, they’ll use postdiction in subtle ways. For instance, they’ll search around for a quote they can apply to a certain discovery. Those quotes are usually vague and don’t predict what they specifically discovered. That’s what happened with Tiktaalik when scientists applied vague expectations to the discovery of a fossilized fish. They shoehorned previous expectations to match the discovery. And they shoehorned the discovery to make it seem like it matched the previous expectations.

In practice, postdictions are just-so stories persuaders use for confirmation bias. Postdiction creates illusions. Since discoveries are often surprises scientists didn’t predict, the existing theories didn’t predict the discoveries. As a way to keep the original story alive, evolutionists created new stories and claimed these stories as predictions for the unexpected observations. But schools still falsely teach these just-so stories as predictions and give the illusion scientists predicted the discoveries.

There’s a problem with the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humankind story. The favored story makes no true predictions. And every postdiction for the favored story works better to support the Creation-Flood model. As a result, no postdiction of the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humankind story is necessary for any product or benefit of science.

#RealFaith&Reason

You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

Follow on

https://parler.com/profile/Petros542287384712/posts

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Level-4 Predictions

Posted on February 13, 2021February 13, 2021 by Petros

This is the fifth in our series of posts about types of predictions. God hates lies. Lies are an abomination to God. Lies oppose God. Sometimes, ungodly thinkers commit fallacies of prediction to oppose God. This quote explains one level of prediction. Some levels of prediction are helpful. Others are deceptive. Speaking about predictions without pointing out the difference between various levels of prediction is deceptive. It’s an equivocation fallacy and a package deal fallacy. You can look those up in The Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies free for download from RealReality.org.

Level 4 Predictions:

Level four predictions are historical science predictions that were later confirmed by observation. These confirmed predictions don’t prove theories, but theories fail if the predictions fail. All true predictions come from God by divine revelation. We even need divine revelation to understand the predictions of prophecy in the Bible.

Examples:

predictions made by Humphreys’ White Hole/Time Dilation Cosmology—later observed ^{(D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., How can Stars Billions of Light Years Away Appear to Adam & Eve?)}
rapid geomagnetic reversals and planetary magnetic fields predicted by the catastrophic plate tectonics model and verified experimentally ^{(Dr. Andrew A. Snelling, Fossil Magnetism Reveals Rapid Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field)}
the prediction of the Creation-Flood model that no one would find the many necessary transitional fossils between kinds of living organisms—now, explored and verified over decades of research
other biblical predictions mentioned by Ken Ham during the Nye-Ham debate

These examples are predictions of what we should observe if a certain thing happened in the past. For instance, we could say, “X is what we would expect if Y happened in the past. Let’s test to see if X is true.” However, these are signs rather than proof for theories. Trying to use them as proof is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. In this light, consider the following transcript from a discussion with Dr. Humphreys:

Dr. Wieland: Well, a good scientific theory is one which makes predictions, and it was exciting to hear about several models of yours, based on creation, which generated successful predictions.

Dr. Humphreys: One model was based on 2 Peter 3:5, which talks about how God made the earth, and I applied that. I took that as a clue, and had an idea about how God might have started out the earth’s magnetic field. And then I found that worked fairly well and it gave the right strength for the earth’s magnetic field.

So I then asked myself, ‘Perhaps God used the same method to make the other bodies in the solar system, the sun and the moon and the planets?’ So I calculated the fields of all the planets that we had already explored up to that time, which was 1984, and the theory gave right values for those planets also.

I published these results in a Creation Research Society Quarterly article in December, 1984, and in that article I said that a good test of my theory would be to check out what the strength of the fields of the planets Uranus and Neptune were relative to my theory. For Uranus, the evolutionary predictions were generally about 100,000 times less than my published predictions, so I thought it was a good test.

Dr. Wieland: So, what was the result when Voyager finally made the measurements?

Dr. Humphreys: The result was smack in the middle of my prediction, and 100,000 times greater than the evolutionary predictions. So the creation model was the clear winner in that case.

Dr. Wieland: And for Neptune as well.

Dr. Humphreys: Yes, that’s right.

Dr. Wieland: Did you get any comments from evolutionists about these fulfilled predictions?

Dr. Humphreys: Yes. Stephen Brush, a fairly well-known anti-creationist in the United States, wrote to me after the first prediction came true and I had mentioned this in an ICR Impact article. He said he was basically trying to find some way around the fact that I had made a prediction, and I wrote him a polite letter back and tried to explain things to him. He wrote another letter back and that was the end of the correspondence.

But about six months later, an article by him appeared in Science magazine. The gist of it was that ‘Well, predictions are not really a way to do good science’, so he was basically backing down from the classical scientific view that predictions are a good way to validate a theory.

~ Carl Wieland, Creation in the physics lab

From the examples given, we can see that level 3 predictions aren’t postdictions. In other words, someone predicted it before anyone observed it. Someone didn’t postdict it in response to someone observing it. In every case, the prediction foretold a future observation. Even so, the prediction of the theory doesn’t prove the theory.

#RealFaith&Reason

You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

Follow on

https://parler.com/profile/Petros542287384712/posts

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf

Level-Three Predictions

Posted on February 12, 2021February 12, 2021 by Petros

This is the fourth in our series of posts about types of predictions. God hates lies. Lies are an abomination to God. Lies oppose God. Sometimes, ungodly thinkers commit fallacies of prediction to oppose God. This quote explains one level of prediction. Some levels of prediction are helpful. Others are deceptive. Speaking about predictions without pointing out the difference between various levels of prediction is deceptive. It’s an equivocation fallacy and a package deal fallacy. You can look those up in The Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies free for download from RealReality.org. Some of the lies surrounding evolutionism are complex. People repeat them and think they’re true without ever thinking seriously about them. They throw critical thinking out the window.

Level-3 Predictions:

Level-three predictions are practical applications using a theory to predict. Predictions don’t come from the theory directly, but we receive the predictions. They can come from divine revelation. God can’t lie. He tells us the truth. Predictions can come from the deceitful and wicked human mind, or demonic entities that lie and destroy. If we seek Christ, we’ll find Him. He’ll give us discernment if we persist. We can ask Him any question. As we mature spiritually, our discernment also improves.

Examples:

Scientists design theories based on observations. So, the theories fit the observations but go beyond observation. Where did these scientists get information beyond what anyone has seen or experienced? God may have given Albert Einstein divine revelation when working on the Quantum Theory. He was a man who confessed that he wanted to know God’s mind. We can’t know the Quantum Theory is true. We can’t be certain, but we can use Quantum Theory to predict.

Sandy Sandbuilder: The development of advanced microchips uses the predictions of Quantum Theory. You deny the computer and your cell phone if you say theories don’t lead to knowledge.

Rocky Rockbuilder: God may give a man like Einstein an insight into something like Quantum Mechanics, and this insight can lead to a theory. The theory may contain some truth and some fiction in it, but it works. It can change if something it predicts doesn’t work. However, you’re trying to make Quantum Mechanics something it isn’t. Cell phone and computer manufacturers don’t just build a production facility based on the theory. They try many ideas in the lab before putting those ideas into production. If it were as predictable as you claim, scientists wouldn’t have tested or tinkered to get these to work. They would have just built the most advanced cell phone possible the first time. And there would have been no risk or chance of losing money on a failed idea.

Those who build on sand confuse the issue. Bringing up Quantum Theory confuses issues even better than bringing up theories about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So let’s clear the fog. Quantum Theory didn’t cause knowledge to pop into existence. If the theory contains truth, that truth came from Jesus Christ.

John Matson wrote an article titled What is Quantum Mechanics Good for? and published in Scientific American. In that article, he said the following:

Without quantum mechanics, there would be no transistor, and hence no personal computer; no laser, and hence no Blu-ray players.

Matson used the term “quantum mechanics” rather than saying “the Quantum Theory.” The observations of quantum mechanics and the theories about the observations are two very different things.

Whatever is happening in what we call “quantum mechanics” is what makes these inventions work, but it doesn’t answer this question. Did the inventors make technology by following the predictions of quantum mechanics, or did the technology come about by some other means? That’s a hard question to answer, but it misses the point anyway. Here’s the point. We might predict something. That’s not the same as knowing the truth. We haven’t proved the cause. We have a working model. We have a way of thinking about it. We can use that working model to help us find solutions. We know our model works. We don’t know our model is real. It’s practical. It’s pragmatic. And any truth that may exist in Quantum Theory came from Jesus Christ whether ungodly thinkers want to give Him the glory or not. If we can use a framework of thinking to predict how things will work, we have a pragmatic crutch at best.

Going back to Sandy’s claim, another problem exists. Sandy was arguing in favor of the Theory of Evolution. Sandy’s problem is a complex lie. Sandy’s problem has several parts. Sandy implied someone used the predictions of the theory of quantum mechanics to create the technology. Sandy didn’t say it. Sandy implied someone used the theory to create cell phones and computers. We’ve already answered that suggestion.

Besides, Sandy combined two issues into a single issue. Creating a theory about what’s happening in the present is one thing. Creating a theory about what supposedly happened in the past is quite another thing. We can’t use the same methods to test the predictions of these different kinds of theories. Sandy uses a different definition of the word “test” in each case. Here’s another fatal problem. The stories don’t predict. Stories about billions of years don’t predict. Stories about molecules coming to life don’t predict. Sandy is lying when he implies they predict. We never use these stories to create working technology. We can’t use stories about molecules turning into people over billions of years to create technology.

Quantum Theory could be useful. However, the theory wasn’t the tool that developed the transistor. Rather, scientists observed an unexpected behavior in crystals. They were trying to develop a faster switch. They invented the transistor, which was a faster switch. Quantum Theory is a possible explanation of the strange behavior, but it didn’t lead to the invention. Here’s the kicker. If scientists had used Quantum Theory to develop transistors and solid-state technology, that wouldn’t prove Quantum Theory. Nor would it help the stories of evolutionism.

Even if we can use a theory to predict what might happen under certain conditions, that doesn’t prove the theory is true. It proves we can use the theory to make predictions in areas where scientists have observed and tested those predictions. Who knows? We may find other predictions that turn out to work where the theory acts as a stimulus. Theories always go beyond scientists’ experiments and testing. They try to guess why and how the observations came to be.

We don’t call a theory “a fact.” Here’s why. We can’t test the why and how. We can directly test facts. We observe facts. We see facts. We can’t see why and how. We can use the theory because it predicts. We can take action based on the prediction. And we can test the results of that action. For example, we can test computer chips in the present. They work or they don’t work. However, we can’t test stories about big bangs, billions of years, or molecules coming to life and morphing into all the living organisms we now observe. Some say predictions test the stories. Predictions don’t test the stories. If we try to test stories with predictions, we commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

#RealFaith&Reason

You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

Follow on

https://parler.com/profile/Petros542287384712/posts