Yes and it was a great experiment. The fact that he wasn't able to observe what he theorized was only because of the lack of technical prowess or ability.
The same applies to evolution, and to all scientific theories. Theories try to explain what we can't observe, and they do so through what we can observe.
I don't have a problem with this but I don't really get why 'Germ Theory' is still called a theory when it's been proven, observed, and is falsifiable?
Because no one has directly observed a microorganism causing infection. All we an point to is the correlation of the microorganism and the disease.
What exactly is it that motivates different branches of science to have their own rules?
What motivates you to misrepresent how the different branches of science operate, and to misrepresent how the scientific method works?
Again you keep comparing apples to oranges.
Apples to apples. Ignoring the evidence does not make it go away. If we can use evidence that was created in the past in a murder trial, why can't we use it in science?
Moreover, you can construct testable and falsifiable hypotheses on what you should see in the present if evolution is true. That is entirely in keeping with the scientific method.
How exactly do you test something that you can't verify is accurate without assuming it is?
I already showed you. We can directly observe the past by using astronomical observations. We can directly observe the constancy of radioactive decay by looking at the mixture of isotopes in things like the naturally occurring nuclear fission reactors in the Oklo mine. None of those observations are assumed.
It's been tested by an unproven technology that has not been physically and actually observed or falsified?
The technology is proven and it uses the observations of known and measured isotopes in rocks.
Nope, not what I said. Please try your call again.
Do you agree that the evidence we have in the present was produced by past events? Yes or no?
Yeah it's funny how that happens when people don't give you proof.
I have given proof. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist isn't a valid argument.
No you're asserting that I'm just saying that science doesn't understand creation and assumes things not in evidence.
Well I guess I am being presumptuous and presumptive. I guess not only scientists can have their cake and eat it too.
I have given you the observations, and you ignore them. What more to do?
