The Only Debate Worth Having About Science And The Past

[Loudmouth]

It's not done in forums or on video.

What isn't done?

 

[SkyWriting]

Loudmouth said: ↑
I am assuming that you are trying to be honest and use accurate representations of how science is done.
Should I not make that assumption?

SkyWriting said: ↑
It's not done in forums or on video.

What isn't done?

Science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science.

Then why don't you cite the sources where science is done, which would be the peer reviewed papers?

 

[SkyWriting]

Then why don't you cite the sources where science is done, which would be the peer reviewed papers?

I do that often enough. I tend to avoid it, because
my opponents usually glance at their mistakes
then disappear from the forum for a day or so
they don't have to admit their error. It's a
predictable pattern for the past few years.

You too. You posted the scientific method, I showed you
that there are LOOPS on the left and right side where the
observation MUST be tested, (now or future) and you
refuse to admit that past cannot be seen.

 

[Loudmouth]

I do that often enough.

Not from what I have seen.

I tend to avoid it, because
my opponents usually glance at their mistakes
then disappear from the forum for a day or so
they don't have to admit their error.

Are there only 9 commandments in your Bible?

It's a
predictable pattern for the past few years.

You posted the scientific method, I showed you
that there are LOOPS on the left and right side where the
observation MUST be tested,

You don't test observations. You test the hypothesis.

You don't repeat the hypothesis. You repeat the observations.

The hypothesis is that life evolved in the past. We use repeatable observations, like those found in the fossil record and the genomes of living species, to test that hypothesis.