Using the Scientific Method on Evolution

[AV1611VET]

You're not very subtle.

Thank you!

Genesis 3:1a Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

 

[morse86]

Thank you!

Genesis 3:1a Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

Subtlety is one of the things evolution serpents depend on to deceive the whole world.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

The "bone in the dirt" is just an example.

Abiogensis = fraud/failed
Geologic column = fraud
Pilt down man = hoax
Dolly the sheep = hoax
Vestigial organs = fraud/hoax
Missing links = hoax/fraud

We can go down the list, it's all lies and fraud. They hire actors who cross reference and give each other credibility and the myth is upheld.

Dinosaurs were only "discovered" recently....no mention for thousands of years of civilization. Of course, they will find ancient civilizations reference dinosaurs....most of history is "created/fake". The only truth we have is the bible.

How deep does the conspiracy go?

I'm impressed with how much these hired actors have figured out. Medicine, cars, airplanes, vaccines, satellites, putting a machine on another planet, putting man on the moon, and so much more. Those are some seriously amazing actors, don't you think?

 

[lasthero]

The "bone in the dirt" is just an example.

Abiogensis = fraud/failed

It's a hypothesis.

Geologic column = fraud

Not even sure what you're implying. Are you saying that the geologic column doesn't really exist, or that what people say about it isn't true? Both of those are insane position, but the latter less so than the former.

Pilt down man = hoax

Just for fun, try and look up a paper written about Piltdown Man. You won't find a signle one. At all.

Dolly the sheep = hoax

Dolly has nothing to do with evolution, but it was a real thing. Saying you don't believe its possible to clone animals doesn't make it impossible to clone animals.

Vestigial organs = fraud/hoax

This doesn't even make sense.

Missing links = hoax/fraud

If they're missing, how can they be a fraud?

They hire actors who cross reference and give each other credibility and the myth is upheld.

I know you think this is the case, but you need this trifling thing called 'evidence'.

Dinosaurs were only "discovered" recently....no mention for thousands of years of civilization.

So far as I'm aware, most ancient civilizations haven't cared to dig extensively to find dinosaur bones. On top of that, it's not like you can just dig in any random place and expect to find a fossil.

Of course, they will find ancient civilizations reference dinosaurs....most of history is "created/fake".

If you believe most of history is 'created/fake', how do you know the stuff about dinosaurs is true?

 

[Queller]

The scientific method has four parts:
1) Observation
2) Hypothesis
3) Prediction
3) Testing
4) Conclusion

Observation:
We find a bone in the dirt.

Please use the scientific method USING the observation above to prove that birds come from dinosaurs or everything in the universe came from nothing.

No scientist on earth has ever come to such a conclusion based on one observation so why should anyone here?

BTW, isn't that five parts? You have 3) listed twice.

 

[lasthero]

How deep does the conspiracy go?

I'm impressed with how much these hired actors have figured out. Medicine, cars, airplanes, vaccines, satellites, putting a machine on another planet, putting man on the moon, and so much more. Those are some seriously amazing actors, don't you think?

Morse doesn't believe we've gone to the Moon, nor have we sent anything into space. I think he believes the Earth is flat, too.

He's an ULTRA-literalist.

 

[morse86]

How deep does the conspiracy go?

I'm impressed with how much these hired actors have figured out. Medicine, cars, airplanes, vaccines, satellites, putting a machine on another planet, putting man on the moon, and so much more. Those are some seriously amazing actors, don't you think?

Medicine, cars, and airplanes is science.

Vaccines, Satellites, and putting a machine on another planet is religion.

Don't group nonsense (like evolution) with real science.

 

[lasthero]

Oh, God, you're anti-Vaccer, too?

What conspiracies don't you believe in?

 

[whois]

The "bone in the dirt" is just an example.

Abiogensis = fraud/failed

yes, all attempts at abiogenesis has failed.
OTOH, you must admit the concept is tantalizingly possible.
the chemistry of carbon can get very complex.

Geologic column = fraud

to say this is a fraud is the same as saying there is no time.

Pilt down man = hoax

yep, 100% busted.

Dolly the sheep = hoax

dolly the sheep, as in the cloned dolly the sheep?
sorry, IT LIVES ! ! . . . well maybe, is she still alive?

Vestigial organs = fraud/hoax

yes, the appendix is one of those.

Missing links = hoax/fraud

this is the only thing you've said that has any meat on it.
the record is littered with such gaps.
typical stuff.

We can go down the list, it's all lies and fraud.

evolution, as a theory, has some pretty solid reasoning behind it.
a consensus of people isn't proof though.

They hire actors who cross reference and give each other credibility and the myth is upheld.

an MO that is typical of both sides of the argument.

Dinosaurs were only "discovered" recently....no mention for thousands of years of civilization. Of course, they will find ancient civilizations reference dinosaurs....most of history is "created/fake". The only truth we have is the bible.

there are archaeological digs that throw into dispute the migration timeline, most of them are disputed in one way or another.

 

[Jd34]

The scientific method has four parts:
1) Observation
2) Hypothesis
3) Prediction
3) Testing
4) Conclusion

Observation:
We find a bone in the dirt.

Please use the scientific method USING the observation above to prove that birds come from dinosaurs or everything in the universe came from nothing.

Science can not prove things like creation and evolution. Following the scientific method, theory is as far as we can take it.
1.Observation

2.Hypothesis

3.Theory - In science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence.

4. Law

 

[lasthero]

Science can not prove things like creation and evolution. Following the scientific method, theory is as far as we can take it.
1.Observation
2.Hypothesis
3.Theory
4. Law

Theories do not become laws.

 

[Jd34]

Theories do not become laws.

Some theories become laws and some don't .It is the process of the scientific method. As of now, creation and evolution can only remain as a theory in science. Science also considers divine theory. I suspect that one day that theory will become a law once we see Him coming.

 

[lasthero]

Some theories become laws and some don't .

No, they don't.

It is the process of the scientific method.

No, it's not.

As of now, creation and evolution can only remain as a theory in science.

Creation is not a theory, in science or anywhere. What do you think a theory is?

Science also considers divine theory.

Find a scientific paper on it, then.

I suspect that one day that theory will become a law once we see Him coming.

Good for you.

 

[lasthero]

Here, this should help your confusion.

Scientific Laws and Theories

Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science. Furthermore, notice that with any of the above definitions of law, neither scientists nor nature "conform" to the law. In science, a law is not something that is dictated to scientists or nature; it is not something that a scientist or nature has to do under threat of some penalty if they don't conform.

 

[Jd34]

No, they don't.



No, it's not.



Creation is not a theory, in science or anywhere. What do you think a theory is?



Find a scientific paper on it, then.



Good for you.

Let me explain something to you in simple terms:

Scientists begin with a hypothesis, which is sort of a guess of what might happen. When the sci- entists investigate the hypothesis, they follow a line of reasoning and eventually formulate a theory. Once a theory has been tested thoroughly and is accepted, it becomes a scien- tific law.

My life's career has been devoted to science. I am we'll rooted in the sciences. In my very first biology class, the school text book started of with three theories of origin.

1.spontaneous generation
2. I don't rember
3. Divine creation

I have always held to Divine Creation but to science, sorry to say it but it is only a theory.

 

[whois]

a scientific law is an observation that always appears to be true.
it gives no explanation for why its true.
gravitation is a law.
biogenesis is a law.
i'm sure there are others.

 

[Jd34]

a scientific law is an observation that always appears to be true.
it gives no explanation for why its true.
gravitation is a law.
biogenesis is a law.
i'm sure there are others.

Yes and all laws at one time was first a theory. Now, that's not to say all theories are laws.

 

[lasthero]

Let me explain something to you in simple terms:

Scientists begin with a hypothesis, which is sort of a guess of what might happen. When the sci- entists investigate the hypothesis, they follow a line of reasoning and eventually formulate a theory. Once a theory has been tested thoroughly and is accepted, it becomes a scien- tific law.

My life's career has been devoted to science. I am we'll rooted in the sciences. In my very first biology class, the school text book started of with three theories of origin.

1.spontaneous generation
2. I don't rember
3. Divine creation

I have always held to Divine Creation but to science, sorry to say it but it is only a theory.

You can claim to be whatever you want. You're still wrong.

 

[whois]

Yes and all laws at one time was first a theory. Now, that's not to say all theories are laws.

theories have a broad explanatory power.
scientific laws make no attempt to explain anything.
they are simply observations that are always true, and that's it.
theories attempt to explain things, laws don't.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Let me explain something to you in simple terms:

Scientists begin with a hypothesis, which is sort of a guess of what might happen. When the sci- entists investigate the hypothesis, they follow a line of reasoning and eventually formulate a theory. Once a theory has been tested thoroughly and is accepted, it becomes a scien- tific law.

My life's career has been devoted to science. I am we'll rooted in the sciences. In my very first biology class, the school text book started of with three theories of origin.

1.spontaneous generation
2. I don't rember
3. Divine creation

I have always held to Divine Creation but to science, sorry to say it but it is only a theory.

I love #2, it made me laugh.

And I give sincere kudos for your honesty.