Using the Scientific Method on Evolution

[bhsmte]

Thanks all, I understand where you all are coming from and i can agree with you on that perspective. However,I also can look at it as a process. A process such as Newton observing an apple fall. He first hypothesized why it fell, he then theorized about the concept of gravity and then he worked out the math and formulated Newton's law of universal gravitation. This law states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton.

Is a law more absolute than a theory?

Is a theory more absolute than a hypothesis?

What if a hypothesis turns out to be more than just a guess?

What if a theory turns out to be more than a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something?

What happens when something falls outside of a law?

What exactly was your career in science again?

 

[morse86]

A theory is a best guess....it is not science. You can measure gravity but you don't know where it comes from or how it is created. That part is a theory...and it's not scientific, it's religious.

Globe earthers = Gravity is created by the earth collapsing on itself in a time-space dimension (or something similiar to this)
Most Flat earthers = Gravity is created when the flat earth plane moves upwards.

Both are theories, both are not science.

Evolution on the other hand, is pure theory. You cannot prove birds came from dinosaurs, you cannot create it in the lab, you cannot repeat it. It's pure religion.

 

[morse86]

What exactly was your career in science again?

Everyone is a scientist, unless you reserve that to only people with paper "titles" given by man that the bible warns to avoid.

 

[Jd34]

Everyone is a scientist, unless you reserve that to only people with paper "titles" given by man that the bible warns to avoid.

I have paper "titles" in molecular biology, chemistry, biochemistry and physics from The University of TN. I continued my education at UT School of Medicine and then got another "title/cert" after my name ASCP.

I'm not in the business of living in a world of guesses and theories ( only for entertainment). Rock Solid science is all that I deal with.

 

[bhsmte]

I have paper "titles" in molecular biology, chemistry, biochemistry and physics from the university of TN. I continued my education at UT school of medicine and then got another "title/cert" after my name ASCP.

I'm not in the business of living in a world of theories ( only for entertainment). Rock Solid science is all that I deal with.

Can you give us an example of "rock solid science" when it comes to a theory you have mentioned before; "theory of creationism"?

I will await your response.

 

[lasthero]

A theory is a best guess....

Nope.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/quote]Most Flat earthers = Gravity is created when the flat earth plane moves upwards.[/quote]
The problem with this is that we know the world isn't flat.

Both are theories, both are not science.

No.

Evolution on the other hand, is pure theory.

Yes, but the problem is that you don't know what those words mean, so you think that's a bad thing.

You cannot prove birds came from dinosaurs,

Birds are dinosaurs.

you cannot create it in the lab, you cannot repeat it. It's pure religion.

I regret to inform you that saying something is a religion does not, in fact, make it a religion.

 

[lesliedellow]

A theory is a best guess....it is not science. You can measure gravity but you don't know where it comes from or how it is created. That part is a theory...and it's not scientific, it's religious.

Now how shall we put this? A scientific theory is something which accounts for available data, and the more data it accounts for the better. In the case of Newton's theory, it accounts for the fact that things fall to earth, and it also accounts for the fact that the planets orbit the Sun. Up until that time, they had seemed two disparate phenomena.

Globe earthers = Gravity is created by the earth collapsing on itself in a time-space dimension (or something similiar to this)
Most Flat earthers = Gravity is created when the flat earth plane moves upwards.

Both are theories, both are not science.

Well, we can at least agree about that. But then, they were both pulled from your excuse for a brain, and neither have ever been put forward as a scientific theory.

Evolution on the other hand, is pure theory. You cannot prove birds came from dinosaurs, you cannot create it in the lab, you cannot repeat it. It's pure religion.

How many more times? Scientific theories have to be falsifiable in principle. Therefore they prove nothing, but they do provide a way of making sense of the available data. Proof is for mathematics, and mathematicians call their propositions theorems, not theories.

 

[bhsmte]

I have paper "titles" in molecular biology, chemistry, biochemistry and physics from The University of TN. I continued my education at UT School of Medicine and then got another "title/cert" after my name ASCP.

I'm not in the business of living in a world of guesses and theories ( only for entertainment). Rock Solid science is all that I deal with.

It would appear, these pesky scientific theories are beneath you?

 

[lesliedellow]

It would appear, these pesky scientific theories are beneath you?

He is also no scientist, if he can write that sort of garbage. He reminds me of atheists who have theology degrees, but no real clue what religion is about.

 

[bhsmte]

He is also no scientist, if he can write that sort of garbage.

Not likely, no.

 

[Split Rock]

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

Its an example of a straw man.

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.

You want a list of hoaxes? How about every single one of your threads and every single one of your posts. No one here actually beleives you are a creationist.

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".

So dinosaurs are fake just like DNA is fake... hey did you hear that the moon is fake too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3axPn65MGM

The only truth we have is the bible.

Which you likely don't even believe in. You are here to make creationists look foolish. You are not very convincing.

 

[Jd34]

It would appear, these pesky scientific theories are beneath you?

No. Not that at all, but when I do a bone marrow or a cell differential, guesses and theories don't do me or anyone else any good.

Some one mentioned about me trying to uphold the theory of special creation as rock solid science. It is a rock solid hypothesis in science. That is about as far as we can really take that idea in the realm of Science and what a Scientifc theory is. I suppose God is reduced to only a guess in Science but hopefully you all know better than that.

 

[lesliedellow]

No. Not that at all, but when I do a bone marrow or a cell differential, guesses and theories don't do me or anyone else any good.

Well ain't that a shame? Because the whole of chemistry, and therefore biology, is dependent upon the theory of electromagnetism.

 

[bhsmte]

No. Not that at all, but when I do a bone marrow or a cell differential, guesses and theories don't do me or anyone else any good.

Some one mentioned about me trying to uphold the theory of special creation as rock solid science. It is a rock solid hypothesis in science. That is about as far as we can really take that idea in the realm of Science and what a Scientifc theory is. I suppose God is reduced to only a guess in Science but hopefully you all know better than that.

It what capacity to you work with bone marrow?

Could you explain the "rock solid" hypothesis of special creation?

 

[Jd34]

It what capacity to you work with bone marrow?

Could you explain the "rock solid" hypothesis of special creation?

I have aspirated, smeared, stained and read bone narrows. You need my license #??

1. Observation- I look around and I see this beautiful world in which we live.

.....,,,I wonder where it came from, how it came to be, hmm?

2. Hypothesis -- I have the idea that it was created by God.

Remember (a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.)

That is as far as we can go with the scientific method.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have aspirated, smeared, stained and read bone narrows. You need my license #??

1. Observation- I look around and I see this beautiful world in which we live.

.....,,,I wonder where it came from, how it came to be, hmm?

2. Hypothesis -- I have the idea that it was created by God.

Remember (a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.)

That is as far as we can go with the scientific method.

Sorry, but to count as a hypothesis, it has to be testable.

 

[whois]

No. Not that at all, but when I do a bone marrow or a cell differential, guesses and theories don't do me or anyone else any good.

i'll bet you are doing it to test a theory though.

It is a rock solid hypothesis in science.

i would consider the living cell as evidence.

I suppose God is reduced to only a guess in Science but hopefully you all know better than that.

the question of god has been raging for centuries.
and it's still unanswered.
the closer you look, the less obvious it seems either way.

 

[Jd34]

Sorry, but to count as a hypothesis, it has to be testable.

hypothesis is an educated guess or proposition that attempts to explain a set of facts or natural phenomenon.

Formalating a hypothesis comes first.. Then comes testing it.

Still waiting on the outcome of the test as far as Special creation goes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

hypothesis is an educated guess or proposition that attempts to explain a set of facts or natural phenomenon.

Formalating a hypothesis comes first.. Then comes testing it.

The testing part still has to be possible to count as a hypothesis, do you really want me to bring the definition of what a hypothesis is to this discussion? Fine.
" The primary trait of a hypothesis is that something can be tested and that those tests can be replicated", literally, the most important trait of a hypothesis is that it is testable.

 

[Jd34]

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

I am still waiting on the outcome of the test as far as special creation goes.

It can be tested real easy.