No they are college educated scientists who just happen to believe in God and are trying to prove that their God created the universe. Why are their findings discredited as not science?
First of all, having a degree doesn't make you a scientist. "Scientist" is a profession. And it means to work according to the scientific method. In a nutshell, that goes like this:
- gather data
- formulate
testable hypothesis to explain said data
- test hypothesis (by gathering more data, design and carry out experiments, etc)
- analyse test results and formulate conclusion
- write up a paper and submit for peer review to appropriate scientific journal
- journal reviews and either publishes, or sends it back with recomendations
- when published, other scientists read it, review it, build further on it, try to disprove it, etc
- repeat
This is not what those folks do.
I'm not aware of people seeing unicorns. But you're right people have died and seen Buddha and other Gods in heaven. I could offer an explanation but it can't all be Satan and devils did it. Because Satan and devils could just as easily impersonate Jesus and have.
And how do you know that the one you can Jesus, isn't actually Shaytan the muslim devil? Or Loki? Or Hades? Or just a figment of your imagination?
Not to exploit your condition or anything... but honestly, you should know better then anyone just how powerfully and convincingly our brain can fool us.....
Thank you for at least not laughing. I appreciate it.
I'ld never laugh with someone's health problems.
Yeah let's get back on topic. I wouldn't mind it if they presented evolution as a theory to explain the origins of life but they present it as if its solid fact.
Evolution is about the origins of biodiversity / species, not about the origins of life.
Having said that, just like with other theories, there are the facts of the thing and then there is the theory, which is the explanation of the facts.
Common descent of species, shared ancestry, is a genetic fact.
Evolution theory, is the explanation of the process that explains said fact.
How is it possible that we factually share an ancestor with cats, cows, crockodiles, etc?
Evolution theory explains how that occurs.
And it has gaping holes in it. Like I said before most of science is prove able but you cannot prove evolution. So why is it presented as if its been proven?
The fossil record has holes. Which is to be expected, considering how hard it is to create a fossil.
Don't confuse evolutionary
history with evolutionary
theory.
Paleontologists etc, attempt at reconstructing the past. To see how all specific lineages came to be. What species took which evolutionary path.
They do this through a combination of genetics, geographic distribution of species and the fossil record. This is quite hard, considering that 99.99% of species that have ever lived, are extinct today. Nevertheless, we have quite a good picture of the tree of life.
But sure, it has holes.
Consider this simplistic analogy....
Let's say that you traveled from north to south america. Let's say we know this to be a fact. We can prove you were in the north and then some time later, you were in the south.
Let's say we have a theory that explains how you traveled south: by car. For the sake of example, we'll just say that this theory is accepted by consensus and is supported by loads of evidence.
Now, analogous to evolutionary
history, would be trying to figure out which exact roads you took to get from north to south. Which highways, etc. Records show that you got a speeding ticket on highway X. Your car shows up on a traffic cam on highway Y. Insurance records show you had a small accident on highway X. Credit card records show you spent the night in village A. Etc.
This allows us to reconstruct at least part of the route you took.
Now, in the words of AV, we can play a "connect the dots" game.
Your accident on highway X was a day before your credit card record showed you present in village A. We see on a map that the most likely route from X to A was through interstate B. Plowing through the records of interestate B, we find another record of you showing up on a traffic cam.
Etc.
All these records, are the equivalent of fossils.
It gives us snapshots of "the state" of life at those specific times.
And plenty of such "records", have been found by prediction.
Like Tiktaalik, which is basically a creature with both fish as well as tetrapod features.
Tetrapods evolved in the Devonian. At least, that's what the running theory tells us.
So paleontologists looked at a geological map and looked for locations of rock dating to the right period and where the circumstances would have been favourable in those days for fossil formation. They predicted that they should be able to find
transitional fossils there of "fish tetrapods".
So they set out with a team to such a location and started digging. And lo and behold, they found
exactly such a fossil.
How can this be, if evolution isn't accurate?
How do you find, of all the possible places on the planet where you could go and dig, exactly such a fossil
by prediction of both location as well as feature set, of a previously
unknown creature, if the theory that produced the prediction is not accurate?
