Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Predictability works in another way. You make a theory based on the evidence. It makes predictions. You see whether the predicted effect occurs. It doesn't need to occur right before your eyes, but finding evidence that it had occurred is the next best thing. Thus evolution theory like geology, palaeontology and archaeology are all scientific disciplines.
".....However, on the ordinary understanding of falsification, Darwinian evolution can be falsified. What's more, it can be verified in a non-deductive sort of way. Whewell was right in the sense that you can show the relative validity of a theory if it pans out enough, and Popper had a similar notion, called 'verisimilitude'. What scientists do, or even what they say they do, is in the end very little affected by a priori philosophical prescriptions. Darwin was right to take the approach he did.
It is significant that, although it is often claimed that Darwinism is unfalsifiable, many of the things Darwin said have in fact been falsified. Many of his assertions of fact have been revised or denied, many of his mechanisms rejected or modified even by his strongest supporters (e.g., by Mayr, Gould, Lewontin, and Dawkins), and he would find it hard to recognise some versions of modern selection theory as his natural selection theory. This is exactly what a student of the history of science would expect. Science moves on, and if a theory doesn't, that is strong prima facie evidence it actually is a metaphysical belief."
If you're threatened by science, you're probably a small-minded Bible-basher that calls it evilution.
The predictable pattern of scientific laws means things that don't conform to these results, really aren't science. They're personal theories posing as science. Abiogenesis is widely believed to be disproven by Pasteur (he actually faked some of his tests, but as far as what the common person knows, he disproved it), so using it as a reason for the origin of life is contradiction. Explanations that defy conservation of matter, or other proven laws, are equally invalid in discussions.
All of these are bad science. If you wanna disprove God, be my guest. But you must use sound science, just as religious people should not misquote scripture to prove a point.
So what you're saying is that christians will only accept a scientific discovery if it doesn't contradict their beliefs but reject something that contradicts their beliefs, even if the evidence says that discovery is true. This line of thinking is fundamentally anti science because it prides faith over fact.
How does a cycle evolve? Has that been observed? If not than why is it called science?
Science deals with what we can observe.
What came first the DNA or the Protein? Evolutionists have a chicken and egg problem, and are grasping at straws with no answers while they proclaim their profession of Faith as Scientific Fact. And no you can't just have proteins floating around in a pond. What we observe is a complex membrane is necessary - one that requires Lipids and Carbohydrates (2 other Macromolecules) as well as many other Polypeptides.
Any Rationalist should conclude that the millions of interdependent cycles that we observe in nature could have never evolved. It violates all probabilities. There MUST have been a Creator. This is the only rationale conclusion.
So BOTH Creation and Evolution require professions of Faith, but in the end only one is going to be true.
As for human genome manipulation, YES we are crossing the line, just as JESUS said in the days of Noah so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
God will have to intervene again, and this time it is Christ coming back to cast out all enemies of God setting up His Kingdom.
Technology in of itself is not bad. It is Amoral. Just like Guns. It's not the instrument but the finger that pulls the trigger. We are breaching the moral boundaries set by our Creator, and this will have eternal consequences.
To put it another way, if it lacks predictability it's not science. And whenever predictability is involved, something must repeat.
One of many reasons I don't accept the Big Bang theory. If it happened, it only happened once and was clearly an aberration, therefore scientifically unverifiable, and couldn't have taken place. Monkey science mythology.
One of many reasons I don't accept the Big Bang theory. If it happened, it only happened once and was clearly an aberration, therefore scientifically unverifiable, and couldn't have taken place. Monkey science mythology.
No. No way that could have happened. But, an undefined mystical being living outside of space and time, picking up a clump of dirt and breathing on it, making the first man, is much more likely.
How does a cycle evolve? Has that been observed? If not than why is it called science?
Science deals with what we can observe.
What came first the DNA or the Protein? Evolutionists have a chicken and egg problem, and are grasping at straws with no answers while they proclaim their profession of Faith as Scientific Fact. And no you can't just have proteins floating around in a pond. What we observe is a complex membrane is necessary - one that requires Lipids and Carbohydrates (2 other Macromolecules) as well as many other Polypeptides.
Any Rationalist should conclude that the millions of interdependent cycles that we observe in nature could have never evolved. It violates all probabilities. There MUST have been a Creator. This is the only rationale conclusion.
So BOTH Creation and Evolution require professions of Faith, but in the end only one is going to be true.
As for human genome manipulation, YES we are crossing the line, just as JESUS said in the days of Noah so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
God will have to intervene again, and this time it is Christ coming back to cast out all enemies of God setting up His Kingdom.
Technology in of itself is not bad. It is Amoral. Just like Guns. It's not the instrument but the finger that pulls the trigger. We are breaching the moral boundaries set by our Creator, and this will have eternal consequences.
Sorry Mike. You are referring to abiogenesis, not evolution when you ask the chicken/egg question. In this case, science just doesn't know. But, neither do you, though you want to assert the "god of the gaps" explanation. Assuming there must be a creator, which creator? What evidence do you have that the god of the Bible is the creator above all other gods or some other god or being(s) that we're are yet unaware? And, since we have you have no evidence of how your god was created, who/what created him/her/it?
If you actually believe the Great Flood story, you really have little credibility when discussing science.
No. No way that could have happened. But, an undefined mystical being living outside of space and time, picking up a clump of dirt and breathing on it, making the first man, is much more likely.
That's the way I'm betting. You pays your money and you takes you're chances. It's only eternity at stake after all.
That's the way I'm betting. You pays your money and you takes you're chances. It's only eternity at stake after all.
eYou do know that if Muslims or Jews or hundreds of other religions are correct that you'll be in the same boat as me?
Besides, don't you believe that an benevolent god would take into account how well I treat others as compared to a Jeffrey Dahmer who might have had a deathbed conversion? Don't you think he/she/it would understand if an individual used his/her "god-given" reasoning to conclude that the Bible god likely doesn't exist?
...It's the same way that left-wing Americans are anti-science when it comes to things like race. Try to get a left-winger to even acknowledge the possibility that some racial groups are more intelligent and fit for living in a civil society...
Why do you single out "left-wingers?"
Did you not hear anything anyone from the GOP ("right-wingers" as far as I know, for the most part) has said regarding things like the biology of women, the mechanics of reproduction, etc. the past few years?
Not to mention many Repub/right wing luminaries dismiss evolution out of hand and try to get creationist nonsense taught alongside actual science in schools, and so on.
Certainly anti-science on many fronts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
