Disproving Science with Science, page 1

Well firstly, "apolgetics express" is not in anyway scientific so it's no good basing you're arguments from there because their site has a tremendous bias. That is why it is called apologetics.

Secondly, you have fallen into the 'theory' trap.

The way of which scientists prove what they find is accurate is the ‘Scientific Method’.

Let’s look at that next:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Here’s a flowchart.

A theory is not an

intellectual guess

, and it certainly isn't

sometimes backed with observations, and sometimes with nothing

Scientists don't

think of it and then try to find facts to back it up

scientists think up hypotheses after making an observation- which is then falsifiable by tests.

Hypotheses is not equal to theory.

You can sit here and try to prove the big bang but you don't have nothing to back up your words but the words of another man.

By your logic, we can't know anything to any reasonable level. We'd still be stone age farmers making up stories for the beginning of the world at the hands of a deity (because we would not understand processes by which a world could form itself) according to you. Thanks to

the words of another man

you have your computer, and it works. I probably shouldn't resort to strawman arguments like you do but hay, make baseless claims and don't expect people to like you for it.

But for proof of the big bang? Well the universe is expanding from a single point which is indicative of an origin. Then there is the background radiation that reaches us from the beyond 13 billion years ago because of the time it takes to travel. I don't personally understand that one because of my own ignorance, but it's universally accepted by the scientific community as a fact and they'd know better than I do because it's THEORY. Another thing I'll point out, the big bang doesn't cover how all the matter came into existence but what it did when it got here (kinda like evolution does for life). So you can put GOD in that hole in science if you like, I do.

Here's some info on the big bang from a scientific site.

I find this amusing:

Well, the new study concludes that the total DNA variation between humans and chimpanzees is rather 6-7 %.

That means the once held genetic relationship of humans and chimps goes from 98-99% to 93-94%. A 60% variance means difference and by the same token, a 40% similarity.

And why would any one transplant organs from another species? This is a silly idea because transplant from human to human is dubious and incredibly difficult by itself. But if you are interested trans-species-ectemy "The Animal" style (starring Rob Shnider) then you should know that surgeons have been transplanting heart valves from pigs for a long time now, successfully.

And lastly. Dawkins.

Dawkins stayed on an island for a short while and saw evolution

I fail to remember when Dawkins went to an island and observed anything. I believe that you are thinking of Darwin but it doesn't matter.

What he was truly seeing was animals adapting to their surroundings.

Which is a process of evolution called Natural Selection, so you have to agree with that part rather than writing the whole thing off.

He did not see a fish growing legs and walking out of the water

evolution doesn't predict that that will happen, but funnily enough there is a fish that will leave the water and doesn't even need legs.

he did not see an ape being split into a human and a chimp

humans and chimps are apes, but anyway there wasn't any apes on the island anyway (apart from Darwin and the other me who weren't staying).

So once you see a human born from a chimp you can come and tell me to believe then

I'm gonna come runing ato you and shout "Hey, come see the freak chip!" because evolution doesn't predict that, this is the same tired strawman argument that is used by creationists all the time. Evolution would not even tolerate this! You already must agree with the

adaptation

speciation part of evolution, if you perhaps learnt that scientists have documented new species emerging out of old ones like the subway mosquito in england, you may be aware that evolution works.

But a creationist would say, "but that's not one animal turning into a different kind of animal!" But creationists refuse to define what kind means so we can't know it the above statement is true. What we do know is that one species will turn into a different species over a long enough time in a process called speciation. Another example of this is the flu, you get an immunity to it and it changes. This is also why medicine practitioners are worried about antibiotics and how they are becoming less and less affective over time- because things are changing over time. There was recently a type of germ found in a dumpster that can eat nylon. Nylon hasn't been around for that long, so this has to be speciation through mutation. And you thought all mutations were bad (at least that's my hypothesis because that's what creationists say and you seem to have fallen under the power of their propaganda).

The fossil record 'records' what happens after thousands of speciations occur. If after one speciation, species 0000001 is a little different from species 0000002, then imagine how greatly differnt species 0000001 would be from species 9667671! That's how evolution works- cumulative changes over a great amount of time.

[edit on 9/19/2008 by Good Wolf]