It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Prezbo369
Wow OP you've got your work cut out for you with these guys, some deeply enrooted ignorance on show......
NthOther
Hm. I didn't see anything in the scientific method about making stuff up so that certain equations or theories will work. Such as dark matter with gravity. Or the more honest "missing link" in evolution. But that's beside the point...
Modern science is not simply about postulating and testing hypotheses. It has become an institution unto itself, complete with social, political, and economic influences (and hierarchies) that both direct and negate modes of inquiry and the interpretations derived therefrom. As such, the "scientific community" is no more trustworthy a source of accurate information than is the Catholic Church.
borntowatch
That deeply encrusted ignorance can be removed instantly by some
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable
Science
Prezbo369
borntowatch
That deeply encrusted ignorance can be removed instantly by some
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable
Science
If I thought you applied these same standards to your own beliefs on the subject (or on any topic) I'd take you and this challenge seriously...
UxoriousMagnus
reply to post by Ghost147
The American Naturalist © 1983 The University of Chicago
Abstract:
Theories of causality in ecology and evolution rarely lend themselves to analysis by the formal method of "hypothesis testing" envisioned by champions of a "strong inference" model of scientific method.
borntowatch
Science by its very definition must be
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable
Evolution by its very nature can not and has not complied
Evolution is a faith, you want to believe and so do without evidence.
As a Christian I accept creation is a faith, hence why I cant prove it
borntowatch
I dont call my beliefs science, read the ops opening address, mine is a faith just like yours, I dont pretend my beliefs are science like evolutionists
I am not delusional/
again without
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable science to back it up, its all just a faith in science, not science at all
borntowatch
Prezbo369
borntowatch
That deeply encrusted ignorance can be removed instantly by some
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable
Science
If I thought you applied these same standards to your own beliefs on the subject (or on any topic) I'd take you and this challenge seriously...
I dont call my beliefs science, read the ops opening address, mine is a faith just like yours, I dont pretend my beliefs are science like evolutionists
I am not delusional/
again without
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable science to back it up, its all just a faith in science, not science at all
He is trying to prove creation wrong with no evidence, its not difficult to understand, is it?
“It is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fishlike ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible” - Theodosius Dobzhansky
Why is the Theory of Evolution a theory at all? Because it went through the process of the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method
- Make observations.
- Propose a hypothesis.
- Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
- Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.
- If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.
NthOther
Hm. I didn't see anything in the scientific method about making stuff up so that certain equations or theories will work. Such as dark matter with gravity. Or the more honest "missing link" in evolution. But that's beside the point...
NthOther
Modern science is not simply about postulating and testing hypotheses. It has become an institution unto itself, complete with social, political, and economic influences (and hierarchies) that both direct and negate modes of inquiry and the interpretations derived therefrom. As such, the "scientific community" is no more trustworthy a source of accurate information than is the Catholic Church.
borntowatch
Science by its very definition must be
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable
Evolution by its very nature can not and has not complied
Evolution is a faith, you want to believe and so do without evidence.
As a Christian I accept creation is a faith, hence why I cant prove it
the2ofusr1
Question ...What is the reason you made this thread ?
the2ofusr1It is very close to what may be considered a rant by a number of members .Now we could take a vote and come up with a consensus based on the definitions of a rant .We might have to go look at all of the voters posts to determine if they may be guilty of some kind of bias .
the2ofusr1
If the theory of evolution were true in my opinion then the fossil record would have the part man part monkey part whale or what ever part or parts they need to convince people .
the2ofusr1
But like you I have enough evidence to believe there is a God ...We just are looking with our own eyes .
and we are both biased in that respect .....peace
UxoriousMagnus
Evolutionists say that breeding a dog a certain way to make changes in it's specie is an example of evolution.
So what happens when we breed the dog back to it's original state from whence we began? Did we just devolve it?
Who is to say...that we didn't evolve a certain distance and then devolve right back to the original state?
UxoriousMagnus
well....the fossils tell us that didn't happen in either direction.
CovertAgenda
Science is still a form of religion as it requires faith.
Faith that scientific method has been applied appropriately and correctly, and faith in the teachings and findings of others.
CovertAgendaI do not FULLY believe ANYTHING unless i can verify personally.
CovertAgenda
to fully believe that the planets revolve around the sun, i would have to take my telescope out every night, plot and map the planets (or whatever those main moving points of light are) (aka Copernicus ~1510-1515) develop some interesting hypotheses, and confirm heliocentricity.
OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Ghost147
Why is the Theory of Evolution a theory at all? Because it went through the process of the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method
- Make observations.
- Propose a hypothesis.
- Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
- Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.
- If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.
I find it interesting that you claim the Scientific Method is involved in the theory of Evolution. I guess it depends on which type of evolution you are talking about, because there are six types of evolution.
THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF EVOLUTION ARE DESCRIBED:
Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang
Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.
Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.
Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.
Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.
OptimusSubprime
Now certainly, and admittedly, the same thing can be said about Creationism. By the way, I am a Christian and a "young Earth creationist". I believe that everything was created in the exact manner that is depicted and described in the Bible, or more specifically, the Book of Genesis (with some elaboration found elsewhere throughout the Bible). Having said all of that, my wish is to not "convert" one who subscribes to the theory of Evolution. No, my wish is for only the evolutionist to admit that their belief system is just as unprovable as mine is, and that evolution takes just as much faith as mine does.