Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
probably from the fact you can't test the hypothesis......claiming that what you observe is what you expect to observe is simply circular reasoning, not scientific testing......
I can use the same approach.......hmmm.....if there were an intelligent designer creating human beings, I would expect to find human beings, capable of reproducing, intelligent enough to function, and with thumbs......holy shit, guess what I found!.......
You mean like I drop ball and expect to observe it accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2. And, what do you know, it does accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2.
That's not circular reasoning, it is scientific proof.
You are confused. The reason is that you don't understand what scientific proof is.
no....I am not confused.....you have demonstrated scientific proof by dropping a ball and measuring the speed.....imagine what a physics class would say if you claimed you didn't have to measure the speed, because you assumed if you dropped it, it would hit the floor......or if you didn't even bother to drop it, because the ball you saw laying on the floor was adequate proof.......
even Science Buddies says you're wrong, so you fail even the 4th grade level standard...
Steps of the Scientific Method
I know, it sucks to be ignorant about science when you worship it, but hey......study a bit, you may get the hang of it......
Yeah, you have a very inexperienced and uneducated understanding of what an experiment is.
One of the experiments that added further proof to be Einstein's theary of relativity was observing the change in the location of stars during solar eclipse. Gravitational lensing by galaxies has also provided a natural experiment of the theory of relativity. Neither are laboratory expreriments.
More importantly, the theory of relativity isn't a thing. It is a description of a process of things undergoing change.
when scientists realized they wanted us to believe things that could not be demonstrated, they created a new scientific method......you come up with a theory and tell people it is true.......they believe you.....its scientifically established......
Transitional evolution does meet the standards of the scientific method, it is you who won't/can't see it.
even Science Buddies says you're wrong, so you fail even the 4th grade level standard...
Steps of the Scientific MethodThe steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
I know, it sucks to be ignorant about science when you worship it, but hey......study a bit, you may get the hang of it......
Like the car, the first cell is an assembly of proteins which themselves are assemblies. The odds of it forming by chance are beyond human comprehension.What's doing the selection in assembling the first cell??????????
The "first cell" is really an assembly of pre-existing modules. Each module evolved on its own and then survived better in conjunction with other modules. Likely each module was an assemply of pre-existing submodules that evolved on its own. Etc.
The DNA itself is evidence of creation and a creator
Evolution is tested through experimentation. Experiments are performed in the fields of genetics, paleontology and archaeology. How is intelligent design tested? How is empirical evidence for the hypothesis of a creator collected?
like abiogenesis and macro-evolution, intelligent design is not a scientific theory......if you stop pretending your faith choices are science, you too can be relieved of the necessity of scientific testing......
Abiogenesis is a separate field of study from evolutionary biology.
yes...."well established".......no scientifically proven.......just established, in the minds of its believers........Macro-evolution is well established empirically in the fields I mentioned earlier.
You mean like I drop ball and expect to observe it accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2. And, what do you know, it does accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2.
That's not circular reasoning, it is scientific proof.
You are confused. The reason is that you don't understand what scientific proof is.
no....I am not confused.....you have demonstrated scientific proof by dropping a ball and measuring the speed.....imagine what a physics class would say if you claimed you didn't have to measure the speed, because you assumed if you dropped it, it would hit the floor......or if you didn't even bother to drop it, because the ball you saw laying on the floor was adequate proof.......
Uh, yeah, you are confused. The shame of it is your intentially confused.
Making up a bunch of irrelevant "analogies", if they can even be called that, isn't doing you any good. You already failed the first time. Why continue "imagining" things instead of actually learning?
lol....I also find it ironic that a proponent of postmodernism is trying to delegitimize evolutionary biology for not abiding by the scientific method. Postmodernism is an unfalsifiable social theory and violates the scientific method in all its claims.
Yeah, you have a very inexperienced and uneducated understanding of what an experiment is.
One of the experiments that added further proof to be Einstein's theary of relativity was observing the change in the location of stars during solar eclipse. Gravitational lensing by galaxies has also provided a natural experiment of the theory of relativity. Neither are laboratory expreriments.
More importantly, the theory of relativity isn't a thing. It is a description of a process of things undergoing change.
when scientists realized they wanted us to believe things that could not be demonstrated, they created a new scientific method......you come up with a theory and tell people it is true.......they believe you.....its scientifically established......
Now you are just making up shit.
Science has gone progressed beyond the 4th grade science fair level:
despite the fact that the argument logically demands a creator of the creator
Science has gone progressed beyond the 4th grade science fair level:
dude, arguing that something which has never been tested and supported is "scientific" is NOT progress......
I don't know where this idea that evolution can't be subjected to a testable hypothesis comes from (other than ignorance, either intentional or not).
probably from the fact you can't test the hypothesis......claiming that what you observe is what you expect to observe is simply circular reasoning, not scientific testing......
I can use the same approach.......hmmm.....if there were an intelligent designer creating human beings, I would expect to find human beings, capable of reproducing, intelligent enough to function, and with thumbs......holy shit, guess what I found!.......
well, if you expected wheels, then your expectation of intelligent design has not been met......personally, I expected that if macro-evolution were true, a multicelled organism might have evolved from a single celled organism......like you, I was disappointed....predictions are such fickle scientists......I don't know where this idea that evolution can't be subjected to a testable hypothesis comes from (other than ignorance, either intentional or not).
probably from the fact you can't test the hypothesis......claiming that what you observe is what you expect to observe is simply circular reasoning, not scientific testing......
I can use the same approach.......hmmm.....if there were an intelligent designer creating human beings, I would expect to find human beings, capable of reproducing, intelligent enough to function, and with thumbs......holy shit, guess what I found!.......
Why would you expect to find human beings with thumbs but not wheels? There actually isn't anything that creationism actually predicts so as a theory it is useless. If we find a 500 million year old fossil bed, creationism "predicts" we might find fish or dinosaurs or people. Funny thing, we never do find those dinosaurs or people.
Science has gone progressed beyond the 4th grade science fair level:
dude, arguing that something which has never been tested and supported is "scientific" is NOT progress......
What is the source of the Sun's power?
dude, arguing that something which has never been tested and supported is "scientific" is NOT progress......
What is the source of the Sun's power?
observe and see.....
Science has gone progressed beyond the 4th grade science fair level:
dude, arguing that something which has never been tested and supported is "scientific" is NOT progress......
well, if you expected wheels, then your expectation of intelligent design has not been met......personally, I expected that if macro-evolution were true, a multicelled organism might have evolved from a single celled organism......like you, I was disappointed....predictions are such fickle scientists......probably from the fact you can't test the hypothesis......claiming that what you observe is what you expect to observe is simply circular reasoning, not scientific testing......
I can use the same approach.......hmmm.....if there were an intelligent designer creating human beings, I would expect to find human beings, capable of reproducing, intelligent enough to function, and with thumbs......holy shit, guess what I found!.......
Why would you expect to find human beings with thumbs but not wheels? There actually isn't anything that creationism actually predicts so as a theory it is useless. If we find a 500 million year old fossil bed, creationism "predicts" we might find fish or dinosaurs or people. Funny thing, we never do find those dinosaurs or people.
