Posted on 08/30/2019 9:08:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Ancestry.com = Aunt Susie wanted to be a descendant of royalty so one day she scribbled King and Queen onto her family tree and POOF! so it was.
Relativity was made popular because it's a good scientific theory that explains our observations and has passed every test we've thrown at it. It's right.
"The problem is this is Theoretical Physics. It's all mathematical conjecture."
Relativity is physics. Its effects are measured and used, and our technology depends upon it. It is not conjecture.
“None of whom ever said what you claimed, or would have agreed with it.”
Ah, so Bacon didn’t advocate “experimental philosophy”, and Newton didn’t base his work on Bacon’s ideas, which were then built upon by men like Galileo and Kepler to arrive at the modern formulation of the empirical, experimental based scientific method in the 19th-20th centuries, in opposition to the more inductive and deductive based approaches advocated by others? And the experimental approach didn’t result in by far the vast majority of all scientific advances in the history of mankind? Is that what you want people to believe?
If there is a God we had better find out who He is and what He wants.
___________________
First question (above)
A. There is a God and both are answered in the Bible
Excellent description of Global Warming ‘science’.
Keep adjusting the data until you get the results you want.
1st law of thermodynamics
+ 2nd law of thermodynamics
+ fossil record
+ genetics
+ information theory
+ direct observations of intelligent design everywhere one looks
+ mathematical odds against accidental protein formation
makes it impossible for me to accept it on faith.
If dogs descended from wolves, why are there still wolves?
Because humans did not evolve from apes; both "evolved" from a common ancestor. God created it all and set it in motion, the motion we call evolution. He imbued only one species with a soul; that would be us.
A few years ago I did their test. The results have been odd to say the least. At first I had a plethora ethnic ancestors. But then the results kept getting changed. My native American covers the entire Americas while my African has moved from tropical to Sub-Saharan to north African. And my Hispanic became Iberian. Their results have been very malleable.
Does it change the price of your morning coffee, if all of us, never really gave a crap “where we started from”?
Nobody said that experimentation isn't important. That wasn't the point. You implied that science can only be done in a lab. That's flat wrong, and no, none of those guys would have agreed with you.
Yep - saw a movie once where someone said monkeys developed shorter necks because it made it less likely for a broken neck to occur from a fall - IOW, the ones with longer necks had a higher mortality rate and shorter necks prevailed. That's what happens under Darwinism rather than a Blue whale and a termite springing from the same life form.
Yes. Darwinism explains MICRO-evolution, or changes within a species.
It has no bearing on MACRO-evolution, that apes, chimps, monkeys, and humans all came from a single ancestor. And, it’s easily (and reasonable) to understand why apes, chimps, monkeys and humans all have similar DNA components - that’s what God choose to work with, so that’s what’s in there.
“You implied that science can only be done in a lab.”
Well, true experimental verification can only been done through experiment, not through modeling, or simple speculation. That was clearly the implication of the author, and it is perfectly sensible. There is clearly a big difference between “hard” sciences that can verify their hypotheses with actual experiments and “soft” sciences where such verification is impossible. That is why those fields have an altered version of the “scientific method” that they employ, since it is simply impossible for them to use the same method as physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
Now that is all fine, as long as we keep in mind that those fields that use this altered methodology can never confirm their hypotheses with anything close to the degree of certainty that the hard sciences are able to do.
"Experimental verification" can only be done through experiment because it's *experimental* verification. Kind of a tautology there. But *verification* does not have to be done through experiments. You can observe the world, make predictions about the world, and verify your predictions about the world by observation. Actual laboratory experiments are wonderful, but not a requirement for science. Even the hard sciences. Some things just don't lend themselves to experiment.
For example, black holes cannot be experimented upon in a lab. But we can observe black holes, measure their effects, test our theories about gravity (from which black holes come) against the world, and create very hard very solid science to cover them.
The same is true of evolution, contrary to the point of he author.
“For example, black holes cannot be experimented upon in a lab. But we can observe black holes, measure their effects, test our theories about gravity (from which black holes come) against the world, and create very hard very solid science to cover them.
The same is true of evolution, contrary to the point of he author.”
But it isn’t. We can’t observe anything on the timescales required to verify many of the predictions of evolutionists, so even that type of verification is beyond our reach. So we can’t construct any real experiments to verify the grandest predictions of Darwin, and we can’t observe them and verify them that way, we are simply asked to believe them absent any verification at all. That’s not science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.