Replies

I think I've figured out what my problem is as a scientist.

Your problem "as a scientist" is that manifestly you hardly understand science at all. You repeatedly misuse words like "theory", "hypothesis", "proof", and "evidence".

My job and career are based upon the science that employees [sic] scientific method that is exact and factual.

OK, I'll bite. You've repeatedly talked about proof. Tell me about something in science that you know to be proven (outside pure fields like number-theory or geometry) and explain how that applies to your job. I'll wait.

I believe from all I've read that Evolutionary science is based only on observations and hypothesis.

You haven't read very much about biology then. Perhaps your knowledge of biology is as limited as your knowledge of the scientific method. The theory of evolution has survived 150 years of accumulated data collection since it was first publicly proposed, any of which had the potential to falsify it. Untold millions of data points. Every fossil we dig up, every genome we sequence could falsify evolution. None have. Numerous successful predictions have been made using the theory of evolution. Successful predictions are the goal and confirmation of theory, and theory is the goal of science. No scientific theory has more data supporting it. Most scientific theories have far less supporting data, and far fewer successful predictions.

Bottom line, no facts, just theory.

"Just theory" is the highest level of explanation that science aspires to. Theory is not lesser than fact; theory explains fact. That you can once again misuse terminology in this way is testament to the vacuity of your claim to be a scientist. (I am not a scientist by the way, but I know one when I see one; they know something about science)

"OK, I'll bite. You've repeatedly talked about proof. Tell me about something in science that you know to be proven (outside pure fields like number-theory or geometry) and explain how that applies to your job. I'll wait"

Please don't tell me your that stupid. You profess to be superior intelligence and you want me to show one example that shows proof of science? How about the field of electro magnetics. It's just this minor field of science that dictates every facet of your life .... or should I say normal peoples lives.

Electro magnetics is something that can not be seen or touched yet it's proven to exist through experimentation and the applied sciences. From the ordinary electric generator to the highly comples MRI (which both are the result of the applied science of elector magnetics)

You wrote:
"You haven't read very much about biology then. Perhaps your knowledge of biology is as limited as your knowledge of the scientific method. The theory of evolution has survived 150 years of accumulated data collection since it was first publicly proposed, any of which had the potential to falsify it"

I've only read two or three books on evolution. Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the basic premise/theory of evolution that the beginning of all life started in a pool of primordial ooze somewhere? From that the spark of life came into existence and the first gems / bacteria developed. That in turn led to the first single cell organisms which developed into multiple celled organisms and so on and so forth. Eventually complex animals developed into four legged creatures which eventually started to walk on 2 feet dragging their hands on the ground. ect. ect. ect. until man as we know him today ... came to be. (simplistic I know, but isn't that the theory of evolution?)

You talk about fossils as if there were know ever found that contradict the facts of evolution. I can think of two such examples. The feet of man fossilized in the same mud as that of dinosaurs and the bones of a common everyday house cat, dead approx. 1000 years (a tomb in Egypt I believe - no I don't have the reference) that were carbon dated to be over 400,000 years old. And there is one one, the dig that showed fossils that were from the beginning of time that were found above the bones of animals that die only a few thousand years ago.

you wrote:"(I am not a scientist by the way, but I know one when I see one; they know something about science)"

So by your definition "Real" scientist deal in theories that are the result of looking at pieces of a puzzle and developing a theory that is refined over and over again. There is no way to disprove it because it's based upon subjective reasoning based upon "hypothesis", and "evidence". That's real science and those who deal with that a real scientist.

So your right, I'm wrong. I'm not a real scientist because I deal in theories that have proof through practical applications. As another poster put it, and I'll phrase it based upon they're definition, I'm just a technologist. Using magnetics to see inside the human body, that's not real science, that was just technology. Never mind that someone had to develop a theory about how magnetics works and how the human body is effected by it. never mind they then had to perform experiments to see if their theory could be put into practical application for the benefit of all mankind. No those aren't real scientist, they're just technicians.