Posted on 07/13/2018 11:19:47 AM PDT by fishtank
Nylon-Digesting Bacteria are Almost Certainly Not a Modern Strain
Jul. 12, 2018
This marine bacterium has the ability to digest nylon waste products, despite the fact that it doesnt live in an environment that contains nylon waste products. (click for credit)
Evolutionists are fond of stating facts that arent anywhere near factual. For example, when I was at university, I was taught, as fact, that bacteria evolved the genes needed to resist antibiotics after modern antibiotics were made. As with most evolutionary facts, this turned out to be nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists. We now know that the genes needed for antibiotic resistance existed in the Middle Ages and back when mammoths roamed the earth. They have even been found in bacteria that have never been exposed to animals, much less any human-made materials.
Of course, being shown to be dead wrong doesnt produce any caution among evolutionists when it comes to proclaiming the evidence for evolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.drwile.com ...
Sure, just as my most recent UFO sighting was rejected for lack of stronger evidence.
Just kidding, the only "UFOs" I've ever seen were at the tip end of contrails, too high to make out what they were:
reasonisfaith: "This is why Bacon said we believe what we prefer to be true, and its the reason we use the double blind method"
Right, and a double-blind test can protect a valid theory just as well as it falsifies an invalid one.
Do we disagree?
Of course, but we are talking informally, FRiend to FRiend, where words like "true" and "proof" or "belief" are used loosely to express our confidence in an idea.
I'm merely hoping to point out that science, strictly defined, doesn't do that, but sticks to a strict scientific vocabulary which excludes such terms.
Is that a problem for you?
Sure. If we didn’t use the double blind method, the scientist’s inherent bias would skew the results.
Maybe, but I'd guess 99% of science does happen outside double-blinds and sometimes with just the tiniest shreds of physical evidence.
Think of a CSI type crime investigation, where agents analyze a bit of hair here, some blood there, maybe a bullet, attempting to piece together a case that can stand up in court.
No double-blind and obvious interest in nailing a suspect, is it fake science?
Answer: not if done properly, but nothing humans do is ever 100% perfect, even I dare say, the best of double-blinds.
You disagree?
No.
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.