Posted on 07/04/2004 5:19:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Vet, this is for you.
How do you use the scientific method in theology?
incomprehensible placemarker
Not quite. "Science" is a method. And "scientists" are those who employ that method.
I don't.
How so?
I want to know what the mass of a soul is.
If this were true we would have very little to disagree upon. There would be literally mountains of evidence of speciation if it were true. (On that point Darwin was correct).
I am not a biologist, and my experience with all of these concepts is from using Genetic Algorithms and Genetic Programming to evolve programs for image analysis and mineral identification. All of them work, populations of programs do evolve when faced with evolutionary pressure, gradual evolution is the most effective in programming evolution since mutations usually just create lots of useless junk that hinders not speeds up the process.
If you are using the term evolution in this paragraph to indicate "adaptation" we have no disagreement, however evidence of adaptation does not spell out changes in kinds of animals. The beaks, the spots, the spikes on a fish, are all proving to be evidences of adaptation within the genetic material already present within the creature. Link
However is the best workable theory.
Only if a person discounts the obvious tolerances that our world must maintain for life to even exist. Stretching those tolerances for even 1 million years is obviously foolish considering the rate of extinction of species, the catastrophic missiles that float around our solar system, the balance of chemistry and temperatures that regulate that chemistry of life...
There are so many reasons to discount evolution theory. Read more articles from here for further enlightenment.
Thank you for your reasoned tone, it is refreshing!
LOL! Good story.
Groucho Marx in one of his movies says, "Making mountains out of molehills isn't easy. You try that sometime!" A fine example is Coppedge's quest to present every bit of news that comes along, no matter what, as evidence for the reality of his delusions.
see my #128
Scientific method is what constantly continues to evolve.
"How so?"
The goal is to prove evolution, and every new discovery is use to further that goal, many alterations have been made since Darwin to give evolution credibility.
The scientific method is established under "peer review", and the "peers" are constantly updating, revising, and renewing their review.
Just look how this article is written and directed, nothing in it to give themselves credibility, rather a mocking of "Creationist" going to get theirs. That is the foundation of evolution's "scientific methods".
As though when one peers through a microscope and sees something for the first time, it's like they created it.
yes, thanks for the adjustment. yeah, science is a method, employed to investigate fields of study. scientists use this method. good catch :)
That's because it's not science. And, of course, "creationism" tends to cover about 103 different creation myths - why should they choose yours over any others to waste time on in a science class?
1) its lasted longest.
2) its supported by obsevations made by scientists.
3) it isnt a myth, it may have been Man's limited understanding when the Book was written, but it is NOT a myth. a myth is easy to disprove (Atlas holding the world up is a myth, we see no Atlas after going around the world)
the best term a reasoning scientist can conclude to use for Creationists (esp Judeo-Christians) is a "theory"
the real term is "Faith," or even "Truth"
the reason being, things happen that cannont be explained by what is before us. we also accept that with every answer comes more questions. we know (to a limited extent) HOW, but what about WHY, or WHERE, or even WHO/WHAT?
if science is so perfect at explaining away things, why is it not ok to kill another man in cold blood?
What is the "scientific method"? From HERE.
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
* 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
* 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
* 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
* 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Yes. Scientists get their good ideas from wherever creative people get their ideas. Kekule realized what the structure of the benzine molecule had to be when he dreamed about a snake eating its own tail.
Of course, that's not all there is to it: since we're talking science, just having a dream wasn't enough. The notion had to stand up to experimental testing. (It did. Of course, we don't hear too much about the ones that don't pan out, but that's the way it goes.) Science uses both sides of your brain.
You said "Do you actually have an argument against evolution, or do you have nothing to offer but trite one-liners?"
As a matter of fact, I do have an argument or two against the issue of evolution of species. I would encourage anyone who has not already closed their mind on the subject, to evaluate creation science and evolution. There are a number of good books available. (I like ICR myself)
I just happen to like one-liners. CS Lewis, referring to the whole evolution silliness remarked "There are some ideas, so fantastic they can only be believed by intellectuals.
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.