KBCid wrote:I believe I have been stating my POV on what is considered scientific Ievllious. Take the references I have given and then compare it to anything you consider a science. Really check it against 'anything'. When you see any scientific undertaking that doesn't follow the proper 'method' which has been pointed out repeatedly then you will know how I stand on that particular topic.
sandy_mcd wrote:Yes, but you refuse to be specific. You write sweeping generalities and quote papers, but never seem to answer straightforward questions. This is a particularly difficult situation when your ideas of 'proper method" disagree with mainstream science.
I would say I and others here have been very specific. Here are snips from previous post that you will not answer and it is in reference to the scientific method not being followed correctly;
So when are you going to answer how something can be considered scientific if you can't test it?
How do you test for a single common ancestor of all life?
How do you test to show that mutation is actually random?
How do you test to see if NS can perform what they think it does?
What is “Good Science”?
4) Science generally uses the formulation of falsifiable hypotheses developed via systematic empiricism. Hypotheses that cannot ever be disproven are not real science. Hypotheses are generally formed by observing whatever it is you are studying, with the objective of understanding the nature of the subject (this is systematic empiricism). Many scientists hold the belief that a hypothesis cannot ever be proven, only disproven. This especially holds in historical sciences like paleontology, where a time machine would be the only true way to prove a hypothesis.
6) Replication is also vital to good science — for the scientific community to accept a finding, other investigators must be able to duplicate the original investigator's findings. Thus, you cannot make up your data; other scientists must be able to follow the same methods you used (whether experimentation, mathematical calculations, formulating major concepts, measuring data, or whatever) and come up with the same results.
Even among paleontologists studying dinosaurs, these principles are sometimes violated. A prime example, pervasive throughout evolutionary thought, is the adaptive story. Adaptive stories take a mysterious feature whose origin is not well understood, and propose an unfalsifiable hypothesis to explain it. For example: We do not yet understand why feathers were evolved somewhere along the non-avian theropod to bird transition. An adaptive story to explain it would be that the feathers were evolved to catch insects with, and then were "co-opted" for flight. Sounds convincing (as many such stories do), but still just a story. The sad truth is that many such problems are essentially unsolvable; we will never know exactly how or why feathers evolved. "Why" questions are some of the most difficult questions to answer when referring to evolution; evolution does not ask why. That is the frustrating reality that makes paleontology hard work.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/b ... ience.html
Describe for me exactly how mutation occurs and becomes inherited and show the empirical tests that back the answer.
In the end you still missed the point. all of reference subjects are empirically testable. Which is my point against evolutionary mechanisms and other evolutionary hypothesis you cannot empirically test them
Describe how your science works again? you propose something is 'a fact' and can't provide the empirical testing to back the proposition.
How likely is it that other intelligent beings are simply going to believe you?
The threat that atheists pose to science
Experimentation and the Scientific method going into disuse
In the past when Theists ran science empirically untestable hypotheses or theories were not considered scientific. But ever since atheists took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s they eliminated empirical testability as the main requirement needed for something to be considered scientific and substituted empirical testability with authority.
What this means is now if someone has authority they can propose any empirically untestable theory or hypothesis and it will be considered scientific. Gravitons, multiple universes, the string theory, etc…can all be considered scientific and allowed into peer-reviewed journals with no problem if they simply have authority figures to back them.
So why can’t atheists understand that something cannot be scientific unless it meets the requirement of empirical testability?
Atheists don’t seem to have any problem with voicing any opposition to things like Intelligent Design, so why don’t they voice any opposition to things like the string theory? It’s because atheists don’t genuinely care about what is science or not, they care about advancing their own political agenda or making fun of religion, not about science. This is the reason that atheists never will voice any opposition to empirically untestable theories but always voice opposition to Intelligent Design, because atheists are insincere and don’t actually care about science.
Back when Theists ran science the scientific method and scientific method alone would determine whether or not a hypothesis or model or theory was valid not authority or personal incredulity. If someone wanted to be taken seriously they absolutely needed to find ways to test their hypotheses, not just authority figures to back them.
It is the scientific method that determines if something is valid or not, not authority or incredulity as atheists believe.
In modern times now that atheists are taking over they instead focus on mathematical speculations rather than experimentation and the scientific method.
If I have the mathematics for something but no way to test out if my mathematics are valid then I essentially have nothing more than speculations. With this reasoning I can claim that virtually anything is true if I have the mathematics for it (even though I have no way to test out if my mathematics are valid). That is not science but instead pseudo-science since it does not adhere to the scientific method.
http://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/09/ ... o-science/
sandy_mcd wrote:Therefore much of evolutionary biology/physical geology is describing what has happened.
Does it really? ---how---do---you---know---their---description---is---correct---
sandy_mcd wrote:...And both the type of lifeforms and the geography of earth extant today are the results of a number of forces which involve a large random component.
unfortunately neither you nor they have the experimental evidence to back that assertion.
sandy_mcd wrote:People guessed there had to be mechanisms for heredity and continental motion many years before the actual mechanisms were elucidated.
Indeed they guessed and they specified what they thought the mechanisms were. The question 'as usual' is ---how---do---you---know---their---guess---is---correct---. IF you cannot test a concept then you have no way of knowing if it is correct or not.
So when we find something 'contrary' to a prediction what are we supposed to do? wring our hands, stomp our feet? or maybe we should test it by 'independent replication'. It would be nice to perform such a action with evolution but guess what? it is untestable.
If you want to further disagree on this then define how to scientifically test a timeline or maybe historic mutational rates or a single common ancestor or how random mutations can generate new species or how natural selection can eliminate bad variation from occuring or or ....
if they can't define the mechanisms operational characteristics then they haven't defined the mechanism. In real science like mechanical engineering we can define mathematically how a cause makes an effect. In the pseudo-science of evoution they feel confident that they can change the mechanisms operational characteristics at will to keep the theoretical mechanism as a standard.
Mitochondrial DNA Mutation Rates
The problems with these studies were so bad that Henry Gee, a member of the editorial staff for the journal, Nature, harshly described the studies as "garbage." After considering the number of sequences involved (136 mtDNA sequences), Gee calculated that the total number of potentially correct parsimonious trees is somewhere in excess of one billion.25 Geneticist Alan Templeton (Washington University) suggests that low-level mixing among early human populations may have scrambled the DNA sequences sufficiently so that the question of the origin of modern humans and a date for "Eve" can never be settled by mtDNA.22 In a letter to Science, Mark Stoneking (one of the original researchers) acknowledged that the theory of an "African Eve" has been invalidated.23
Macroevolution is the on theory that isn't falsifiable because everytime a new fossil that comes along that completely obliterates macroevolution biologists throw their hands up in the air and say "gosh evolution must have speeded" up and viola a theory that you can't falsify. This is the ultimate in pseudo-science, but then again Ivellious will find a way to defend it, it's interesting that he never tackles the basilasauras problem. A whale of a problem that not one pro evolution supporter here has yet to address.Hmmm gee, I wonder why
Here is the reality if evolution is such a fact then they can define the evolutionary rate. How fast do things evolve? if they can't define the mechanisms operational characteristics then they haven't defined the mechanism. In real science like mechanical engineering we can define mathematically how a cause makes an effect. In the pseudo-science of evoution they feel confident that they can change the mechanisms operational charactristics at will to keep the theoretical mechanism as a standard.
So you are quite right to question this point of the supposed theory. As scientist they should relegate the theory to a hypothesis since they can't define the mechanism correctly. This actually ties in with my last answer about the spatiotemporal system. You see in order to be able to define the hypothetical evolutionary mechanism they would also have to have an understanding about how the entire process functions. The fact is they can't define how a change in the structure of an allele translates into 3 dimensional structure so it is quite obvious why they can't define evolutionary rates and this is also beyond the scientific method to test these rates in real time, thus it's beyond the scientific method of inquiry which provides confirmational testing to back it. aka pseudo-science. you can't eliminate something that you can't test and we all know hat they think of things which can't be tested... "it's unscientific"
All life has a single common ancestor
random mutations causes all the variance we observe
natural selection keeps sucessful forms forming and eliminates unsucessfull forms from forming
mechanism 1 - mutation. Show by scientific method exactly how mutations occured in order to form all life
mechanism 2 - natural selection. Show by scientific method exactly how NS affects the origination of the variety of life.
So far no testable explanation for how species evolve has been defined.
The problem with the cross-breeding test for transitional forms is that transitional forms are found in the fossil record: they are dead. You can not cross-breed animals that are dead. This is why appearance is often used for identifying transitional forms. Appearance is related to genetics, so the idea is that two animals that share many similar characteristics will have much of the same genes, and therefore they may very well be able to cross-breed. However, is it true that two animals that bear many similarities are closely related genetically?
Evolutionists have a term for when two different animals that are not supposed to be related happen to look very much like each other. Such an unrelated similarity is said to be the result of convergent evolution. A classic example of convergent evolution is the similarities between the Tasmanian wolf and a true wolf. Both of these animals have the classic dog-type body. Both are about the same size. However, one is a marsupial, and the other is a placental.
Now based solely on outward appearances, it might be thought that the Tasmanian wolf represents a transitional form between marsupials and dogs. Of course, we are told that it is not. The similarities that exist between Tasmanian wolves and true wolves exist simply because they were subjected to similar selective pressures, and they adapted to those pressures by evolving similar traits. A legitimate question to ask is: why are the similarities between these two animals not representative of a genetic relationship while the similarities between Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs show that they are related? http://stevendking.blogspot.com/2010/02 ... ified.html
This understanding leads to the obvious question "how was the cross-breeding determination tested by scientific method"
What has evolution predicted that doesn't owe its existence to the original assertion of small changes.
Has evolution by chance predicted the necessary existence of a spatiotemporal control system in order to form matter into specific shapes?
Evidence for historic occurance can only be derived from what is observable in the present. Only one cause has formed the types of systems that even come close to the systems in life. Have you ever seen natural forces form such a system? Then by what evidence do you presume to infer that such a system is naturally forming?
Zionist wrote:intelligent design offers the best explanation of the origin of life. other scientific theories do not answer adequately or explain the origins of life and the complexity of life the way ID does. i know some of you may disagree with this or may even say ID is not scientific because it is not observable but i beg to differ. if ID is not scientific than neither is a lot of scientific theories out there such as but not limited to evolution because many theories are not observable either therefore if ID is scrutinized on this premise than other scientific theories must also be scrutinized under the same premise.
When you can answer the specific questions pointed out then we can go forward into even deeper areas in a number of 'science' but for now what sence does it make to point every little thing out when you don't even answer the questions already asked dealing exactly with this topic.
In the end you are quite capable of picking any scientific assertions form any field and simply check them against the definitions I have referenced and when you see that the method used does not involve the whole scientific method then you would know where I condemn their method. As I pointed out you are free to choose any branch of study and then pick out their theories or assertions based on theories. When it doesn't follow the scientific method you have pseudo-science at work,