Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop

CMcMillan wrote:Just like science doesn't need to explain where the Particles came from that started the big bang.
Since science explains well it was just was.

Another Straw Man. The Big Bang theory (and competing hypotheses) only deal with what happens at the point of creation. Once science has a handle on that, it can then look at what occurred prior to the Big Bang. Science never say 'it just is' or 'we don't need to explain that'. Science is actively seeking answers to difficult questions.

By contrast religion says God 'just is' and that you should not even question the creation of the universe. Religion does not seek answers, it claims to already have them.

Science attempts to explain the Universe and Life

....in ways that are testable and verifiable. Science does not mythologise or discourage free thought.

Have you read the turtle article yet?

CMcMillan wrote:you do realize that your own scientific belief ends in a road block that it can not get over.

Science only ends with a working hypothesis or 'we do not know yet'. It's an ongoing process that actively engages you in a practical exploration of the way the universe works. It's not based on faith or belief as beliefs are not falsifiable.

I like to think my version of the road block is much more fun to believe in
A god and goddess getting it on

Sure it's more comforting and entertaining, but it also has the side effect of discouraging rational thought and free enquiry and can often result in one's brain turning to mush.

Have you read the turtle article yet?

Woodwose wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:Just like science doesn't need to explain where the Particles came from that started the big bang.
Since science explains well it was just was.

Another Straw Man. The Big Bang theory (and competing hypotheses) only deal with what happens at the point of creation. Once science has a handle on that, it can then look at what occurred prior to the Big Bang. Science never say 'it just is' or 'we don't need to explain that'. Science is actively seeking answers to difficult questions.

By contrast religion says God 'just is' and that you should not even question the creation of the universe. Religion does not seek answers, it claims to already have them.

Science attempts to explain the Universe and Life

....in ways that are testable and verifiable. Science does not mythologise or discourage free thought.

Have you read the turtle article yet?

Again you need to study Mythology and look at the definition of it.

I love how your saying things that science can not yet prove is a Straw-man. Its a cheap cop-out.
Then to say prove that god is real and was is a straw-man as well.

Sorry SCIENCE did just say that it just was !! I showed you earlier that science said that.
So get your facts straight and you can't claim well that is only one segment of science thought if you do that then you prove my point again that science is modern mans mythology.

Apparently you haven't read the turtle article your self since i already responded to about it.

Woodwose wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:you do realize that your own scientific belief ends in a road block that it can not get over.

Science only ends with a working hypothesis or 'we do not know yet'. It's an ongoing process that actively engages you in a practical exploration of the way the universe works. It's not based on faith or belief as beliefs are not falsifiable.

I like to think my version of the road block is much more fun to believe in
A god and goddess getting it on

Sure it's more comforting and entertaining, but it also has the side effect of discouraging rational thought and free enquiry and can often result in one's brain turning to mush.

Have you read the turtle article yet?

Wow really I'm limited to free thinking?
Seems to me I am the one posing questions about everything where is my limited thinking in that.
you are the single minded track I think not me.
I am questioning a lot more than you are and I am the one that is Limited in free thought because in the end i believe in a god and goddess?

I am the one questioning you and science and what we believe yet I am Limited?

Your the one telling me I need to accept Science Facts !!
so who is the limiting one

Gawd

That is just so insulting what you just said.

First you tell me I can't be questioning Science Evolution that Its FACT!
then you turn around and tell me I am not a freethinker because I believe in a higher power?

I don't see you thinking out side your little box?
You jump on me because I say that Bigfoot could see infrared because evolution says we can mutate and adapt.
But you say well No APE has that so it can't WHo is freaking limited?
I say I believe in Ghosts and UFO's and I get Well those aren't real cause science can not prove it as fact yet.
WHO IS LIMITED NOT ME
Gawd I am so pissed off by your comment I will stop debating this with you.

CMcMillan wrote:It was interesting but it is also said to be hypothetical. Trying to explain a result.

You clearly didn't read it properly or understand it. The hypothetical elements only apply to the processes not detailed in the fossil record. The new fossil evidence does however clearly represent transitional forms - which is what you asked for.

How do you test that the universe was just there?

I haven't made that claim.

I love how your saying things that science can not yet prove is a Straw-man.

That isn't what I said. Criticising science for not proving things it has not claimed to be true is a straw man.

Sorry SCIENCE did just say that it just was !! I showed you earlier that science said that.

No, you quote mined and misinterpreted what scientists say about the subject.

Your the one telling me I need to accept Science Facts !!..........First you tell me I can't be questioning Science Evolution that Its FACT!

Wrong. I have said no such thing - quite the opposite in fact. I have clearly stated that science is based on falsifying ideas and constantly questioning data and conclusions.

Evolution is however a fact as it is clearly observable using empirical methods that are beyond question. How evolution occurs is however up for debate and within the scientific community it is constantly being challenged and reviewed.

I don't see you thinking out side your little box?

Then you need to open your eyes.

But you say well No APE has that so it can't WHo is freaking limited?

Free thinking doesn't equate with believing anything and everything. When drawing conclusions, you have to limit yourself to what is possible within the confines of what we currently know to be plausible. Apes developing infrared vision is not an impossibility, but it is highly implausible. If new data comes along to challenge that view then I will revise my opinion.

Constantly reviewing and questioning one's knowledge is my idea of free thinking.

I say I believe in Ghosts and UFO's

Belief has no place in the scientific method, so my beef would be with you thinking something is real based on faith rather than facts. People see ghosts and UFOs all the time (I've seen them myself) and in that sense they are 'real'. Determining what these phenomena are is however another matter.

Gawd I am so pissed off by your comment I will stop debating this with you.

Having to constantly correct your misleading caricature of science doesn't really constitute a debate. You haven't refuted or even directly addressed any of the points I have made. You just keep repeating the same straw man arguments and fallacies.

Again your a condescending
Your not correcting me on anything.
You are throwing around your BELIEF in science in my face that see this shows the evidence.
I read the turtle evolution:
It Doesn't say its fact it says at the very beginning of it that it shows good evidence for it.

Now onto other things
Bigbang theory:

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

Source:
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

See science can not answer it, just like your question of where did god come from can not be answered.
They both are false questions that will never have answers.
Example: We finally create a singularity and create a new mini universe woohooo we proved that new life came from a singularity.
Ok but we had to create that singularity. So if we had to do something to create it what created the one to create our universe?
See the round about scientific logic?
So Science has Faith in an answer that can not be. Since the question will keep going and going. Its not straw-man its just not answerable.
Same with god one doesn't need to explain where god came from just as we don't and can't explain where the singularity came from.
Now Singularity was super hot, super small and bright explosion.... Mythology talks about this in many ways.

Norse:

There was nothing in the beginning but seemingly almost endless chasm called the Ginnungagap. Ginnungagap was a void like the Greek Chaos. Ginnungagap was bordered by Niflheim, which is the place of darkness and ice, far to the north; and Muspelheim, a place of fire, far to the south. Out of this chaos the first being came into existence from the drop of water when ice from Niflheim and fire from Muspelheim met.

let me also point out that in norse mythology they talk about Physics and the belief in other dimensions ie worlds Physics have theories on this

A great ash tree called Yggdrasill ("World Tree") supported the universe, with roots that connects the nine worlds together. One root of Yggdrasill extends to Muspelheim ("world of fire"), while another root to Niflheim (the "world of cold" or "of ice"). Niflheim was sometimes confused with Niflhel; Niflhel being known by another name – Hel, was the world of the dead. Hel was sometimes used interchangeably with Niflhel by many writers, as the world of the dea

greek Mythology

In the beginning, according to Hesiod, the universe was a shapeless mass called Chaos, which contained the seeds of all things in jumbled confusion.

Hmmmm Contained the seeds? Sounds like particles no?

Hinduism:

This is not the first world, nor is it the first universe. There have been and will be many more worlds and universes than there are drops of water in the holy river Ganges. The universes are made by Lord Brahma the Creator, maintained by Lord Vishnu the Preserver and destroyed by Lord Shiva. Since the universes must be destroyed before they can be recreated, Lord Shiva is called the Destroyer and Re-creator. These three gods are all forms of Supreme One and part of the Supreme One. The Supreme One is behind and beyond all.

Wow look they talk about other dimensions

Now lets look at the Bible:

The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been “stretched out” or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God has stretched it out. He has expanded it (and is perhaps still expanding it). This verse must have seemed very strange when it was first written. The universe certainly doesn’t look as if it is expanding. After all, if you look at the night sky tonight, it will appear about the same size as it did the previous night, and the night before that. Ancient star maps appear virtually identical to the night sky today. Could the universe really have been expanded? It must have been hard to believe at the time.

Hmmmm that souds like expanding to me?

The Bible teaches that the universe obeys physical laws—“the ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). The universe is neither haphazard nor arbitrary; nature conforms to logical, mathematical relationships set in place by the Lord.

Wow sounds like science order to me?

The Bible indicates that the earth is round. Consider Isaiah 40:22 which mentions the “circle of the earth.” This description is certainly fitting—particularly when the earth is viewed from space; the earth always appears as a circle since it is round

WOW who would have know the earth was round back then?

So explain to me yet again how mythology is limiting and wasn't science of the time?

Seems to me the bible and others had thought about things just as todays science did.

But please keep telling us we are silly to believe.
I am just showing you the comparison of today's science and yesterdays science.

You are the one who is closed minded if you can not really look into the past and see what came before.
Imagine Millions of years from now someone looking at Steven Hawkins book they may feel it is a myth.

Evolution is not observable.
Mutation is. You are assuming Mutation is Evolution.


Again you are incorrect because your afraid like many scientists that Belief is the bad evil word.
Belief has every need to be in science.

[quote="NobleSavage"]Thanks SweetSusi....I hope a positive result can be achieved. [/quote
I had the entire topic forwarded to me, but when Stank deleted his comments, they were lost to my copy. Does anyone here have copies of Stank's rant and crude remarks?

Evolution:

Perhaps the biggest reason that so many theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible logic requiring great leaps in faith to believe. Here is one example of a “debunked” theory: “Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people’s closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: ‘Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.’ ‘On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative’” (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967).

Dr. B. G. Ranganathan said, “…the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop” (Origins?, p. 15). And this only speaks to the likelihood of any life at all, rather than the most highly complex forms such as large animals or human beings—let alone all the different kinds of life that exist today

.

http://realtruth.org/articles/070601-006-teog.html

DNA:

All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!

Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.13

Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.

Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.

Now you read:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/hugh-ross-origin-of-the-universe/

So Seems that these great scientists must have been not freethinkers since they believe(d) in a god
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Gottfried W. Leibnitz (1646-1716)
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Charles B. Thaxton (living)

http://www.biblequery.org/Science/Scientists.htm
also scroll down to
Some Western Scientists Who Believed in God

http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/scientist-belief-god.htm


Oh more info on DNA written by a Harvard scientist
http://www.reasons.org/articles/harvard-scientists-write-the-book-on-intelligent-design-in-dna

CMcMillan wrote:Again your a condescending

Not in the least. I'm merely pointing out that your arguments are meaningless as they critique a version of science that is dishonest and incorrect. You've done it again in your latest post and continue to repeat arguments that have been pulled part.......and now I have to repeat what I have already said in the hope that you might get it this time around.

For the record I am not throwing around my belief in science, I am trying to explain how science works and that your arguments do not apply - you are tilting at windmills.

It Doesn't say its fact it says at the very beginning of it that it shows good evidence for it.

Which is the same thing within the world of science. Science doesn't deal in fixed hard facts, but rather explanations and theories that best fit the current evidence. Science doesn't del in immutable facts.

See science can not answer it, just like your question of where did god come from can not be answered.

'We do not know' is not the same as 'we cannot know'. What science actually says is 'we do not know yet' and it is actively looking for answers. Once science figures it out, it will move on to what happened prior to the start of the universe - that isn't circular reasoning, but rather expanding the scope of scientific enquiry. Science isn't about looking for ultimate answers but rather asking questions about the unknown and within a naturalistic model of reality nothing is unknowable. Saying 'we cannot know' is a cop out.

Evolution is not observable.
Mutation is. You are assuming Mutation is Evolution.

You are confusing evolution with the theory of evolution. Evolution is the term used to describe mutation/speciation which is clearly observable. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the mechanisms behind speciation. And the theory of evolution is in no way comparable to mythology as like all scientific theories it is subject to falsification, it is constantly being tested, it is not just some story concocted to hide our ignorance and it is based on reasoned deduction extracted from empirical observations and data.

I really hope that I don't have to repeat this yet again.

Scientists aren't infallible or immune to cultural conditioning........so of course there have been scientists who believe in God. I imagine that many will continue to believe in God, but I really don't see what you are getting at.

These scientists - who are in the minority - believe that science cannot answer everything and they turn to religion for the answers. Some of these scientists also happen to believe in the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution. How does that fit into your view of science?

CMcMillan wrote:Again your a condescending
Your not correcting me on anything.
You are throwing around your BELIEF in science in my face that see this shows the evidence.
I read the turtle evolution:
It Doesn't say its fact it says at the very beginning of it that it shows good evidence for it.

Now onto other things
Bigbang theory:

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

Source:
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

See science can not answer it, just like your question of where did god come from can not be answered.
They both are false questions that will never have answers.
Example: We finally create a singularity and create a new mini universe woohooo we proved that new life came from a singularity.
Ok but we had to create that singularity. So if we had to do something to create it what created the one to create our universe?
See the round about scientific logic?
So Science has Faith in an answer that can not be. Since the question will keep going and going. Its not straw-man its just not answerable.
Same with god one doesn't need to explain where god came from just as we don't and can't explain where the singularity came from.
Now Singularity was super hot, super small and bright explosion.... Mythology talks about this in many ways.

Norse:

There was nothing in the beginning but seemingly almost endless chasm called the Ginnungagap. Ginnungagap was a void like the Greek Chaos. Ginnungagap was bordered by Niflheim, which is the place of darkness and ice, far to the north; and Muspelheim, a place of fire, far to the south. Out of this chaos the first being came into existence from the drop of water when ice from Niflheim and fire from Muspelheim met.

let me also point out that in norse mythology they talk about Physics and the belief in other dimensions ie worlds Physics have theories on this

A great ash tree called Yggdrasill ("World Tree") supported the universe, with roots that connects the nine worlds together. One root of Yggdrasill extends to Muspelheim ("world of fire"), while another root to Niflheim (the "world of cold" or "of ice"). Niflheim was sometimes confused with Niflhel; Niflhel being known by another name – Hel, was the world of the dead. Hel was sometimes used interchangeably with Niflhel by many writers, as the world of the dea

greek Mythology

In the beginning, according to Hesiod, the universe was a shapeless mass called Chaos, which contained the seeds of all things in jumbled confusion.

Hmmmm Contained the seeds? Sounds like particles no?

Hinduism:

This is not the first world, nor is it the first universe. There have been and will be many more worlds and universes than there are drops of water in the holy river Ganges. The universes are made by Lord Brahma the Creator, maintained by Lord Vishnu the Preserver and destroyed by Lord Shiva. Since the universes must be destroyed before they can be recreated, Lord Shiva is called the Destroyer and Re-creator. These three gods are all forms of Supreme One and part of the Supreme One. The Supreme One is behind and beyond all.

Wow look they talk about other dimensions

Now lets look at the Bible:

The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been “stretched out” or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God has stretched it out. He has expanded it (and is perhaps still expanding it). This verse must have seemed very strange when it was first written. The universe certainly doesn’t look as if it is expanding. After all, if you look at the night sky tonight, it will appear about the same size as it did the previous night, and the night before that. Ancient star maps appear virtually identical to the night sky today. Could the universe really have been expanded? It must have been hard to believe at the time.

Hmmmm that souds like expanding to me?

The Bible teaches that the universe obeys physical laws—“the ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). The universe is neither haphazard nor arbitrary; nature conforms to logical, mathematical relationships set in place by the Lord.

Wow sounds like science order to me?

The Bible indicates that the earth is round. Consider Isaiah 40:22 which mentions the “circle of the earth.” This description is certainly fitting—particularly when the earth is viewed from space; the earth always appears as a circle since it is round

WOW who would have know the earth was round back then?

So explain to me yet again how mythology is limiting and wasn't science of the time?

Seems to me the bible and others had thought about things just as todays science did.

But please keep telling us we are silly to believe.
I am just showing you the comparison of today's science and yesterdays science.

You are the one who is closed minded if you can not really look into the past and see what came before.
Imagine Millions of years from now someone looking at Steven Hawkins book they may feel it is a myth.

Evolution is not observable.
Mutation is. You are assuming Mutation is Evolution.


Again you are incorrect because your afraid like many scientists that Belief is the bad evil word.
Belief has every need to be in science.

CM, Thank you for everything that you add to our conversations, and for putting up with us, and still staying here. I am honored to call you my friend.

Woodwose wrote:Scientists aren't infallible or immune to cultural conditioning........so of course there have been scientists who believe in God. I imagine that many will continue to believe in God, but I really don't see what you are getting at.

These scientists - who are in the minority - believe that science cannot answer everything and they turn to religion for the answers. Some of these scientists also happen to believe in the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution. How does that fit into your view of science?

Its amazing how you MISS the entire other points. How you just pick and choose.
You SAID that a person who believes in a GOD limits their Free thinking. So your own statment is FALSE since some of the greatest minds of science believe in a "god". Yet you won't admit you were being rude on the comment. Shows me yoru Narrow minded view on things.

Sorry you are the one confusing the Theory of Evolution and Evolution.
The Turtle example is Evolution in the same Species. Not the Theory of Evolution.

You have failed to comment on anything I have posted that questions your belief of true science.

Again you really don't understand Mythology at all.
Tell me how you would teach someone about the bigbang theory or evolution. What would you do to get everyone to see what you wanted to teach? How would you present it so everyone can understand it?

CMcMillan wrote:Its amazing how you MISS the entire other points

It amazes me that you fail to grasp pretty much everything I write and then distort it into something that in no way resembles what I have posted.

Yes, a belief in God does limit free thinking and that applies to those scientists who believe in God also. Fortunately some of these scientists are able to compartmentalise their thinking and prevent wooly beliefs from clouding their rational investigation of how the world works.

Interesting that you should ignore my comment about cultural conditioning, or the fact that many of the great names in sience lived during periods where your life was at serious risk if you denied the existence of God.

Just because you felt insulted it does not follow that I was being rude. I cannot be held responsible for your sensitivity or the reaction you have to reasoned arguments.

The Turtle example is Evolution in the same Species. Not the Theory of Evolution

It was provided as an example of transitional forms and the fact that the new fossils match what was predicted by the TOE serves to confirm that it is a good model for how evolution occurs.

What would you do to get everyone to see what you wanted to teach? How would you present it so everyone can understand it?

For some people it is clear that no amount of explanation will help them understand. I have already spelled out how you are mistaken and the manner in which you misrepresent science and do not understand the TOE. None of what I have said gets through to you, so why don't you explain what it would take to make you understand?

For example, why can't you tell the difference between empirical investigation that leads to falsifiable evidence-based conclusions and story telling?

LOL Wood
Answer the question:
How do you teach everyone about The Big Bang theory. How do you make it understandable. How do you teach evolution.
Its not a trick question I want an honest answer HOW do you teach and explain something to a person what do you use to teach it?

Show me scientific Evidence that believing in a "god" limits free thinking


Let me also say that you were one of the ones who sad that it is very unlikely that Bigfoot would be able to see in infra-red because no ape does.
Yet you stand by evolution and evolution theory which shows that animals and plants can evolve and adapt. So which of us is Limited Not me.
Since I look at Evolution and Go well that is possible because of evolution why you go its unlikely because no ape can.

So where is your "free thinking"

I've given you an honest answer.

To me evolution and the principles of science are extremely easy to understand. Over and over again I have used simple terms to explain these concepts to you, but time and again you get the wrong end of he stick.

I can't do anymore unless you explain what it will take to make you understand. As I suggested, a good starting point would be for you to explain why you cannot appreciate the difference between story telling (mythology) and empirical investigation (science).

Maybe you could explain step by step why the creation of mythology is analogous to the scientific method? Or do we have to go right back to basics and look at what you understand the scientific method to entail?

That isn't meant to be patronising, but I have already kept things pretty basic and I really don't know how much I have to dumb things down (I don't mean that in the derogatory sense).

CMcMillan wrote:
Show me scientific Evidence that believing in a "god" limits free thinking


Let me also say that you were one of the ones who sad that it is very unlikely that Bigfoot would be able to see in infra-red because no ape does.
Yet you stand by evolution and evolution theory which shows that animals and plants can evolve and adapt. So which of us is Limited Not me.
Since I look at Evolution and Go well that is possible because of evolution why you go its unlikely because no ape can.

So where is your "free thinking"

I answered this in a previous post. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

I am not asking you to explain it to me.
I am asking you to tell me how ONE WOULD TEACH and explain A Scientific Theory to people who are not into the scientific Jargon.
You are Purposly refusing to answer this.

You also have not a single clue on the history of man Kind. You can not understand that BY THE DEFINITION of RELEGION AND MYTHOLOGY . Science is both of these.
Its not a trick its simple definition
Science Attempts to explain the natural world. Mythologies of the past did the same thing,
I suggest you look at when they Scientific method was created

http://www.experiment-resources.com/who-invented-the-scientific-method.html

•
Observation of the natural world
I observe the sun moving across the sky ...

•
Stating a definite problem

Why does the sky Move across the sky

Formulating a robust hypothesis
I believe the sun moves across the sky by a man who rides a chariot and drags it across.

Test the hypothesis through experimentation
I test pulling a round bolder behind a charriot across a field. I test it by having some one go over a hill and it fanishes.

Assess and analyze the results

I can replicate this over and over.

Interpret the data and draw conclusions

I conclude since we can do this on earth then the same is true in the sky so We shall say that a God His name is apollo is the one who takes it across the sky.

Publish the findings
I write my findings down and show others.
My peers test my theory and can replicate it as well.

See its not that difficult.
I included the base of Scientific method and came up with the common Greek Mythology of apollo dragging the sun across the sky.


Its not my fault that you can't understand what people were like at the time because you don't read mythologies of the world.
It is what was the science of the time.


Please read simple ideas here.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/grecoromanmyth1/a/whatismyth.htm

Now since you say Science doesn't have all the answers,
Why is your shorts in a twist because WE question it?

Science is not infallible. In fact, the basic premise on which science is constructed is on questioning: “Really?”, “Are you sure?” “Where is the proof?”

The onus of explaining a theory and proving it has always been on the person proposing it.And everyone else sits around asking lot of questions.Science by its innate nature questions itself all the time. If a certain practical result is found to contradict a theory, then that theory has to be rejected or modified.And even when a theory seems to work fine for hundreds of years, such as Theory of Gravitation, we still cannot say with 100% confidence that this theory works forever and in all places.There is always a possibility that it may not work in certain places and in certain times.Then we go about enhancing it or confining it or rejecting it or modifying it.

The beauty of Science is that it accepts (at all times) that it does not have answers to all the questions.Since it asks itself lot of questions, it questions others with the same rigor when someone proposes a solution to a practical problem.If you say that a crystalline energy coming from an amulet will heal you of cancer, it will ask you questions, such as ‘How?’ ‘Where is the evidence?’ ‘Did you conduct enough experiments to suggest this?’ ‘Can you explain it to us?’

CMcMillan wrote:I conclude since we can do this on earth then the same is true in the sky so We shall say that a God His name is apollo is the one who takes it across the sky

It's at this point that you deviate from the scientiic method and demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about.

Why is your shorts in a twist because WE question it?

They aren't and as I have repeatedly stated science is dependant on people questioning theories and data. Why can't you understand that?

CMcMillan wrote:The onus of explaining a theory and proving it has always been on the person proposing it.And everyone else sits around asking lot of questions.Science by its innate nature questions itself all the time. If a certain practical result is found to contradict a theory, then that theory has to be rejected or modified.And even when a theory seems to work fine for hundreds of years, such as Theory of Gravitation, we still cannot say with 100% confidence that this theory works forever and in all places.There is always a possibility that it may not work in certain places and in certain times.Then we go about enhancing it or confining it or rejecting it or modifying it.

The beauty of Science is that it accepts (at all times) that it does not have answers to all the questions.Since it asks itself lot of questions, it questions others with the same rigor when someone proposes a solution to a practical problem.If you say that a crystalline energy coming from an amulet will heal you of cancer, it will ask you questions, such as ‘How?’ ‘Where is the evidence?’ ‘Did you conduct enough experiments to suggest this?’ ‘Can you explain it to us?’

I think you have forgotten the quotation marks.

I have been saying this all along. Do you even read my posts?

"That's an age old fallacy that originates in the fact that the common definition of 'theory' differs from that used by science. In science 'theory' refers to a concept that has been verified, tested and holds it's weight. If the TOE was theory in common terms it would be called the hypothesis of evolution. There is proof in abundance and it is only denied by believers in iron age sky fairies!

Evolution is observable, testable and repeatable and it is only the notion of how that evolution occurs that is open to debate (barely). Sometimes I have to wonder if critics of evolution have ever read about the subject as most of the criticisms don't read as 'science can't explain this' but rather 'I don't understand science, therefore it is wrong'."

And in these two paragraphs alone, you have made my point. I know full well what evolution is. And it has never been tested. Mutation is proven. The Big Bang and Evolution are not.

These tested hypothesis are fudged. I point this out, and you chime in with all this rhetoric to make your case on Evolution, but you do not address the flaws.

In fudging the findings to meet an expectation, is no different from how some Christian Denominations do the same with the Bible to fit their own view. This is Science? Because it has religion written all over it....

I my self do not have a Science degree. I do have a Criminal Justice degree. However, most of the science classes I needed to obtain that degree were in psychology and it is the same thing. A science based on theory and self declared as fact. And with in it you have debates. (Just as with Evolution vs Evolution). In the main section psychopaths and sociopaths are just different terms for the same thing. But then you have the guys just studying psychopaths who state that they are otherwise normal people who cannot process their emotions and will act on instinct or a trigger depending on the severity of their condition.

However Sociopaths are mostly devoid of emotion incapable of both love and of hate and have no moral compass. They do not feel guilt, therefore although they legally know right from wrong based on law, they do not morally know right from wrong.

So which is it? One acts more like a Romulan and the other a Vulcan.

In a court of Law Evolution would be thrown out at the sign of the first evident fudging. This creature became that creature. "Speculation". Then the defense would show their tree. Then the prosecution would show an actual picture of the two creatures skeletal structure and then, "Evidence Tampering" and that would be ruled out. Or, Defense shows their tree and it is scale. "Eventually that creature became this creature, of course there were a few creatures in between." and you would get "Lack of Evidence!"

Evolution has not been tested and retested because we can't create life. We can Engineer current life on a small scale, but we cannot create life.

When you are able to take proteins and turn them into living organisms that in turn mutate to create a single-celled organism that then becomes a multi celled. (All on it's own with no manipulation except maybe speeding up it's life cycle.) Then and ONLY then have you successfully tested your hypothesis. Then according to you, you have to do it again. lol So basically what you are saying is that Evolution and The Big-Bang are not even theory but "Hypothesis"?

Now this is no cop-out. But there is still a God-Factor here. EVEN if you were to create your organism, and do it again, you may have quieted Christians, but you would spark Intelligent design folks. And then we get back to "Why Earth?" Why not Mars and Venus? Goldilocks-Zone should not matter. That is for Earth-Evolved organisms. By your very theory, selective design would have done the same thing on Mars. We now know Mars has water, so why didn't things evolve to the conditions of Mars? There should at least be plant-life there... (Goes back to the lack of common sense in mainstream science)

Tzieth wrote:In a court of Law Evolution would be thrown out at the sign of the first evident fudging. This creature became that creature. "Speculation". Then the defense would show their tree. Then the prosecution would show an actual picture of the two creatures skeletal structure and then, "Evidence Tampering" and that would be ruled out. Or, Defense shows their tree and it is scale. "Eventually that creature became this creature, of course there were a few creatures in between." and you would get "Lack of Evidence!"

Thank you.

Plus 1 Million TZ