subjective science

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Would it matter where it came from if it contradicted the common theme/dogma it wouldn't
be accepted and the names of those involved would be belittled, just as you are doing.

Of course it would matter, Kellyjay.

Mind you, since every scientific theory of reality (as a product of human reason alone and thus potentially fallible) remains Always Open to the possibility that in the future someone may develop a superior theory that explains more issues or explains the case better, no scientist will never say of any existing theory that it has been proven in any absolute sense. When it is said that a theory is proven in a scientific context, you should read that there is overwhelming evidence that supports the theory.

In contrast, proponents of “scientific” creationism are persons on a religious mission, whose agenda is just to prove the existence and operation of an obviously omnipotent supernatural being that is capable of virtually anything. In this context, which has nothing to do with science, there is not a single one conceivable observation that cannot be reconciled with the virtually limitless actions of such a being. So, due to the fact that "scientific" creationism has none of the core scientific characteristics required herenow, is absolutely immune to falsification. This is the reason why it matter.

Dr J.D. Morris, the person which our dj2becker has the illusion that is a scientist, follows his father’s footsteps. Back in the ‘70ies, Henry Morris noted amongst else that:
“The main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geological difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.”

Go figure.

So, why should we be eager to talk about pseudoscientific delusions grounded on religious theories of reality such as creationism, Young Earth, Flat Earth etc., etc, Kellyjay? Simply because they preach the religious beliefs of some Christian missionaries?
😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Obviously no atheistic scientist will accept any findings of a creationist because it does not fit into their atheistic framework.

"Atheistic framework" in the scientific fields does not exist; "theistic framework" in the scientific fields does not exist; scientific procedures framework in each single one scientific field, exist; falsifiable scientific theories of reality exist; non-falsifiable scientific theories of reality do not exist;
😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Why then claim that they are copied if you didn't see the link?

I assumed they were copied, knowing your limitations.

Appears my assumption was correct, no?

Originally posted by @black-beetle
"Atheistic framework" in the scientific fields does not exist; "theistic framework" in the scientific fields does not exist; scientific procedures framework in each single one scientific field, exist; falsifiable scientific theories of reality exist; non-falsifiable scientific theories of reality do not exist;
😵

Give me one example of any specific evidence that could possibly falsify the theory of evolution. I'll get some popcorn.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Give me one example of any specific evidence that could possibly falsify the theory of evolution. I'll get some popcorn.

The theory of evolution is constantly judged as regards the variation, heritability and selection that occurred, and also the variation, heritability and selection that did not occur.
For the time being, all the scientific facts and evidence back up the hypotheses of the theory.
If you are aware of scientific facts and evidence that contradict the theory of evolution, kindly please make a specific case you want to debate, let me know who authored the related to your case paper, and state the title and the edition of the scientific journal to which the paper was submitted, so that I can track it down and evaluate it.

Take care, too much popcorn affects your focus😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
The theory of evolution is constantly judged as regards the variation, heritability and selection that occurred, and also the variation, heritability and selection that did not occur.
For the time being, all the scientific facts and evidence back up the hypotheses of the theory.
If you are aware of scientific facts and evidence that contradict the th ...[text shortened]... so that I can track it down and evaluate it.

Take care, too much popcorn affects your focus😵

How do you falsify something that supposedly takes millions of years to occur?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
How do you falsify something that supposedly takes millions of years to occur?

By means of applying deductive logic, grounded on scientific facts and evidence, in order to disprove the core concepts of the theory😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
By means of applying deductive logic, grounded on scientific facts and evidence, in order to disprove the core concepts of the theory😵

To disprove the theory of gravity you would have to find a exception to the rule that can be demonstrated and reproduced.

How would you demonstrate an exception to the rule of something that has never been demonstrated or reproduced because it supposedly takes millions of years to happen?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
To disprove the theory of gravity you would have to find a exception to the rule that can be demonstrated and reproduced.

How would you demonstrate an exception to the rule of something that has never been demonstrated or reproduced because it supposedly takes millions of years to happen?

From older to more recent strata, the types of plants and animals found fossilized within them change in a very specific pattern just as predicted by the theory. If this was not the case, the theory would be considered non-tenable😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
From older to more recent strata, the types of plants and animals found fossilized within them change in a very specific pattern just as predicted by the theory. If this was not the case, the theory would be considered non-tenable😵

These predictions were made only after the fossils were found, so therefore the predictions can't ever be wrong.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
These predictions were made only after the fossils were found, so therefore the predictions can't ever be wrong.

This is false.
In analogy, for one, to the way the gravitational waves could not exist under Newton's law of universal gravitation, for two, to the way they where predicted by Einstein in 1916, and, for three, to the way their factual existence was confirmed in practice a couple of years earlier, the theory of evolution could not, for one, be even tolerated in the era of the theistic supremacy over science in the past, for two, was perceived by Darwin far earlier than the supportive to the theory concrete evidence and facts, and, for three, its factual establishment in practice as a tenable theory of reality is a result of scientific facts and evidence from various scientific fields and scientific procedures which back then where totally unknown.
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
[An acid and a life form are not the same thing. I have listed a handful of requirements look them up do the math on each than do it on all I listed. When you do just know that there are many more besides.

Let's say you are right that science is somehow lacking when it tries to explain reality.

Well then. Shiva created the world.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Give me one example of any specific evidence that could possibly falsify the theory of evolution. I'll get some popcorn.

- DNA not existing
- DNA not mutating
- DNA not reproducing
- DNA not affecting the phenotype

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
- DNA not existing
- DNA not mutating
- DNA not reproducing
- DNA not affecting the phenotype

I'll get the popcorn.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Give me one example of any specific evidence that could possibly falsify the theory of evolution. I'll get some popcorn.

If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution