This thread is dedicated to first going over the basics of science and working up to evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

So where to start. I have yet to meed a creationist that understands the scientific method. At best they copy and paste a poorly worded definition. To start I will use a very simplified flow chart of the scientific method and discuss the different parts of it:

Steps of the Scientific Method

And please, anyone that has a science based education please feel free to contribute. I know that I will be making some mistakes.

 

[james blunt]

So where to start. I have yet to meed a creationist that understands the scientific method. At best they copy and paste a poorly worded definition. To start I will use a very simplified flow chart of the scientific method and discuss the different parts of it:

Steps of the Scientific Method

And please, anyone that has a science based education please feel free to contribute. I know that I will be making some mistakes.

In modern day science most things are known, there isn't many questions left to ask. So after asking a question and researching background information, it sort of stops there these days. Hypothesis is not really accepted, so a beginner to science after trying to get a breakthrough in science, would have to produce all the stages, with end results by themselves. Your system also does not cover writing a scientific paper or critical thinking.
I have been awake too long now, but when I wake up later on, I will post what I think should be the model.
I do not want to disturb your thread too much, it is a great thread idea.

 

[Jumi]

In modern day science most things are known, there isn't many questions left to ask.

I think that was the case over a century ago.

 

[CLee421]

Can you give some examples of testing of the evolutionary theory - specifically macro-evolution?

 

[InChrist]

So where to start. I have yet to meed a creationist that understands the scientific method. At best they copy and paste a poorly worded definition. To start I will use a very simplified flow chart of the scientific method and discuss the different parts of it:

Steps of the Scientific Method

And please, anyone that has a science based education please feel free to contribute. I know that I will be making some mistakes.

So what exactly is your point? Are you saying that anyone who questions or disagrees with atheistic evolution does not understand the scientific method? What about those who have degrees in biology, chemistry, or physics and work in these areas, yet who are anti-evolutionists? I have personally met someone who has his degree in evolutionary biology and taught this for years, who now opposes the standard atheistic idea of evolution. I know a young man who is a genius who is working on his Master's degree in molecular biology, yet who is anti-evolution. Another person I know is working on his Master's in chemistry. Are you saying that people like this or others who have all the same scientific education as atheistic evolutionists, yet accept God/creation, don't understand the scientific method ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what exactly is your point? Are you saying that anyone who questions or disagrees with atheistic evolution does not understand the scientific method? What about those who have degrees in biology, chemistry, or physics and work in these areas, yet who are anti-evolutionists? I have personally met someone who has his degree in evolutionary biology and taught this for years, who now opposes the standard atheistic idea of evolution. I know a young man who is a genius who is working on his Master's degree in molecular biology, yet who is anti-evolution. Another person I know is working on his Master's in chemistry. Are you saying that people like this or others who have all the same scientific education as atheistic evolutionists, yet accept God/creation, don't understand the scientific method ?

You first mistake is using the phrase "standard atheistic idea of evolution". There is no such idea.

Do you use the phrase "standard atheistic idea of gravity"?

Now you may have met a failed biologist. I won't contest that. But odds are that this person does have a master's degree that he does understand the scientific method. You other example may understand the scientific method too. I am also betting that neither of the two people that you met can honestly argue against the theory of evolution. I have not met one that can do so yet. The problem with learning science is that you can no longer use ignorance as an excuse.

The point of this thread is that none of the creationists here appear to understand either the concept of the scientific method or the nature of evidence. If I am wrong you should be able to demonstrate your knowledge in very little time. Simply claiming that one understands it is not good enough. @nPeace tried to do so with a cut and paste that only told us that he did not understand the concept.

So instead of trying to defend your ignorance how about trying to learn? Look at the flow chart. Do you have any questions on it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that was the case over a century ago.

Some scientists believed that. They were terribly wrong. There are many questions left to ask. The problem is that as we learn more one has to learn the basics and even more to ask the questions. One cannot ask meaningful questions without an education at this point.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you give some examples of testing of the evolutionary theory - specifically macro-evolution?

One is the prediction that in a progression of species, ie,
each evolving from an earilier one, a later critter won't be
found in the same fossil time frame as the earlier one.
Verification: We don't see triassic rabbits.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you give some examples of testing of the evolutionary theory - specifically macro-evolution?

It can be tested in many ways. My background is in geology and I know that every new fossil find is in effect a "test". If one finds a fossil that exists long before it makes sense for it to appear then that could be a serious challenge to the theory of evolution. The classic example if that of a Precambrian Bunny Rabbit.

But we are jumping way ahead. We need to go over the basics first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's go over the chart. As you can see the first step is "Ask a question". At this point in time one needs a bit of an education to do even that. The obvious questions have been asked and answered such as "Why does the Sun move through the sky?".

For life the question is "How did life get to the state that we can see today?"

This is pretty obvious, but I may have to go back for some here. Going back to cover a point is not a problem. Feel free to ask.

 

[ChristineM]

So what exactly is your point? Are you saying that anyone who questions or disagrees with atheistic evolution does not understand the scientific method? What about those who have degrees in biology, chemistry, or physics and work in these areas, yet who are anti-evolutionists? I have personally met someone who has his degree in evolutionary biology and taught this for years, who now opposes the standard atheistic idea of evolution. I know a young man who is a genius who is working on his Master's degree in molecular biology, yet who is anti-evolution. Another person I know is working on his Master's in chemistry. Are you saying that people like this or others who have all the same scientific education as atheistic evolutionists, yet accept God/creation, don't understand the scientific method ?

Atheistic evolution??? Sound like you are confused.

Those you mention are few and far between.

And im sure @Subduction Zone was not specifically targeting those few with intelegence but were unfortunately indoctrinated before they had a say in their own education but creationists in general.

 

[InChrist]

Atheistic evolution??? Sound like you are confused.

Those you mention are few and far between.

And im sure @Subduction Zone was not specifically targeting those few with intelegence but were unfortunately indoctrinated before they had a say in their own education but creationists in general.

This...intelegence, is not how intelligence is spelled.
Many intelligent individuals who completely understand science and the scientific method also know and believe God of their own volition...not by indoctrination.

I use the expression atheistic evolution, not out of confusion, but because even those who acknowledge a Creator/God accept evolution.which lines up with way He designed life to evolve or change, just not the atheistic evolutionary model.

 

[ChristineM]

This...intelegence, is not how intelligence is spelled.
Many intelligent individuals who completely understand science and the scientific method also know and believe God of their own volition...not by indoctrination.

I use the expression atheistic evolution, not out of confusion, but because even those who acknowledge a Creator/God accept evolution.which lines up with way He designed life to evolve or change, just not the atheistic evolutionary model.

You must be christian, i suppose you have no idea that i left the church because of christians of a like mind to you mocking my dyslexia. So happy you have reconfirmed my faith in Christianity.

Most god believers are indoctrinated from childhood before they are independent enough to direct their own education.

So you are saying that the majority of christians, who accept evolution, are atheist?

 

[InChrist]

You first mistake is using the phrase "standard atheistic idea of evolution". There is no such idea.

Do you use the phrase "standard atheistic idea of gravity"?

It is not a mistake. I have used the phrase atheistic evolution on purpose and I would use atheistic gravity if atheists used gravity as much as they do evolution to deny that life or the natural world has any connection to a Designer.

 

[InChrist]

You must be christian, i suppose you have no idea that i left the church because of christians of a like mind to you mocking my dyslexia. So happy you have reconfirmed my faith in Christianity.


Most god believers are indoctrinated from childhood before they are independent enough to direct their own education.

So you are saying that the majority of christians, who accept evolution, are atheist?

I had no idea you have dyslexia. I am not mocking you for that at all and I apologize if that is how it came across. But it does appear that you feel okay about mocking those who believe in God as the Creator.
I am sorry to hear you were mocked by "Christians". Certainly, although they treated you in an
unChrist-like way, you don't think Jesus would do so, do you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not a mistake. I have used the phrase atheistic evolution on purpose and I would use atheistic gravity if atheists used gravity as much as they do evolution to deny that life or the natural world has any connection to a Designer.

The problem is that if you want to claim a designer you need to find evidence for a designer. Since you do not understand either the scientific method or the concept of scientific evidence you will not be able to do so.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is not a mistake. I have used the phrase atheistic evolution on purpose and I would use atheistic gravity if atheists used gravity as much as they do evolution to deny that life or the natural world has any connection to a Designer.

Then you are very much mistaken.

 

[Jumi]

Some scientists believed that. They were terribly wrong. There are many questions left to ask. The problem is that as we learn more one has to learn the basics and even more to ask the questions. One cannot ask meaningful questions without an education at this point.

I remember the quote attributed to Lord Kelvin being quite popular about times some time before the 20th century.

 

[Jumi]

So what exactly is your point? Are you saying that anyone who questions or disagrees with atheistic evolution does not understand the scientific method?

It's not atheistic evolution. It's just evolution. Most theists with an education in science do believe it, mainly because they understand the scientific method and know about evolution. It's usually glaringly obvious when people don't know about evolution when they make mistakes, huge blunders in fact or lies about what evolution is.

As I've said before, those mistakes and sometimes lies end up making religions they are supposed to represent look bad and in the end lose members.

I'm going to use this quote again:

Dobzhansky, a Russian Orthodox, wrote a famous 1973 essay entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution espousing evolutionary creationism:

"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way... Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts... the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am mildly disappointed. So far no real participation by those that could benefit most from learning the basics.

To the creationists if you think that you understand the basics then prove it. No copy and paste of poorly written definitions. In your own words what is the scientific method? In other words how is science done?