uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:43 am
You are clearly someone who accepts authority as a reliable source of knowledge;
Yes, particularly when the knowledge leads to tangible results of something useful, like for example roads, bridges, medicine, houses, boats, cars, computers, electronic appliances, air conditioner, airplanes, trains etc... It is difficult for me to ignore the usefulness of the scientific method.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:43 am
where do you believe the "scientific method" is written down and by whom?
The scientific method can be written down by anyone who has studied and/or practiced it. And it has been written down in many places by many people. For example, the common English dictionaries that I use have written it down.
Scientific method: A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... fic_method
Dr Richard Feynman, the famous American scientist has written it down as well. This is what he said in a lecture on the subject:
- "I am going to discuss how we look for a new law. In general, we look for new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what if this law that we guessed is right, what it would imply. And then we compare those computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience. [We] compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiments, its WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make a difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make a difference to how smart you are who made the guess or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. That’s all there is to it."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
But the purpose of the scientific method is more meant to be practiced than written down. I am of those who benefit from putting the scientific method into practice. And the legitimization of the scientific method is not by authority but by the observation of each practitioner of its widespread usefulness. For example medical doctors practice the scientific method on a daily basis in their diagnostics and in doing so are saving the lives of a lot of people! Engineers also use an appropriate version of the scientific method to design and build bridges, houses, high rise buildings, dams, computers etc..., and they sometimes call it the Engineering method or the Engineering design process. The common thread in all these activities is that the observation, testing, and experimentation of the natural world is an essential part of the methodology for abstaining knowledge about the world.
Now please tell me: is the scientific method not used in Darwinism? If Darwinism is science, then can you please inform me of the definition of science on which Darwinism rests?
______________
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:43 am
Averroes wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:45 pmDarwinism fails to fulfill that fundamental requirement of the scientific method because as you rightly subsequently mentioned: “what has
never been observed is the spontaneous generation of an entirely new species.” The latter are your own words!
Yes, and Darwinism does not posit the spontaneous generation of new species, so what is your point?
My point is as follows. Physics tells us that the universe had an origin in the Big Bang and therefore we can deduce from that fact that life on earth or in the universe must have begun much after that. But if evolution is to be logically consistent, how can it not assume abiogenesis/spontaneous generation? The first member of the series in the so-called evolutionary process, how does it come about if Darwinism does not posit spontaneous generation? Can you please explain.
_____________
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:43 am
Averroes wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:45 pm...every native English speaker is not on this forum! What you have on this forum is around a couple dozens or so of English speakers from different parts of the heterogeneous English speaking world.
True, but in your estimation, what are the chances of all of us saying the exact same wrong thing?
By 'all of us' I take it that you mean the 4 posters who have expressed their opinion to me on the subject on this thread. In my estimation then, I have to take a lot of things into consideration. The following are the factors to be considered in my analysis:
1. What is the percentage of the total native English speakers that the 4 of you would comprise? There are about 340 million native English speakers in the world. Therefore you all 4 make about approximately 0.000001% of the native English speakers! That is not very representative of the native English speakers!
2. What is your level of proficiency in the English language? Based on what I have seen so far, in my assessment you are not linguists. But feel free to inform me of your academic qualifications in relation to the English language.
3. What do the scholars say on the subject? They all say that proof and evidence are synonynous.
Reference:
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/proof
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/proof
So pending your answers as to your English language proficiency, my tentative estimation that you are all 4 wrong is: certainty. So far I am certain (ie. 100% sure) that you all 4 are wrong!
_________
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:43 am
Averroes wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:45 pmIt is certain that the scientists do not know the age of any of these fossils.
I've already conceded as much, but I'll say it again. This time I'll emphasise the bit you really need to address:
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:52 amWhether or not we know the exact time of death of each individual fossilised creature is irrelevant. We understand the process by which the sedimentary rocks that fossils are generally found in form. We know that process doesn't happen overnight.
And we know that the rocks at the bottom contain the simplest organisms and that the closer to the surface, the more like modern animals the fossils become.
This is the method of relative dating that you are describing. These are findings which can be and are being studied from various perspectives. And it’s fine with me as long as no unreliable dates are ascribed to these fossils. But as to Darwinism until you address the issue of spontaneous generation, this subject cannot be further addressed meaningfully in relation to our discussion.