@InfraBlue,
> Human evolution
> Comparative anatomy, including 1) comparative studies of brain size,; 2) comparative study of genetic sequence... etc.
> Last universal common ancestor (LUCA)
> Universal common ancestor (UCA)
> Phylogenetics - on which most evolutionary ideas (assumptions) stem.
.... and the list goes on, Which I don't think it's necessary, since I also think that it's not fair that skeptics always want to be the ones asking the questions, and they ignore questions posed to them.
It's interesting how we get theories built on hypotheses. The hypotheses have not become theories, but they are used to claim that a particular idea is a theory. Hence the "theory" of evolution, including the extrapolated and unverifiable macro side of it; the "theory" of whale evolution based on the hypothesis that fossils - an ear bone, and blow hole tell us something conclusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Scientific
Quote:In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Theories must also meet further requirements, such as the ability to make falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry, and production of strong evidence in favor of the theory from multiple independent sources (consilience).
This is no different to religion.
When scientist can use such terms as
looks like, appear to be, likely, could be, may have, etc., and call it science, they are doing the same thing they accuse religious people of. It's not science, when such assumptions are not proven. It's more philosophy or religious.
It's not surprising therefore, that many who study these methods of science, see the gaping holes - how easy it is to take science beliefs where the community wants it to go.
Against Method
https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b
Quote:The scientific method is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.
It is the only rigorously-defined tool that filters out our personal bias.
The scientific method allows us to formulate ideas and back them with evidence. They are then shared with a community of other scientists that rigorously try to disprove them. If no one can disprove a hypothesis, it becomes the current working theory. If someone eventually does, the theory is changed or replaced. This process continues and results in better and better ideas being formulated over time. Although the scientific method is not guaranteed to give us the absolutely correct answer, it does help us get closer to that answer. It helps us improve our existing model of the universe and learn from our mistakes.
Science is the process of attempting to understand the natural world through evidence and reason. Scientists have been wrong before, and they will certainly be wrong again. New evidence can change our model of the universe, and that’s okay.
It would be great if there was a tool that guaranteed us the absolute correct answer every time, but it is doubtful that such tool exists. Science is by far the best tool we have to understand the natural world, and scientific evidence should not be ignored just because it has been misinterpreted in the past.
Interesting.
Please be aware that this means nothing to me, as it is just a matter of beliefs. What Atheists, skeptics, or unbelievers believe, has nothing to do with what I believe.
If one is going to say one is better than the other, I think I want to hear that person, and have them
demonstrate that to me.
I see one is useful for trying to understand the physical - natural is a loaded word
- world, The other is useful for understand the spiritual world, which helps in understanding the physical world also.
