Existence of life

psyah · May 21, 2014, 9:00pm

Re: Existence of life

This is a common argument put forth by creationists, trying to segregate sceince in to observational science and hostorical science. It’s nonsensical. You should read similar arguments by Ken Ham and his outfit. This is a dictinction made only to distort and to bring what scientists do down to the level of what creationists want.
Scientists show knowledge of their field not simply by looking at the fossil record, or historical data. Scientists show mastery of their field by then making exact and precise predictions about it in the future! And it works! Scientists show they know what happened in the past by predicting what will happen in the future! Equally amazing thing that scientists do, when they turn out to be wrong, they go back and reexamine their data, their evidence, their conclusions, their assumptions, and conduct more tests, and try predicting again. Science isn’t static. It doesn’t get it’s feelings hurt. It isn’t stuck in the bronze age.

Influenza used to kill lots and lots of people. Scientists developed a vaccine for it. The virus however changes every year. Scientists not only created a vaccine by understanding the nature of the disease, but they predict what the virus is likely to be like the next season. Does anyone remember how many people died from the H1-N1 ‘pandemic’? How mane people have died from the Avian Flu?

Here is what happened in 1918, before the vaccine: Pandemic Flu History | Flu.gov

By the way, the Greeks, the Persians, the Indians, and the Chinese knew the universe wasn’t geocentric. Geocentricity was dogma for the Abrahamic religions. Before the advent of those religions, people knew!
I’ll add, not having a counter theory is a demonstration of not having a comprehension of the evidence and data.

The article I provided you is a news story about an actual scientific study, not the study itself.
Here is a better synopsis of the study: http://archaeology.tau.ac.il/ben-yosef/pub/Pub_PDFs/Sapir-Hen&Ben-Yosef13_CamelAravah_TelAviv.pdf
It lists sources, evidence, data, other studies, has footnotes, etc.. I see nothing remotely close for your version, or any other version, of deity.

The operative words: *Here is an alternative theory I just made up. *
Your fantasy and conjecture are not science. Anyone can make things up as they go. That’s what happens in religion, and frankly, it’s your right to do that in religion. That’s not science.

Peace kprasad

By telling back to me what I have done you have not refuted it … My theory is better than evolution because it maps the fossil record better. To refute it tell me how …

if scientists can make predictions then let them predict the next species to evolve … Let them catch the process in action …