If you can't observe it, it's not scientific.

Didn't observe the murder, so can't use DNA, fingerprints, etc, as evidence.

So all historical science is invalid to you? 💀

We can observe minds creating systems with specified complexity. Has anyone ever observed evolution creating systems with specified complexity?

Did you observe a natural system being created by a mind?

> thinks science requires direct, real-time visual observation of an event > accidentally invalidates all forensic science, geology, and astronomy Let's free all the murderers then. Since no scientist was there to observe it, DNA and fingerprints aren't "scientific."

Historical sciences use known and observed causes to infer past events. We've never observed any natural cause of specified complex systems like we see in biology or the laws of the universe. Only intelligence.

False. We literally observe natural processes creating novel biological complexity. Lenski's E. coli experiment observed the evolution of a new citrate-metabolizing trait. Nylon-eating bacteria evolved enzymes for a synthetic polymer. Natural selection IS the observed cause.

Lenski's LTEE showed an already existing gene being placed under a different already existing promoter. No new systems evolved. The Nylonase enzyme has always existed in bacteria, has thousands of homologs across diverse species, and could always metabolize the constituent elements that make up Nylon. No new systems evolved. Natural selection doesn't create anything. It preserves what's already there.

You just perfectly described exaptation and gene duplication, the exact mechanisms of evolution. 🤦🏽 Evolution doesn't magically poof genes from nothing; it repurposes existing material for novel functions. An aerobic citrate-metabolizing pathway IS a new system.

Adaptation within existing systems doesn't explain how entirely novel systems arise. The Cit+ mutation utilized already existing systems to do jobs they already could do. Evolution must be able to invent entirely new systems. Never been observed.

False. E. coli could NOT transport citrate aerobically. That inability literally defines the species. A promoter capture mutation that unlocks a massive, entirely new ecological niche and metabolic pathway is functional novelty. Stop playing semantic games with the word "new."

If your definition of a "novel system" requires it to have absolutely zero ancestral components, you are defining evolution as creationism and demanding we prove it. Evolution is a tinkerer, not a magician. Repurposing parts into a novel ecological function IS the invention.

Almost all of science consists of things we cannot observe. We explain what we do observe in terms of what is unobserved. Unobserved dinosaurs in terms of observed fossils. Unobserved big bang in terms of observed galaxy red shifts and CMB. Unobserved iron core of the Earth in terms of observed seismic waves.

We regularly observe minds creating specified complex systems like those we observe in biology and even the laws of the universe. We've never observed natural processes creating specified complex systems.

Now do the theory of Creation vs the scientific method lol.

Ok

So creationism isn't scientific. Checkmate

Young Earthists demand not just the observed measurements of U²³⁸ decay but >4Bn years of continuous observation. They are as retarded as Flat Earthists.

So God didn’t create the universe? Creationism as a “science” would be a fraud then!

Evolution can be observed (core mechanisms not macro scale) These things can't be observed. Do you think they're all unscientific?

If you can't observe your 'god', he doesn't exist.

Reality: Generally the only people who believe in creationism would lose friends and family didn't. Most Christians believe God used evolution. Evolution is not at odds with the scientific method. #factcheckmebro

The theory of evolution cannot make it through the scientific method.

What philosophers of science think that? Please say Popper so I can embarrass you.

1 and 2 they tried teaching me in school 😄 yet its more obvious a global flood happened instead

Never getting tired of this genre of post wherein the Christians wish to “have the science” on their side, but none of the things that science shows to be true

This is my daily experience with secularists. They abandon science every time they defend naturalism, yet demand the strictest standards of science from us. I don’t mind, but their inconsistencies are tiresome

So we find a dead body with a small hole in the skull. We have no idea how to find out what happened?

Ok, show me where you observed any god doing anything.

Then it is lucky that we can observe it.

We can observe light from distant stars coming to Earth. We can observe that light has a finite speed. These 2 observations alone prove that Genesis story is false. We don't even need to bring the evolution into the picture.

they can and do observe it. you just refuse to acknowledge it, because they observe it in organisms that have lifespans in minutes, and you want to pretend that doesn't follow for organisms with lifespans of 20+ years or more.

Do you even know what a fucking theory is in science?

Evolution is an observed , hence observable, fact of biological life on earth.

No sabes de ciencia y quieres dar lecciones sobre si algo es o no ciencia, patético

Me who know genetic and evolution is made by Priest.

As a scientist, this is the most bullshit statement ever made about science lol Inductive and deductive reasoning both play a vital part on multiple facets of science.

Even your own leaders admit part of the contradiction. They’re halfway there just one more step = time and they’ll see the full picture.

actually, yes, you can observe it

Your inability to understand science isn't actually evidenced against science. It's just evidence of your inability to understand. It's not too late for you to be less publicly stupid.

Is god?

But you you can observe it

Why do I have the feeling you're going to dodge and play with words?

Includes your god then doesn't it.

I don't think we've ever seen oxygen enter lungs before, so doesn't that mean that our understanding of breathing is fucked according to you?

evolution is extremely observable, dolt