Do you really believe science is based only on actual observations?

Question

Darwins theories had enough holes in them to sink a thousand ships, he expected future science to fill in the blanks, it has not so far.

You people need to read, not just take what ignorant men tell you on face value.

Answer 1

I believe that science is based in part on observation. But to be true science people need to be able to recreate things in the laboratory.
Evolution is not science. It is a religion (faith) that is based on trying to make certain fossils evidence (only those that help their case, but not like human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock) into a complete history of billions of years, but yet with huge holes and inconsistencies in it.

Answer 2

Observation of a natural phenomon which leads to a question.
Development of a hypothesis.
Experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
Results of experient - either accept it, reject it, modify it.
Which of course, can lead to new questions.
You should really take some time to understand the quest for knowledge.
Aren't you glad that Answers is here? Sometimes the answers lead to more questions!

For some people, it may be easier to "just accept" whatever is handed to them. Science seeks to delve into matters more deeply. Scientists learn from history and from others as well. It has no "agenda." To a great extent, it is dynamic - meaning open minded enough to keep asking those questions and continuing with the quest to build on existing knowledge.

You might want to ask yourself why you find that so uncomfortable.

Answer 3

Science, good and established science, is based only on observation and ideally the outcome of designed experiments with the same repeating conclusions
Though there are many theories about electricity, the Internet seems to work. Clean water gets to my house. The phones work. The satellites in the sky and microwave towers allow us to call each other on cell phones. These are all extensions of the scientific method the Chuck Darwin used
Darwin's theories are beginning principles, just like Newton's. With time and refinement, they will be used to uncover more truth about nature of species.
Certainly the biggest hole in evolutionary theory is that is opposed by the other natural law of entropy (organized systems break down into chaos). Certainly there is much still to be discovered about living creatures across very long periods of time
However, faith is faith, whether in religion, science, love, othere people, etc. Faith in reason and science and its possibly disagreement with religion is address by philosopher Rene Des Cartes, who summed up his view in the Cogito - I think therefore I am. Check it out, you may enjoy his musings.
Certainly the Creator allows us to entertain all kinds of theories about all sorts of things, my Creator is very forgiving and is probably amused by what I believe
Is your faith or religion threatened by Chuck's theories?
How so?
I can empathize with your frustration of other people 'taking for granted what idiotic men tell them'
perhaps you can enlighten us with truth we can read

Answer 4

No, Science is _proved_ by consistency of observation, note that Darwin included the word "theory" in the title of his chef d'oeuvre.

While a linear path from humans back to the earliest forms of life has not been mapped, there is a weight of evidence to suggest that his theory has merits and offers a valid, if incomplete, explanantion for biodiversity.

Answer 5

as a scientist, who happens to be a christian, i can tell you that no science is based only on what you can see.

the entirety of the hypothesis is that you make and educated guess about the nature of whatever you are studying. this is because i have to assume at times, that there are gravitational forces surrounding microscopic particles, simply because they hold a proton and/or neutron.

there is somehting there, that is not just an electrical charge, that attracts the base atom to form molecules, etc.

darwin does make some good insights. while his thery falls short of disproving God, it does show that survival of the fittest does occur. while i dont believe in the short-neck giraffe versus the long-necked giraffe, an animal that relies on foliage to surrvive would be at a distinct (extinct?) disadvantage if it had to compete with a long-necked giraffe.

not ony that, i cannot find evidence of a lizard ever laying a chicken egg.

-eagle

Answer 6

hey smart man ,

you are not getting the whole point.

Darwin still has a theorie which we can observe. but others are just fairy tale stories. Its easy to say the GOD created the earth.
Darwin tried to put us in the track, h may have done some mistakes. Butthe truth is bitter.

you need to read more..

Answer 7

Uh huh, of COURSE that is how it goes.

I've read from both sides, and if you post like this I have serious doubts about whether or not you know what evolution even is, having read just one side of the debate.

Of course, you can prove me wrong if you wish - post a description of how evolution works.

So far, science hasn't, huh? Funny about the near 100% rate of all scientists who happen to know that evolution is right.

Oh wait, they must be ignoring all that evidence that they themselves are collecting. *smack* I forgot.

Answer 8

obvious creationist. with the 777, i would assume christian. it amazes me that despite the fact that science knowledge does change with new discovery, some cant change with it. do u think the earth is flat? 6000 yrs old? god created us in a few days? that the bible is the inerrant word of god despite the fact that it has had many human authors? all of these r things that religious leaders tell their flock and the flock always takes it on face value.

Answer 9

Science hasn't filled in any of Darwin's blanks? Were you sleeping in class when they showed you how DNA worked, or do you tend to avoid biology courses altogether so that you can continue to ask stupid questions on the internet?

Answer 10

And your statement is backed up with....

Oh, that's right, you're lying because many of the "holes" you're talking about have been "filled in".

You are an ignorant man, and I will not take what you tell me at face value.