What is the scientific method

[Isaiah 6:8]

All highlights added by me.

Introductionto the Scientific Method

Thescientific method is the process by which scientists, collectivelyand over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable,consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Recognizingthat personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions andour interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use ofstandard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences whendeveloping a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smartpeople (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanationsfor mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific methodattempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in theexperimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

I.The scientific method has four steps

1.Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2.Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics,the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or amathematical relation.

3.Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, orto predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4.Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by severalindependent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Ifthe experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded asa theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model,theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out thehypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in thedescription of the scientific method just given is the predictivepower (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; seeBarrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment.It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, onlydisproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation ora new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

II.Testing hypotheses

Asjust stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmationof the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. Thescientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out ormodified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatiblewith experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is,its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are tobelieve that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as inevery experimental science, "experiment is supreme" andexperimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutelynecessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, theobservation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derivedfrom the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of aradioactive decay process requiring the existence of the newparticle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that atheory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because,for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, aparticle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualifyas scientific theories.

Ifthe predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be indisagreement with new experimental results, the theory may bediscarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to beapplicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. Forexample, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are validonly when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speedof light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c << 1). Sincethis is the domain of a large portion of human experience, the lawsof classical mechanics are widely, usefully and correctly applied ina large range of technological and scientific problems. Yet in naturewe observe a domain in which v/c is not small. The motions of objectsin this domain, as well as motion in the "classical"domain, are accurately described through the equations of Einstein'stheory of relativity. We believe, due to experimental tests, thatrelativistic theory provides a more general, and therefore moreaccurate, description of the principles governing our universe, thanthe earlier "classical" theory. Further, we find that therelativistic equations reduce to the classical equations in the limitv/c << 1. Similarly, classical physics is valid only atdistances much larger than atomic scales (x >> 10-8 m). Adescription which is valid at all length scales is given by theequations of quantum mechanics.

Weare all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the faceof experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, theearth-centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown bythe Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of aseries of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theorywas modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to becompatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still laterplanetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton's laws.

Errorin experiments have several sources. First, there is error intrinsicto instruments of measurement. Because this type of error has equalprobability of producing a measurement higher or lower numericallythan the "true" value, it is called random error. Second,there is non-random or systematic error, due to factors which biasthe result in one direction. No measurement, and therefore noexperiment, can be perfectly precise. At the same time, in science wehave standard ways of estimating and in some cases reducing errors.Thus it is important to determine the accuracy of a particularmeasurement and, when stating quantitative results, to quote themeasurement error. A measurement without a quoted error ismeaningless. The comparison between experiment and theory is madewithin the context of experimental errors. Scientists ask, how manystandard deviations are the results from the theoretical prediction?Have all sources of systematic and random errors been properlyestimated? This is discussed in more detail in the appendix on ErrorAnalysis and in Statistics Lab 1.

III.Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

Asstated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize theinfluence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment.That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist mayhave a preference for one outcome or another, and it is importantthat this preference not bias the results or their interpretation.The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for anexplanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests.Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt usinto believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples ofthis, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Anothercommon mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support thehypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility thatthe hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, ascientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (orfalse), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specificresult. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find"something wrong", such as systematic effects, with datawhich do not support the scientist's expectations, while data whichdo agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. Thelesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.

Anothercommon mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitativelysystematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples ofdiscoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained anew phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background.Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries"which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted forby the "discoverers."

Ina field where there is active experimentation and open communicationamong members of the scientific community, the biases of individualsor groups may cancel out, because experimental tests are repeated bydifferent scientists who may have different biases. In addition,different types of experimental setups have different sources ofsystematic errors. Over a period spanning a variety of experimentaltests (usually at least several years), a consensus develops in thecommunity as to which experimental results have stood the test oftime.

IV.Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

Inphysics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis,""model," "theory" and "law" havedifferent connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance orknowledge about a group of phenomena.

Anhypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect inspecific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge beforeexperimental work has been performed and perhaps even before newphenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life,suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "Mycar does not start because the battery is low." This is yourfirst hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on,or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignitionkey. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of thebattery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you mightattempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "Thisis really not my car.")

Theword model is reserved for situations when it is known that thehypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example ofthis is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to thesolar system, the electrons are described has moving in circularorbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of whatan atom "looks like," but the model succeeds inmathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angularmomenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case,the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should becalled Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that theforce exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to theamount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is onlyvalid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails whenthe spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). Thisprinciple, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonicmotion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has beenversatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

Ascientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group ofrelated hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeatedexperimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in termsof a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "lawsof nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Acceptedscientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of theuniverse and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas ofknowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries arefirst assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It isonly when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenoncannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theoryand attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientifictheories as representing realities of the physical world is to becontrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression,"It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that aperson will step off a tall building on the assumption that they willnot fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changesin scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimesrevolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the keyforce for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis onexperiment.

V.Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is notapplicable?

Whilethe scientific method is necessary in developing scientificknowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving. What do youdo when your telephone doesn't work? Is the problem in the hand set,the cabling inside your house, the hookup outside, or in the workingsof the phone company? The process you might go through to solve thisproblem could involve scientific thinking, and the results mightcontradict your initial expectations.

Likeany good scientist, you may question the range of situations (outsideof science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From whathas been stated above, we determine that the scientific method worksbest in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest,by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where onecan repeatedly test the system under study after making limited,controlled changes in it.

Thereare, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomenaor when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. Insuch cases the results may depend in part on the history of asituation. This often occurs in social interactions between people.For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury incourt, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trialover and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, thejury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a newset of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

VI.Conclusion

Thescientific method is intricately associated with science, the processof human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. Whilethe method appears simple and logical in description, there isperhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come toknow things. In this introduction, we have emphasized that thescientific method distinguishes science from other forms ofexplanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation.We have also tried to point out some of the criteria and practicesdeveloped by scientists to reduce the influence of individual orsocial bias on scientific findings. Further investigations of thescientific method and other aspects of scientific practice may befound in the references listed below.

VII.References

1.Wilson, E. Bright. An Introduction to Scientific Research(McGraw-Hill, 1952).

2.Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Univ. ofChicago Press, 1962).

3.Barrow, John. Theories of Everything (Oxford Univ. Press, 1991).

Source

http://teacher.pas.r.../appendixe.html

Asyou can see you can have theory's that are fact until proven false,and many such as gravity are often proven true but there are somechanges in the how. Also, as I highlighted a theory cannot be proven. You can disprove a theory but you cannot prove one. So neither evolution or creation can be proven. They both have to be disproved. This is not done easily.

Also neither of the two is a full or true theory. Fromall the data I have seen in my whole life presented to me by eitheran evolutionist, or even a creationist both make the errors of...

the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another

and

ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis.

Thusthe question that states "How did we get here" is turned into "How did we get here with/without God" God is either ruled out completely or he is the center of the whole deal. Either way we do not get untainted results. I have been guilty of this.

Therefore. Since neither is based on science since both are tainted by expected results, we are left with faith in either of the two. Now you can debate what the evidence means but I have yet to see any true objective debate on what any given piece of evidence means, as both sides have an agenda.

Since none of the data we have, is imperial, beyond subjective interpretation we are left with faith and logic. Logic is not be pure science as it can be subjective. However I belive that its the best thing we have in this case, as we have no hard evidence.

Here is my logic. based on my world view.

I belive there is an all powerful, all knowing, ever present, creator God. I believe he gave us the 66 cannon books of the Bible as his 100% true and the word of God. I do understand that the Bible often times uses allegory and symbolism. I belive that it is clear when it using this, vs stating facts. From what I have seen, the Genesis account is a statement of fact. Therefore since I do not belive that God can lie, then the Genesis account is true. Because I belive this to be true, I also belive that evolution is not true and is in contradiction with the Bible. Because of this there is no way to reconcile the two.

This is my logic for various reasons. One of the most important is this.

Logically if there is no God, and Atheists are correct, and evolution is correct, and I die. I will cease to exist, not even knowing I existed in the first place. Therefore if I choose God and am wrong, then no harm no foul.

However, If there is a God in heaven, and he has given us his instructions on how to live, and how to die. We can choose to die with him, or to choose otherwise and choose life without him in eternal damnation of some sort. If this is all true, and I choose not to believe, that I have gambled my eternal soul on this, and have lost all of eternity.

Some would say "Why Christ, why not Buddha, or Mohammed, or Krishna etc" that is another long thread. I'll get to that later!

[Fez]

Sounds like the rhythm method. Both of of them have proved to be fallible.....

[Lily of the Valley]

I teach science in a Catholic school to youngsters who are always very excited to learn about Creation. My 4th graders are learning about Newton's Laws of Motion and we had a nice discussion about why Newton's statements were Laws and why evolution is only a theory. Too many students are growing up without being taught about the difference between a law and a theory... let alone being taught about what the Christian faith really teaches.

I don't think you can debase the scientific method. It was never designed to prove or disprove God and its the best method we have of accurately understanding our surroundings.

As you can see you can have theory's that are fact until proven false,and many such as gravity are often proven true but there are some changes in the how. Also, as I highlighted a theory cannot be proven. You can disprove a theory but you cannot prove one. So neither evolution or creation can be proven. They both have to be disproved. This is not done easily.

A theory is one based on the evidence that allows the majority of scientists to agree that it is plausible that the theory is true. There is data that supports the theory, but data is lacking in some areas (possibly) to allow the theory be an actual Law. A theory does not happen if you have some evidence/data that says its true and some that says it is wrong. The present data must support that the theory is correct. So in a sense, you are proving, at the present time, that the theory has credit but could do with more credit (aka data). Should data be brought up that goes against said theory--- and the data is well supported and repeated through many trials--- then the theory would be either thrown out or rewritten as necessary.

In most experimental cases, you are correct: science doesn't tend to prove things but what usually happens is that an idea is proven through prior experiments that disproved certain criteria. So while we can't do a scientific experiment to prove that God created the Earth, we can begin to collect data through controlled experiments (which is difficult in itself to have but one independent variable when you're not in a lab setting) which helps us to disprove certain ideas, thus allowing us to assume some ideas of how this creation came about.

[Guest Aiwa]

That is jaw-droppingly wrong. The difference between a law and a theory is actually incredibly simple: Theories explain things, whereas laws describe them. Therefore there is a law of gravity, which describes what gravity does, and there are theories of gravity, which try to explain how gravity actually works. In point of fact Newton did describe some laws of motion, and he also developed some theories about gravity. . .theories that were later replaced by relativity. Laws never become theories, theories never become laws; they are are completely different things. If you are teaching children science could you please be so kind as to actually teach them science instead of. . .well. . .whatever it is you are apparently doing now?

Lurker

That response is more than a little brutal, and I'm not sure its right.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between an explanation and a description based on your definition. What is supposed to be the difference between explaining what gravity does and how it works?

Newton's laws weren't 'replaced' by relativity, really - I would say 'expanded' or 'generalized' might be a better choice of words. Newton's laws are still are correct - but only relative to our terrestrial frame of reference. What special relativity does is generalize Newton's insights to all observers in all (uniformly moving) frames of reference.

I would say that 'theories' and 'laws' describe more or less the same stuff. However, calling something a 'law' gives it a special stamp of approval. That's it. If you want to be modest, call your theory a theory. If you want to be assertive, call it a law. You're still going to have to explain what sort of evidence you have that vindicates the predictions of your law/theory.

[Guest Aiwa]

A law is a description of something, it doesn't have anything to do with it being more assertive or correct than a theory. Theories explain why we see this description. Like Kepler's laws of planetary motion just describe the pathway of the planets around the Sun, yet it doesn't explain why this path is taken, only that it does. With Newton's theory of gravity we can explain why the planets take the path as described by Kepler's laws.

Good theories that work time and time again are never going to be "laws", they will remain theories - theories that are backed up my tons of evidence. Laws that have a flaw in them are not going to become a theory, just a falsified or incomplete law that may or may not still be useful (like Newton's laws are still really really useful despite being falsified).

Hello D9;

I realize that people use the words 'law' and 'theory' in different ways, but that seems to be just a convention. I don't understand the proffered difference between an explanation and a description is supposed to amount to. You say that laws describe and theories explain. Yet Newton took his 'theory' of gravitation to be consistent with Kepler's 'laws'. If they are both working on the same problem, can one answer be different in principle from the other?

Here's a question: Suppose you have a theory of gravitation. What will this theory say (or not say) that any laws of gravitation will not say?

[Guest]

That response is more than a little brutal, and I'm not sure its right.

Being a former science teacher, I don't have much sympathy for those who teach kids propaganda instead of science.

Mixing Pagan Tales With Science And Force Feeding It To Little Minds

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

Is Never Noble Or Honorable

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9

Nor Honest

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

Nor Wise

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

You Think?

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

>>>>>()<<<<<

B. The Peril of Scientism

As Christians we accept the facts of science. What we do not accept are the interpretations of those facts offered by some scientists. There is no conflict between the established facts of science and the Bible, though scientists often make unproved assumptions (such as the theory of evolution) that do conflict with Scripture. Although the Bible is written in everyday language and doesn't use modern scientific terminology, that does not mean it is scientifically inaccurate. Indeed, many of the world's greatest scientists have accepted the authority of the Bible, such as Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Lister, Pasteur, Kelvin, and others.

The conflict between science and Scripture comes when science steps outside the realm of that which is observable and reproducible and speculates on origins, values, and destinies. At that point science has ceased to be science and instead become a religious viewpoint, since those things are not subject to observation and experimentation.

Does the Bible Contain Scientific Errors?

Many Christians assume the Bible contains scientific errors, and that it is authoritative only when it speaks on spiritual matters. But that is saying in effect that the God who wrote the Bible knew a lot about spiritual things, but not too much about science. To say that parts of the Bible are accurate, but others are not is to deny the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. Since God knows all things, and what He speaks is true (cf., Titus 1:2), all that the Bible teaches is accurate, not just its spiritual truths.

The issue is not between science and Scripture; the issue is whether man will submit to the Word of God. Romans 1:28 describes people who refuse to submit as those who "did not like to retain God in their knowledge." Because they rejected God's revelation of Himself as Creator, men came up with the only alternative: that the universe and everything in it just happened.

>>>>>()<<<<<<

The Problem With Proudly Mixing Man's Hatred Of The Power And The Majesty Of The LORD Jesus Christ

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:1-5

With Science Is It Can Become Both An Excuse To Dismiss The Bible And To Post An Ugly Show

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

Of A Little Man Lording It Over A Young Teacher Who Both Loves Truth And Science

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:1-5

And Who Cares For Her Precious Students And Who Refuses To Poison

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. 1 John 2:15-17

Either Their Minds Or Their Souls With Mockery

These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John 2:26-27

Despite The Sneers

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12:3

And Jeers

>>>>>(O)<<<<<

Drop Your Pride Dear One And Proclaim Jesus Is LORD

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:9

And Be Blessed Beloved

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. Revelation 21:1-5

Love, Joe

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: Acts 24:14

[Guest]

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

>>>>>()<<<<<

Mixing Pagan Tales With Science And Force Feeding It To Little Minds

I guess it's a good thing that no one is even suggesting we do that then.

Science Was Nothing Legitimate To Do With The Evolutionary Mythos Dear One

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

And Although You Strangely Seen Proud To Chastise Both The Bible And It's Young Teachers When They Present Their God Given Facts Of Creation To Little Children

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

You Should Note Believers Are Restrained By Truth From Following Your Strong Exhortations To Proclaim Pagan Evolutionary Mythos As Science And The Holy Bible As Propaganda

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

And Although You And Every Human Being On Earth Know Evolution Is False Yet You Continue To Preach It Over Jesus Christ The Creator

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

Even So You And All Men Will Confess On Bended Knees, Jesus Is LORD

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:10-11

Of All Creation

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

To His Glory

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

You See

>>>>>()<<<<<

Believe

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:4

And Be Blessed Believed

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Love, Joe

[Guest]

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?

Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?

For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. Romans 11:33-36

>>>>>()<<<<<

And Although You And Every Human Being On Earth Know Evolution Is False Yet You Choose To Preach It Over Jesus Christ The Creator

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

Again, the ToS is pretty clear on debating the subject, not the person in these threads. We are discussing the scientific method and, in particular here, the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. Lying about what I "know" and what I "preach" is not going to help you here.

Yes! It's Always About Jesus And About His Blood And About His Lordship And About His Power As See In His Creation

You may not post any material that is disrespectful of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Bible. This includes user names or anything in your profile, or sig. (Ex. 20:7)

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22

Being a former science teacher, I don't have much sympathy for those who teach kids propaganda instead of science.

Abuse of other posters is not allowed. This includes, but is not limited to, name calling, insulting, harassing, threatening or in any way invading the privacy of another poster. We also strongly discourage giving out personal information such as email addresses, physical addresses and phone numbers on the public boards. Any information given out in private is at your own discretion and risk. (Eph. 4: 29)

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15

>>>>>()<<<<<

Any Science Misused By Men To Make Claims That The Word Of God Is Untrue Is An Abuse Of God's ToS

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:20-21

Dear One As You May Suspect

I KNOW Science Including Made-Up Science

Phenomena Not Directly Observed, Measured And Repeated

Yet Heard In Words Bubbling Up From The Theater Of The Mind Of Unbelievers And The Unwary World-Wide

Does Not Have ANY Legitimate Business Being Used As Statements About Origins, Values And Destinies

And You May Also Suspect That Bible Believers WILL Stand On Their LORD's Words

The Very Words Jesus Gave Face To Face To Grandpa Moses

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, Genesis 2:1-4

And To Preach Otherwise Is In The End Unwise

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. John 12:47-48

You See

>>>>>()<<<<<

Believe

For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:20-24

And Be Blessed Beloved

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12:3

Love, Joe

[nebula]

The more I study physiology, the more I am baffled how anyone can believe it came about as a series of random mutations.

[nebula]

Do you two have any idea just how many steps and processes are involved in muscle movement -

From how many centers in the brain work together to send the action potential signal to the spinal cord to contract the muscle, to the action potential being sent down the motor neurons to signal the muscle to contract, to the action potential of the muscle fibers to contract - along with the coordination with other muscles to enable the movement to take place and keep the body upright (balanced)?