Who can explain soft tissue found in fossils?

I can think of at least 10. Check em out in The Science Delusion, in regards to the 10 dogmas of science. The author, a scientist suggest that science apply the scientific method to those. For they are indeed the consensus.

 

Well, before Crick died, he thought the earth may have been seeded by space aliens. No joke. I think this was in reference to a self replicating molecule manifesting from a primordial soup, without a guiding intelligence, beyond his own. Sounds like he was beginning to question his own faith in randomness and chance.

 

So....one scientist says something, and so goes science?

That pretty much goes opposite of the scientific method.

 

The statement I responded to stated that "science" and not "scientists" said "could not" but "science" never makes the statement "could not" because science cannot prove a negative.

The scientists condemning "creationism" and "intelligent design" do so based upon the false arguments presented by the advocates for creationism and intelligent design. For examply in the article noted for this thread they accurately condemn the "new world creationists" for trying to hijack the science by misrepresenting the facts. It's the "new world creationists" claiming that the soft tissue "could not" exist, not science. The "new world creationists" are the liars and not those in the scientific community.

 

As I understand it - and yes I could be wrong and I will stand to be corrected - a theory seeks to explain a phenomenon. If I'm right, at least partially in that, then the proof of the theory is its validity. Does it explain - until a new theory comes along - the observed phenomenon? Can the theory predict?
If so then it's more than speculation. The field of evolutionary biology couldn't exist without a valid theory underpinning it and there are other disciplines which require the theory of evolution to be valid in order to continue their research. It may not suit you but it's evidence enough for me that the theory of evolution is a valid theory at least until another displaces it.

 

A hypothesis, is simply a speculation, a scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been 'proven' by observation, repetition and testing. Neither evolution or Biblical Creation can rise to the level of a theory since neither can be observed. They both require a faith or belief that the model is the correct model. obviously one is wrong.

 

This probably wins the Most Uninformed Statement of 2014 Award.

The fossil-geological record as well as more modern DNA mapping both provide unquestionable empirical evidence of evolution. Even when Charles Darwin wrote his theory of natural selection in the 19th Century the fossil evidence had already established that evolution had occurred. Anyone can literally go out into nature and, with a little digging in stratified rock formations, find the empirical evidence of the evolution of life on Earth. We can map the evolution of advanced species from more primative species over geological time in virtually any limestone formation in the US. Even the most ignorant person in America can see the empirical evidence of evolution if they get off their ass, go out into nature, and take an afternoon to explore the fossil record in a limestone formation.

 

A scientific theory is the product of the scientific method and they are not "proven" but instead validated based upon "tests" that validate predictions based upon the theory.

The "theories of evolution" are actually the "theories of the mechanics of evolution" and not a theory that proposes evolution. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection attempts to explain the mechanics of "Evolution" that was already established by the mid-19th Century based upon observations of nature.

The "Theory of Natural Selection" is a valid scientific theory developed by the scientific method.

There isn't a "Theory of Creationism" or a "Theory of Intelligent Design" as neither has been subjected to the scientific method. They are beliefs, not theories.

Please stop comparing "beliefs based upon myth and superstition" with "scientific theories based upon the scientific method."

 

FALSE!

The only scientific evidence gleaned from fossils are that an organism lived, died and was buried rapidly. Everything else is conjecture.

I have been asking for weeks on these forums for ONE just ONE bit of scientific empirical evidence in support of millions of years, not speculation or opinion ands have yet to get any. What does that tell you?

 

I used 'proven' inside apostrophes because I know it is not the perfectly approved term. Just trying to make it easy for the less informed folks who still believe in Darwinism.

Evolution can never be observed nor tested so therefore according to many scientific definitions, it does not rise to the level of scientific theory. In layman's terms theory is acceptable, but not by the scientific method. Got it?

Please stop comparing "evolutionary religious beliefs based upon conjecture and opinion" with "scientific theories based upon the scientific method."

 

It proves that you are blind to anything that conflicts with your religious beliefs. I posted the following back on Page 4 and you never commented on it.

Observation: All living organisms share morphological properties in a pattern forming nested hierarchies of domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species.

Hypothesis: Such an order can be explained by common descent.

Prediction: Organisms will share endogeneous retrovirus with mutations in identical loci in proportion to their proximity in such a biological classification.

Experimental tests: DNA comparisons of similar organisms show the expected level of shared ERVs.

 

Yes a hypothesis is an idea, a speculation, which when sufficient evidence is accumulated to confirm it, becomes a theory. The theory of evolution is used to guide scientific research in many areas, so it has some use. The theology surrounding creation of the universe doesn't come anywhere near a scientific explanation, it's just theology.

 

It is what is defined as scientific evidence which accumulated to elevate a hypothesis to a theory. There is NO scientific evidence in support of evolution.

Everyone who believeth in evolution believeth by faith and not of evidence, for verily I say unto you, no man can know the origins but by God. He so ever believeth in supernatural wonders illusory of man and not of God, inspirits he who is not of God.

 

You have to be a Poe.