Jbuza wrote:
Hypothesis are conclusions that one makes and tests to see if observations can be explained by that hypothesis, they are provisional conjectures to guide investigation. Established facts should guide hypothesizing, but facts are difficult to prove. Clearly much of the scientific community thinks evolution is a fact or they shouldn't be using it in creating further hypothesis.
Scientific discoveries used to be reffered to as Laws, such as Newtons law of gravity.
After Einstein refined Newtons mechanics scientific findings no matter how robust were since then referred to as theories.
Evolution has withstood rigorous tests and continues to do so. To base a hypothesis on it is not a problem.
It is fairly simple, if you take a ride on certain roads you can see that some houses are vary, vary similar, and that is because they have the same builder. The framework for my Theory of Creation is supported by the visible similarities in anatomical structures and is evidenced by observations that animals seem to have some sort of relation to each other.
Now based on my hypothesis that God created, as testified by one of the oldest books in existence, I could surmise given this similarity that there is a chance that disease could be communicated from one mammal to another. From the apparent ability of species to adapt, including viruses there is a probability based on the closeness of similarity in structures that a H5N1could aquire the ability for human to human transmission?
Well lets take a close look. We have two similar environments. But in one we have new world monkeys, cougars and two toed sloths. In the other we have old world monkeys, gorillas and pythons. Why two completely different sets of animals?
Similarity does not equate to same builder.
You are assuming a maker, how is this scientific?
Now your making a hypothesis on an assumption not a scientific basis.
Next are you assuming that H5N1's goal is to spread sickness and death? That there is something driving it to improve its disease delivering capabilities?
What do you mean by animal adaptibility?
Why are some animals similar and others not?
Lets use for example a lungfish, tuna, and panfish.
What is this anyway Science doesn't stop working because one subscribes to a different Theory.
Sure it does if you allow the definition of theory to degrade to the point of, beleifs and ideas. You seem to be under the impression that theories change all the time. An idea cannot be termed a theory until it has passed numerous tests.
One mustn't stick there head in the sand and stop investigating and reasoning and expanding knowledge simply because they believe creation to be true. I don't believe that human embryos have gills, where did this come from? Guess what they won't survive underwater. Are you referring to convolutions in the cephalic end of the fetus that become the head?
The ridges in a human embryo are analagous to the gills in an amphibian. I.E. they become gills in other creatures. No they never develop into functioning gills, and no a fetus does not breathe. So take your head out of the sand and continue investigating.
But you have all the answers already with your simpler theory. Why continue the investigation?
Reason says that when checking the efficacy of treatments it would be best to test on the most similar and readily available subjects.
What? Scientific investigation, logic, and reason are supposed to be the frameworks, not the theory. IT is this absurd twistage that has allowed a once respectable theory to grow into a laughable mess that still doesn't explain hard questions that my more simple theory answers perfectly for.
You're clearly not a scientist. I am only saying that ID is not a science. Yet you insist on defending ID.