There is a saying amongst scientists that goes something like, "if it isn't published then it doesn't exist". You may not share their opinion, but that is certainly the attitude within the scientific community.
What about a spaceship that is speeding away from the Sun at 0.5 c. How fast do you think the light from the Sun is travelling relative to the spaceship? Will people on the spaceship see light going by at 0.5 c, or at 1.0 c?
NOTE: I see that @Polymath257 already explained a similar experiment and I didn't see it until after I posted mine. My post is a bit of a repeat, but hopefully they will both help you understand the concept.
If you are standing still 10 feet away from the pen you are both in the same...
Could you give an example?
Statistics itself is a hypothesis driven methodology, so I fail to see how the application of statistics is not science. I also don't see how using technology to run experiments is not science, nor do I see how using advanced mathematics to make predictions about...
Scientists usually describe the collection of observations as "stamp collecting". It is extremely rare for a peer reviewed paper to not contain hypotheses. Nearly all peer reviewed papers discuss what the results could mean, and they do that through testable hypotheses.
The Sun is one big ongoing nuclear explosion, yet it stays together. The Sun is also still producing complex new elements. What you are saying is impossible is happening right in our own solar system through well understood and natural processes.
Where is the analogous situation in biology?
Also, you are forgetting about selection. Let's say I draw 5 random cards. I then draw one random card at a time, and if that card improves my hand I keep it and discard one card. I keep repeating the process. What happens? I end up with a four...
Then tell me what features a fossil would need to have in order for you to accept it as evidence for humans and chimps evolving from a shared ancestor. Or will you not accept any fossil as evidence, no matter what it looks like?
What about genetic evidence for humans and chimps evolving from a...
There is no evidence that you would ever accept for evolution because you won't allow yourself to reach that conclusion.
Does a jury have to see a reanimated corpse be killed by a defendant before they can accept forensic evidence? Are you really saying that directly witnessing a crime is the...
There has never been a steel high rise structure that was impacted by a 737 and doused in jet fuel.
1. Ask any blacksmith if they have to melt steel in order to bend it. Guess what? They don't.
2. The impact of the jet stripped the fireproofing off of the steel superstructure.
3. It...
These are repeatedly observable, testable, and demonstrable:
DNA isn't an interesting novel, so I don't see how that applies. Here is a protein sequence (cytochrome c), and it looks a lot like something a chimp would type:
MGDVEKGKKI FIMKCSQCHT VEKGGKHKTG PNLHGLFGRK TGQAPGYSYT
AANKNKGIIW...
I am having difficulty in applying it to biology in any meaningful way.
Whales and cows are the same type of animal. They are both mammals. See the problem?
This looks like a good website to start at:
Relativity | Physics For Idiots
Note: I don't think you are an idiot, so don't take the title of the website personally ;)
That would require you to define what you mean by evidence. We have plenty of evidence for species sharing a common ancestor, but it doesn't seem that you will accept that evidence.
I would absolutely agree. Atheists have belief systems, but atheism isn't one of them. A lot of atheists carry with them the belief system that reality is objectively real and can be reliably observed. Atheists also tend to believe in things like loving their family, loving their spouse...