Since science does not require proof, the evidence itself is more than questionable. It is like a jigsaw puzzle. Scientists trying to fit in the pieces but they can't. The frame just isn't there. Until you can show me evidence of a frame and evidence where the pieces fit exactly, it just isn't more than guesswork. As you say, no proof. Doesn't matter whether science requires proof or not. The real evidence just... isn't...there.
You don’t even know what these words are, YoursTrue.
Just by reading the your post, I can see that you are not qualified as a scientist.
Creationists are like at preschool level, lacking the maturity to learn from one’s mistakes, no matter how many times one were corrected.
Until you understand what each words mean, in their proper contexts.
The last part -
“in their proper contexts” - is very vital, because a word can have multiple meanings or definitions, for different spheres or settings, so a word can have different usages, like say,
- law court setting vs science setting,
- finance setting vs plumbing setting
- mathematics vs science
- science vs engineering
- physics vs chemistry
- physics vs biology
- astronomy vs biology
- and so on.
What I am getting at, is that when you use certain word in their respective & correct setting, it will allow two or more people to understand each other.
For example, when you hear the word “period”, for the majority of settings, period relates to time or cycle of time, but among group within chemistry setting, period can mean groups of atoms in the periodic table and so the word
period has nothing to do with “time”.
Likewise, when anyone used the word “metal”. For majority of people it is any metallic substance that are pure or alloyed (mixing two or more different types of metals). It means the same thing in astronomy, except when you are talking about the chemical or elementary composition of any star. In stellar chemical composition,
metal or
metallicity means any elements heavier than helium, so lithium, oxygen, nitrogen & carbon having more mass than helium (thus more protons & more neutrons), are each considered “metal” in a star’s “metallicity”.
Another example,
theory is a word that mean - assumptions, conjecture or speculations - for anyone with non-scientific background.
BUT in any field or subfields of Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences, a “
theory” or more precisely a “
scientific theory” is a former falsifiable “hypothesis”, which would include sets of detailed “models”, and each models that have been successfully and thoroughly “tested”. These “tests” are observations of the phenomena, which can be referred to as evidence, experiments and data.
A scientific theory and hypothesis is similar in many ways. However, a scientific theory are explanations that have been tested and accepted by scientific community, and therefore are considered factual knowledge.
While a hypothesis is proposed explanations that either awaiting to be tested or currently undergoing testing (this would be working hypothesis ). So a hypothesis haven’t yet been accepted as being true or false, therefore have been verified one way or the other.
The differences between hypothesis & scientific theory, is that a hypothesis only need to be falsifiable, while a scientific theory MUST PASS ALL 3 CRITERIA or requirements:
- Falsifiability
- Scientific Method (especially the testing (& analysis) step, so a hypothesis must be tested before considerations of being to “scientific theory” status)
- Peer Review
Evidence are essential to all 3 requirements. You cannot accept any hypothesis as true or as science, until there are sufficient evidence & data to support the hypothesis. No explanations and no predictions in any hypothesis or any theory are ever accepted as true by-default, without testing or without evidence.
Now, this is where you, and just about every creationists don’t understand, and seemed incapable of learning: the differences between proof and evidence.
Proof is a logical model or logical statement, which are often expressed mathematically, like formula or like mathematical equations, which contained variable(s), constant(s) and number(s).
Proofs or equations are usually included in the explanations or predictions, or both, as part of the explanation or prediction.
And like the explanations or predictions within a hypothesis or within a theory, no proofs or equations are ever accepted as true by-default. Equations or proofs MUST BE TESTED TOO.
Proof, like the explanations and predictions, can be wrong, YoursTrue. And to determine if the proofs or equations are true or false, you would have to test them with evidence or with experiments.
No proofs are true in science, unless it is supported by sufficient evidence.
Proofs, such as equations, are manmade “logic” that can be wrong, false or incorrect, so it cannot determine which hypothesis or hypothesis is true. That because proofs are abstract.
Evidence, on the other hand, is physical, not abstract. Evidence are the observations of the physical phenomena.
It is the phenomena that we are trying to learn and understand, YoursTrue.
As I said to you here, and in past threads, proof and evidence are not used interchangeably in sciences and in mathematics. They are the same.
Yes, people do used both words as if they were synonymous, like in law enforcement and in law courts or court procedures. But they are not treated the same among scientists and mathematicians. Police, lawyers and judges are not scientists, nor mathematicians.
So the words evidence & proof have different contexts in law setting and in science & mathematics settings.
And since this thread is aimed Evolution, then it is better to use the proper context of the word in science setting.
