Thursday 21 March 2024

Historical Science Is Not True Science

 Because the facts contradict a big-bang they are now considering arguing there isn't any dark matter and that the universe is twice as old.

But had you argued against those things before they found the contradicting evidence, you would have been deemed to be a science-denying crackpot. But if they now are not facts, then how can there have been science to things they now argue are false?

I also hear other things such as human speech is now being argued to be much older, such as a million years or whatever.

It used to be that whale ancestors were mesonychid ungulates, but now they argue it to be artiodactyls. They used to argue a reducing atmosphere for earth but now they find oxygen too early for that.

The standard response by naturalists, when we point out these weaknesses in historical, "science" is to say, "well that's how science works, we adapt when we are wrong."


Is it really how science works, or is it how faith and belief works? Because if you are going to believe a natural story no matter how many times you have to bend your theory, and no matter how plastic that theory is, then isn't that just to TOY with facts to fit your beliefs?

What about REAL scientific strength? For example can you remember any examples of a viable plane wing not producing lift? Can you remember downforce only existing for SOME formula one racing cars? Can you find any examples of rats that don't lose consciousness under a sealed dome? Can you find any fire that wasn't caused by energy and a spark/oxygen but instead was caused by something totally foreign?

In other words, can you remember anything from operational science (true science that can experiment in the here and now)that was considered to be wrong and needed a rethink? For example have they changed their minds about how a motor spins using magnetic force and electricity? What about phones, do they now believe phones or modems might not work? Were they wrong about the diode because now only 4% of them work?

CONCLUSION; Isn't it just plain obvious that when it comes to ORIGINS (big bang, evolution of cosmos, abiogenesis and evolution) that all they really have is a philosophy they tweak every few years because there is no real science to any of it? I think the obvious answer is "yes".

Why is it not really science, and therefore is not giving strong answers that fit and never change like with operational science? Because you can't test the past. You can't test if you really can get a bat from slowly evolving a quadruped that doesn't have any wings. Not only have they never found such inbetweens they don't even know of a viable middle stage for such things. There is simply no way to scientifically test IDEAS people believe by faith. (believing a bat evolved)

No comments:

Post a Comment