Which is a completely different matter entirely when it comes to origins, or how drugs work let alone if they work better than others.But I can see how you're so desperate to simplify such complex problems in science.
You're still describing how science is SUPPOSED to work.
You're also stuck in the rut of stagnation. The data supported a round earth over time. It was accepted and therefore objective science at one time, and for a LONG time that it was flat. And your position today would remarkably resemble arguing the earth is flat: "the debate is closed, you're nothing but a junk scientist, that's not science", blah blah blah, all while demanding others believe your dogma of a flat earth.
The classification of Pluto is a matter of opinion, but not about Pluto itself.
Bingo...meanwhile science textbooks are no longer referring to Pluto as a planet. Opinions DO mean something after all, when it comes to what is accepted "objective" science as it is taught.
The exact same is applicable to manmade global warming. IN FACT what passes as objective science in science classrooms all across the country isn't objective science at all, just as the cult of evolution is presented more as fact than theory.Nothing is allowed to compete, because the debate is closed.
Astronomers merely selected a few criteria that they apply uniformly to define what a planet is. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
You should qualify your statement because not ALL astronomers agree, which of course means it has EVERYTHING to do with our discussion at hand.
Pseudo-scientists following grant money and pursuing junk science, much as ID types follow their religious principles while abandoning reason, are also not related to science.
The evolution cult followers need to understand no one gave them the keys to define what is or isn't objective science, no one appointed them but themselves. And it is they who are forcing their ideology and religious beliefs on the public. If anything, the junk scientists are the ones who pretend they and they alone are the only people capable of "doing science" (algore and evolutionists who exclaim "the debate is over, my defininition is as good as God's", blah blah blah...) while their fellow NEA godless liberal cultists sue dissenters into silence, enforcing their cultish science through courts and not the labs, let alone so-called peer review, etc.
Sorry, but not at all. Science is the pursuit of provable fact. Consensus has nothing to do with it. I can see, however, why you think that ID is anything but garbage. Your concept and understanding of science is deeply flawed.
In practice it's precisely how it works, and I live in the real world as a hospice nurse and see how all kinds of things other than the actual objective science influences the science of medicine on a daily basis; and it's simply preposterous to believe godless liberals don't infect science as they have journalsim, art, history, politics, law, and virtually any and everything else they touch. And the only people incapable of seeing this fact are the kool-aid drinking liberals themselves.
There simply is no serious peer review of evolution because normal people without myriad insecurities and God-hang-ups understand each and every threat is met with "that's a religious attack on science" rather it is or not! (As well as "Inquisition, theocracy, burning at the stake", as well as your ineffective drivel.)
Again you are conflating disparate things. There certainly is an end when something is proven - like Evolution.
So why isn't it called Evolution FACT already? It appears the debate isn't over after all, no matter how desperate you and the algoreacle are ready to claim victory, it just isn't the case, not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.
You just made my point for me, game, set, match.
You need to brush up on the caltech definitions as used in science. Nothing in science is proved, only disproved.
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/LiU/resource/misused_glossary.html
Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source.
"Proof", like "truth" is a word best avoided in science.
This fella continues to insult and malign those he’s arguing with with comments such as the following
[[Application of the nonsense that IDers use will do nothing but perpetuate their mental masturbation and define their inability to grasp basic precepts of science, logic and reason.]]