Do we use the scientific method?
An estimated commentator, after expressing his belief that we do not use reason or the scientific method, lectures us about him, in his words, this method goes like this: Facts - Scenarios - Test the hypothesis - Testing - Theories - Testing of theories according to facts.
I also worked well in what regards the history of living things, eg
is an indisputable fact that if I plant a walnut, is born a walnut tree, walnut tree that also produces a fruit that are nuts, which In turn, if they are planted, they grow like a walnut.
I raise my hypothesis: "This has been happening walnut trees there. " Review
paleobotanical record and see that I can find fossils of leaves and fruits of walnut back to the Cretaceous, which according to the accounts that paleontologists generally accepted, are about 100 million years. This at first seems a proof of my hypothesis.
If I keep looking for more evidence to back in time, I find that the remains of the walnut found only in continental sediments, usually paleosol and fluvial sediments, and is that hardly any of paleosols and fluvial sediments above the Cretaceous that have been metamorphosed, Tectonic or buried, so if you have been walnut before or not, I can not test-
The only rich sediments that record the oldest plant, are always sediments of the Carboniferous period, but correspond to sedimentary environments of peat bogs, marshes and swamps, in which live no nut, so no I can go back further back in time.
So the theory is that the walnuts are a kind stable over time,
How I can test this theory?, Looking for a walnut tree, planting a walnut and seeing how far I can find adequate sediment containing fossils of walnut There are fossils of walnut.
I am aware that there are people who argue that the walnuts have arisen through evolution of ferns from the Carboniferous, but since there is no evidence of this, because I prefer to stay with what I can see, and what is more logical and is a species that takes 100,000,000 years without evolving there, not done ever.
not understand how we can call to reason and unscientific, unless there are other hidden agendas.
I also worked well in what regards the history of living things, eg
is an indisputable fact that if I plant a walnut, is born a walnut tree, walnut tree that also produces a fruit that are nuts, which In turn, if they are planted, they grow like a walnut.
I raise my hypothesis: "This has been happening walnut trees there. " Review
paleobotanical record and see that I can find fossils of leaves and fruits of walnut back to the Cretaceous, which according to the accounts that paleontologists generally accepted, are about 100 million years. This at first seems a proof of my hypothesis.
If I keep looking for more evidence to back in time, I find that the remains of the walnut found only in continental sediments, usually paleosol and fluvial sediments, and is that hardly any of paleosols and fluvial sediments above the Cretaceous that have been metamorphosed, Tectonic or buried, so if you have been walnut before or not, I can not test-
The only rich sediments that record the oldest plant, are always sediments of the Carboniferous period, but correspond to sedimentary environments of peat bogs, marshes and swamps, in which live no nut, so no I can go back further back in time.
So the theory is that the walnuts are a kind stable over time,
How I can test this theory?, Looking for a walnut tree, planting a walnut and seeing how far I can find adequate sediment containing fossils of walnut There are fossils of walnut.
I am aware that there are people who argue that the walnuts have arisen through evolution of ferns from the Carboniferous, but since there is no evidence of this, because I prefer to stay with what I can see, and what is more logical and is a species that takes 100,000,000 years without evolving there, not done ever.
not understand how we can call to reason and unscientific, unless there are other hidden agendas.
Semogil February 7, 2011
0 comments:
Post a Comment