Religion is when some human tells other humans what to do whether they believe or not. Scientists have almost totally sold out to that concept.
Science is not self supporting, so the first concern of a scientist has to be to avoid discovering anything that embarrasses his patron. Success is measured by approval of other scientists, which assures continued support, use of exotic equipment, and professional contacts, so a scientist must also avoid discovering anything that his peers disagree with. The only reason science ever advances at all is that old scientists die and are replaced by young scientists with different patrons and different peers.
The alleged scientific method: 1. Observe something. 2. Formulate a hypothesis. 3. Devise a test. 4. If the test fails, go to #2. 5. If the test passes and is confirmed, the hypothesis might be promoted to a theory and used to prove other hypotheses. And it might not.
The actual scientific method: 1. Formulate a theory. 2. Make a computer simulation. 3. Compare the simulation to observed data. 4. If they don't agree, find some way to adjust the data. If you can't adjust the data, ignore it. 5. Be sure your fellow scientists will agree with your findings, then publish.
Of course you have evidence that your 'actual scientific method' is in fact true? As I see it even your 'alleged scientific method' is incorrect as many things in science were/are not initially observable but come about through predictions based on other findings.
That is called circular reasoning. The best known example was the Earth-centered solar system. The proofs found were quite solid, as long as you first assumed that it was a fact.
Dark matter was invented in 1938 by Ian Oort to fudge his data to agree with his theories. By now so many people have heard about it they assume it must be a fact, so instead of looking for tests, they look for more cases that need the data to be fudged, and they call that "proof" of dark matter.
Go talk to any biologist and ask what proofs have been found to support evolution. The best you can hope for is that he/she only insults you. Go to any astronomer and ask why if the sun is powered by fusion the outside is hotter than the inside. Astronomers tend to have better manners than biologists, but you still will not get a scientific answer.
You think otherwise? Here is a forum provided for people to discuss astronomy pictures published by NASA. Notice rule 15: discussion of alternative theories, the definition of science, is specifically forbidden. https://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26696
That may be what you call circular reasoning but till you demonstrate why it is circular reasoning then it remains valid. 'The best known example was the Earth-centered solar system' A very fair point, it is straight out of the bible and it seems to be very reasonable as we clearly see what appears to be the sun 'crossing the heavens' each day so job over, god did it......all good and well till along came Nicoluas Copernicus not the first astronomer to propose the heliocentric theory. The heliocentric theory was first proposed by the Greek astronomer and mathematician Aristarc…hus of Samos, in the 3rd century, BCE. The first predictive heliocentric mathematical model of the motion of the planets was developed by Nicholas Copernicus. The church in its hurry to embrace science actually was still burning alive people who agreed with Aristarc right up to 1600 when it toasted Giordano Bruno that is 1900 years after the idea was first proposed and it took a mathematician/scientist to actually formulate a working model of the theory. So as you can see the heliocentric theory was around even before the 'ink was dry' (relatively speaking) on the old testament.
'Go talk to any biologist and ask what proofs have been found to support evolution'. Any biologist who does not believe evolution to be true is more than welcome to write a scientific paper on the reasons against it, have it peer reviewed and book his/her flight to pick up his/her Nobel Prize. The only snag being that they need proof and just like biblical apologists they don't have any!!!!!
You reallyare diving deep looking for something to back up your ludicrous claim when you mention that site, a site that states 'A person who posts on the Asterisk* board is immediately considered to be a (virtual) asternaut, as opposed to an astronaut. Asternaut is not misspelled -- it is the diminutive of the word astronaut. Although only a few are selected to become astronauts, anyone with a web browser can become an asternaut. After 10 posts, an asternaut is elevated to become (also) an Ensign, and after 100 posts, a Science Officer. At 500 posts, an asternaut is judged to be legally insane, and is therefore allowed to choose their own rank (within reason)'. All very scientific I am sure given that it also states 'Please note that this is not a NASA site and that anything said here by anyone does not imply a statement by NASA or an endorsement from NASA' Now your rule 15 in its entirety states 'Alternative Theories and Conspiracy Theories This board concentrates on the mainstream or consensus view of cosmology. Alternative theories and conspiracy theories are not discussed here. We may decide to allow limited discussion of these at some later date. For now, however, we ask that you take these discussions to other boards that allow such discussions, such as CosmoQuestX Forum: The Proving Grounds. What is your problem with that, it even tells you where you can discuss alternative theories? Actually if you think that is bad then look at this paragraph that all who join Answers in Genesis must sign,until recently it read 'including science, history and chronology' but even they saw that they were pissing against the wind with that one, so took science out but left it covered by 'evidence in any field' but this is not unusual for woo science who are willing to lie and twist anything to fit in with their ancient book of myth and fairy tales. 'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information'.
EDIT. I forgot to mention your problem with dark matter, you say that instead of tests they look for other data that need fudging (or words to that effect. Now as it cost about $9,000,000,000 build the hadron collider in order to do the tests that you claim are not being done and certainly could not have been done in 1938 it makes a lot of sense to look for other things that can be tested at the same facility. So I am at a loss as to why you say tests are not done???????
This post was edited by myonemaster at October 31, 2017 7:45 AM MDT
Not Sure 