You just gave an hypothesis (unproven at that) that god gave us science and medicine.
Not exact matches
As opposed to evolution that
gives guesses and
hypothesis, the 1st chapter of Genesis lays out how the earth was prepared for human habitation, in a logical, coherent and chronological way,
just as when a builder lays the foundation for a home and proceeds to build it in an orderly fashion.
Just give us a little synopsis on the peer reviewed proof you have of your god
hypothesis.
But
just because I don't know how the universe began, doesn't
give any other
hypothesis any more value.
If the predicted cooling by la Nina had not occurred then 2008 would probably have been the same temperature (
given the uncertainties) as every year since 2001 and that in itself would require explanation.I am broadly in favour of the global warmingCO2
hypothesis but I know it is
just that, a
hypothesis — and that needs testing against real observations in the physical world.
How about — «Until Climate «science» gets clear about its
hypotheses, and is prepared to find their null, rather than torturing the data until it
gives in and allows them as positive finding, all this climate alarmism is
just hot air.»
And while we are on the subject, can you
give us one,
just one, piece of empirical evidence to support the anthropogenic global warming
hypothesis.
An important acoustic study,
just published, concludes that «enough evidence and
hypotheses have been
given herein to classify LFN [low - frequency noise] and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the [wind] industry» (4).
This article deserves a much closer look that I can
give it right now but I'll
just mention
Hypothesis D which I believe has been missed.