Well, the only way to see which one has the most predictive power, we'll have to do tests to see. Now, using common ancestry, I can determine that all life-forms will share some kind of similarty, as is the case with the fact we share something like 50% of our DNA with a banana. How exactly does design deal with that? I honestly don't know, as I've never heard a prediction being done based on the design hypothesis, neither has anyone bothered to tell me what the design hypothesis was in any great detail. So, what is the design hypothesis's hypothesis?
I don't think I have. The validity of a hypothesis is determined by ho well it compares to tests of hypothesis, not how much data it can explain.
Well, one cannot make science without a few base assumptions, such as the fact that the universe does in fact exist, and it's not simply some huge simulation running in our brains. The second assumption would be that the laws governing the universe can be discovered using empirical tests to determine the nature of our universe. Not a shred of evidence can validate these assumptions, because without these assumptions, evidence means absolutely nothing.
What kind of corroborating evidence are we talking about here? Because as we all know, history books can be written to have whatever we want in those pages. Not only must that historical corroborate your hypothesis, it must also be consistent with the majority of other history books concerning what really happened. In the same way, evidence must be corroborated with a lt of other evidence to make sure everything fits in the gbig picture. When things don't fit, either we were mistaken in our understanding of the big picture, or there's a mistake somewhere. ie for the fossilized soft tissue and fossilized red blood cell remains that were found in the dinosaur bones lately, that on its own would be treated in the same way that if a reference to Hitler was found in an ancient Egyptian book. It would simply not make sense. However, if using that evidence we start seeing references to Hitler everywhere in Egyptian culture, then maybe we're on to something. Similarly, if we start cracking open the bones of all the dinosaurs and find fossilized remains of soft tissue in a lot of them, then we'd be onto something. But we can't throw out the entire puzzle because one piece doesn't fit.
Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't mean looking at the big picture and deciding what the facts must be like, then to make them conform to how we predict it to be. I meant taking in the big picture as in taking all the evidence and trying to see where it's leading us. Sort of like a general observation that everything falls more or less at the same speed independently of the mass of said objects, we can sort of assume that the earth's gravitational pull has nothing to do with the mass of the object. Of course, that has been proven to be not entirely accurate, it's just that the mass of the earth is so much bigger than the mass of any simple object we can drop that the object's mass is to all intents and purposes irrelevant. However, just because that was the starting big picture, we're not then going to say 'No, planets don't attract each other proportional to the square of their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, that's not what we predicted!' we're obviously going to reconsider. Just like has been done many times with the theory of evolution, from darwinism to neo-darwinism to the modern synthesis.
Well, science tries to get the big picture, in the hopes that the big picture we get is the most accurate representation of the natural universe around us as far as we can see. The big picture 200 ish years ago was earth-centric (ptolemaic model), then it became sun-centric, now we realize we're simply on an unimportant planet orbiting an otherwise unremarkable star in one of many arms of a perfectly normal galaxy in the universe. That is how the big picture has changed over time as we take into account new evidence and new observations.
It might be useful Especially to finally understand what's the big difference between observable, historical sciences, and inductive abductive and deductive reasoning I keep hearing about.
As I said they both have the same predictive power. Common design = Similarities, Common Descent = Similarities... The problem with common descent is that the genetic tree is different to the phylogeny tree so that prediction goes against evolution.
Your response here certifies that you do not understand my point. When you have 2 probable answers to a problem that are contradictory but both have the same creditability then the problem is unfalsifiable.
The assumptions we make in science are ONLY done for the hypothesis, anything else and it is no longer scientific... Assuming common descent for the above problem is one such example.
All the evidence of evolution is either an ad hoc claim or an extrapolation... Such things are not actual evidence, hence what I was saying.
In terms of the dino bones... We find soft tissue in dino bones... We run simulations on protein and DNA degradation and find that they CANNOT last longer than about 10,000.... (with the sized fragments of DNA that were found)... So the most logical answer is that the dates given to these fossils is wrong, there can be no other explanation. (Especially since decay rates etc have already been extensively studied).... This effectively cuts the amount of time evolution has to work with, (and vindicates the Biblical amount of time). Yet the evolutionist will sweep these problems away, hence they are not scientific.
But that is what you said. You start with the "big picture" and then go from there. The scientific method demands we start with observations of reality.... Since "the big picture" is just a person's own assumption on what reality is... Never base data on an assumption.
Please research the scientific method if you do not believe me, science always starts with an observation, not what we think we should observe.
ANd you've shown how adhering to "the big picture" means that we are liable to be false, since it has continually changed... Hence sticking to reality, rather than an assumption of reality is the best course of action.