Naturally Speaking

I have a background in mathematics.  I still remember in first year math were I learned that you can disprove a theory by one example.  You cannot prove a theory by example, but you can disprove it by just one. 

I have come to the realization that when "scientists" use variations of the word nature (aka, natural, naturally), what they are way out in left field and will use "nature" to justify just about anything they want - proof by example so to speak.  Appealing to a higher order - nature - but failing to realize that nature is itself a creation. 

There is a field of study called natural science that's anything but scientific.  It's interesting how we choose our words to put a spin on an idea that is far from true.  Natural science is NOT science.  I say this because theories abound in natural science despite contrary evidence - evolution for example and the the age of the earth as billions of years are two great examples of "theories" that exist despite substantial contrary evidence.  Natural scientists know these "theories" as fact. 

I am certainly no expert and I am sure that therein lies the problem.  However, thought I'd mention just a few examples of where these "theories" fail to stand up:

• The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution.  The missing links are still missing.
• complexity of a single cell. DNA error checking and correction
  
• polystrate fossils (trees)
• human artifacts found in coal
• coal seams that contain dinosaur footprints
• distribution of meteorites are near surface, why are they not embedded in the strata
• folded rock/strata - evidence indicates no force
• The second law of thermodynamics - you cannot get order out of chaos.  That's why office building don't just happen.  The closest we get in nature is called "caves"
  
• Each species is distinct and unto itself
• Origin of matter - where did the "big bang" come from

Of course there are many many others. 

So, beware of natural, especially "natural science"