Subject:
|
Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:51:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1481 times
|
| |
|
|
Tim Culberson wrote:
<snipped>
> I can also state with the same implications that "Evolution" (in terms of the
> origins of earth and all living things) is also NOT science, but rather a theory.
??? I sure hope your mistaken about the relationship between science and theory. You see, I teach two intro science labs today where I plan to
discuss the scientific method, including how hypothesis testing leads to the formation of a theory. I don't have time to redo my lesson plans... :)
from www.m-w.com
theory- a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of
principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
> > Quote
>
> Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that
> are testable, observable, and demonstrable and
> evolution has
> none of those qualities. To call evolution "science"
> Is to confuse
> fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed
> with science
> for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that
> it is the same as
> science. Beer is often advertised during sporting
> events but the two
> subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has
> no more to
> do with science than beer has to do with sports."
>
> > /Unquote (FROM http://www.drdino.com/Articles/Article6.jsp)
Evolution is testable. I'm currently designing a project that tests a small facet of evolutionary processes for my thesis right now. I can explain
it if you would like.
Could you possibly explain why dr. dino does not believe evolution is testable?
-Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
78 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
