It's merely your opinion that the theory of evolution is not a fact. And your opinion differs from the majority of scientists. Therefore, you're definition of what a scientific fact is, is incorrect -- otherwise your position would be the same as the majority of the scientific community.
Let us now hear from the Creationists
- Thread starter Thunderdog
- Start date
It's merely your opinion that the theory of evolution is not a fact. And your opinion differs from the majority of scientists. Therefore, you're definition of what a scientific fact is, is incorrect -- otherwise your position would be the same as the majority of the scientific community.
it is most likely impossible to "factually" prove creationism by using the scientific method.
hank
Quote from G'N'R:
I like you, Kent.
I like the way you think.
Ironically, I would love to see the scientific proofs of intelligent design. Doubter's post at the beginning of the thread makes me think, because its author has posed some nasty questions that I need to consider.
This other stuff, from Z and nickelscalper is all just unsupported conclusion. If I were to submit a legal brief in that manner, I'd be subject to disciplinary action from the State Bar.
nah, its not aggregious enough for sanctions.
Quote from G'N'R:
how many times do you think you will have to repeat yourself, kent, before he gets it? lmao
I'm not repeating it for him. I'm repeating it for everyone else. I already know that Z will never get it. It is his pathology to be right at all costs, because his self esteem cannot suffer to be wrong.
Whereas someone like myself, actually enjoys being wrong, because I get to learn something new.
Z already knows everything, so there's nothing to learn.
I'd like to see a list of how intelligent design may be disproved. Same for evolution.
The hallmark of a scientific theory is that the theory may be disproved by observation or experiment. We all accept gravity as a fact but there have been many attempts to develop a theory that explains how it works.
Newton had a theory but it did not explain all the observations, notably the orbit of Mercury. Einstein proposed a new theory for gravity. His theory of gravity predicts gravity bends light. This has been observed. Had it not and assuming the experiment was done correctly, then his theory would have been discarded.
This observation does not "prove" the theory; rather it fails to disprove it and therefore, enhances its standing. No scientific theory can be fully proven. Proofs are for Euclidian geometry and the like. Scientific theories can only gain support.
The hallmark of a scientific theory is that the theory may be disproved by observation or experiment. We all accept gravity as a fact but there have been many attempts to develop a theory that explains how it works.
Newton had a theory but it did not explain all the observations, notably the orbit of Mercury. Einstein proposed a new theory for gravity. His theory of gravity predicts gravity bends light. This has been observed. Had it not and assuming the experiment was done correctly, then his theory would have been discarded.
This observation does not "prove" the theory; rather it fails to disprove it and therefore, enhances its standing. No scientific theory can be fully proven. Proofs are for Euclidian geometry and the like. Scientific theories can only gain support.
No, it can be verified that the theory of evolution is not a fact at the present time.
We have standards and scientific criteria by which we could determine the theory of evolution of the species as either fact, or non fact.
Status of fact, if obtained, would have raised the theory of evolution of the speices beyond theory to fact.
That simply has not happened.
The majority of the scientific community has not elevated the theory of evolution to the fact of evolution, or we would have all the new textbooks lacking the terminology of "theory of evolution" apart from an historical review when describing the origin of species.
We would have them saying and writing in textbooks "Fact of origin of species" not Theory of orgin of species.
Too easy, much too easy.
We have standards and scientific criteria by which we could determine the theory of evolution of the species as either fact, or non fact.
Status of fact, if obtained, would have raised the theory of evolution of the speices beyond theory to fact.
That simply has not happened.
The majority of the scientific community has not elevated the theory of evolution to the fact of evolution, or we would have all the new textbooks lacking the terminology of "theory of evolution" apart from an historical review when describing the origin of species.
We would have them saying and writing in textbooks "Fact of origin of species" not Theory of orgin of species.
Too easy, much too easy.