Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/14/14 at 2:09 pm to Kentucker
Posted on 4/14/14 at 2:09 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The onus is upon theists to do the research necessary to show that a deity should be included in science. Since no scientific theory excludes new input, any research would be subjected to peer reviews that would determine if the research results could be duplicated.
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus ‘outside of empirical science but not necessarily false’. No one can think of ways in which to test it.”
2
Posted on 4/14/14 at 2:20 pm to mattloc
quote:
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations.
True. It's a sound theory.
quote:
Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus ‘outside of empirical science but not necessarily false’.
Evolution is certainly not "outside of empirical science."
quote:
No one can think of ways in which to test it.”
Biology students test it routinely in educational labs. I did myself in an undergraduate class. It was fun seeing bacteria evolve before my eyes.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 2:51 pm to mattloc
quote:
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus ‘outside of empirical science but not necessarily false’. No one can think of ways in which to test it.”
Not true. There is no observable evolutionary process which produced both plant and animal life, each becoming tremendously complex over time, by random, meaningless and undirected events. That doesn't exist.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News