+Rolo Beorn
Let me reply to this since I'm still in the mood of providing better couter-arguments to your nonsenses.
Evolution is a nice example.
Evolution is an observable fact.
The theory of evolution is the study of that observable fact and it contains the explanation.
NASA released a paper about Assumptions, Models, and the Scientific Method and after it gave a good objective explanation of what a theory is, it said:
This does not mean that the theory is wrong, it just means that the theory has limited applicability. (1)
Yes! I agree with you that science OBSERVES many things but science does not EXPLAIN everything it observes. I am sure that you are talking about Darwin's Evolution Theory By Natural Selection (DETBNS). Well, I have good news for you ... it's just a theory ... and lest you start getting in on my face on what a Scientific Theory really is... read reference (1) again and be assured that I know. Listen to what Darwin said:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
And hey! Guess what!? The Cambrian Explosion stands as one of the major threats to your beloved DETBNS as there are no better counter-arguments to support your beloved Darwin. In 1859, even Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection. (2) This is why another theory is questioning the tyranny of methodological naturalism and using a much more forensic scince approach to posit "design in evolution" - this theory is called Evolution Theory by Intelligent Design (ETBID) which seems to me to accurate description of the stupidity of DETBNS (3). In fact, credible, logically thought-out and peer-reviewed scientific papers have been produced by ETBID proponents and you can check them out as you feel like in (4)
(not to be confused with evolution theory by intellignet "designer" because that is not what they are arguing for. One does not necessarily connote the other - one is a subject (designer), the other is an object (design))
God bless you
REFERENCES
(1) http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate/scimodule/Cosmogony/CosmogonyPDF/AppendixB.pdf
(2) Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. London: Murray. pp. 306–308. ISBN 1-60206-144-0. OCLC 176630493.
(3) http://www.masters.edu/media/414779/world-proof%20origins%201.29.13.pdf
(4) http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/
Let me reply to this since I'm still in the mood of providing better couter-arguments to your nonsenses.
Evolution is a nice example.
Evolution is an observable fact.
The theory of evolution is the study of that observable fact and it contains the explanation.
NASA released a paper about Assumptions, Models, and the Scientific Method and after it gave a good objective explanation of what a theory is, it said:
This does not mean that the theory is wrong, it just means that the theory has limited applicability. (1)
Yes! I agree with you that science OBSERVES many things but science does not EXPLAIN everything it observes. I am sure that you are talking about Darwin's Evolution Theory By Natural Selection (DETBNS). Well, I have good news for you ... it's just a theory ... and lest you start getting in on my face on what a Scientific Theory really is... read reference (1) again and be assured that I know. Listen to what Darwin said:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
And hey! Guess what!? The Cambrian Explosion stands as one of the major threats to your beloved DETBNS as there are no better counter-arguments to support your beloved Darwin. In 1859, even Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection. (2) This is why another theory is questioning the tyranny of methodological naturalism and using a much more forensic scince approach to posit "design in evolution" - this theory is called Evolution Theory by Intelligent Design (ETBID) which seems to me to accurate description of the stupidity of DETBNS (3). In fact, credible, logically thought-out and peer-reviewed scientific papers have been produced by ETBID proponents and you can check them out as you feel like in (4)
(not to be confused with evolution theory by intellignet "designer" because that is not what they are arguing for. One does not necessarily connote the other - one is a subject (designer), the other is an object (design))
God bless you
REFERENCES
(1) http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate/scimodule/Cosmogony/CosmogonyPDF/AppendixB.pdf
(2) Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. London: Murray. pp. 306–308. ISBN 1-60206-144-0. OCLC 176630493.
(3) http://www.masters.edu/media/414779/world-proof%20origins%201.29.13.pdf
(4) http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/
No comments:
Post a Comment