Science
Out of context: Reply #512
- Started
- Last post
- 1,010 Responses
- Morning_star0
Regarding: Theory and fact
The article in the previous post is an argument that shouldn't be necessary to make. Having to rationalise scientific methods as though there is some validity to the creationist argument is crazy. Creationists will not, even when face with scientific evidence, change their minds. For example >
However, the authority that scientific theory can have over Creationists, for instance, is not universal. There are arguably no 'facts' that can be woven into a theory when talking about Dark Matter/Energy or Gravity or Consciousness, to name just a few. In these situations, sciences best guesses are just that, guesses or predictions. That doesn't mean they have no scientific value but until the LHC or other experiments create the necessary particles there are no facts, even after the experiments the results are probabilities not facts.
- no facts? you've got to be fucking kidding me, there are entire fields dedicated to those areasmonospaced
- neurobiologists, neurosurgeons, astrophysicists, etcmonospaced
- Shes right that macro evolution is not an observed or proven, inter species evolution is not proven. micro evolution within species is more establishedyurimon
- However I forgot the term but there is dna contamination from other species. for example 90% of you is bacteria other organisms. dogs have human dna.yurimon
- dawkins could not get laid.yurimon
- Morning star talks sense.set
- @mono - could you show me one, that's ONE, measurable, repeatable, testable 'fact' (see definition in previous post) about the Dark Matter.Morning_star
- @yurimon - you're right that she does use some of the more wooly areas of evolutionary theory to undermine it. However, her arguments do not by any stretch ofMorning_star
- ...imagination, rock ts solid foundations.Morning_star