Re: A blanket reply
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why must theories be 'testable' (whatever that truly means) to be science? I guess b/c posters like this one are told that science is so simply b/c it's testable. whatever. most are not bright, but fancy themselves so. maybe that will be my new signature statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is actually defined AND confined to the testable. The scientific process is to propose a theory that can be tested, and then come up with ways to test it, and then test it (and broadcast this information so others can test it themselves and confirm or refute your theory).

This isn't going in, is it.

Re: A blanket reply
 

[ QUOTE ]

This isn't going in, is it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no it isn't.

Why do we even bother trying? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: A blanket reply
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This isn't going in, is it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no it isn't.

Why do we even bother trying? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

At first I was peeved I missed this discussion. Then I read it and am glad I did.
I'm constantly entertained by people saying "I've looked at the data and am not convinced." etc when they actually have no idea what they're looking for (or at in many cases and why in many others).

Re: Questions for Evolutionists
 

The star-nosed mole has a complex sensory organ (the...um...star on it's nose) that was just used in a creation magazine as an example of the "too complex to have evolved" idea creationists like to use (they usually use the primate eye). However, there's terrific evidence of transition from a normal snout, to a snout having the mechanoreceptors at various levels of complexity, to a protostar (in the coast mole), to the full blown star. If you look at the phylogeny this sequence fits in perfectly with the order of divergence.

Re: A blanket reply
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This isn't going in, is it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no it isn't.

Why do we even bother trying? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution vs. Creationism is the ONLINE POKER IS RIGGED!!!! of this forum.

Re: A blanket reply
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This isn't going in, is it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no it isn't.

Why do we even bother trying? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so you guys know, I said that without even reading the rest of the thread, just the last message to which I was responding.

I just know the type [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: A blanket reply
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This isn't going in, is it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no it isn't.

Why do we even bother trying? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution vs. Creationism is the ONLINE POKER IS RIGGED!!!! of this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, except both sides think the other is the one claiming it's rigged [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: A blanket reply
 

[ QUOTE ]
It should be obvious that an idea's testability says nothing about its correctness. Some testable ideas are correct; some are incorrect. Saying that evolution is "a theory, not a fact" is like saying that King Kong Bundy is "bald, not fat." It is possible to be both.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFLMAO in a public library over King Kong Bundy

Re: A blanket reply
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why must theories be 'testable' (whatever that truly means) to be science?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because science uses the scientific method, which includes experimental testing.

Re: A blanket reply
 

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the evidence that establishes with clear and convincing evidence that [censored] sapiens and chimpanzees share a common ancestor?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's some. And here's some more.