4 online now:	Omnivorous, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric
Newest Member:	popoi
Post Volume:	Total: 916,388 Year: 3,645/9,624 Month: 516/974 Week: 129/276 Day: 3/23 Hour: 1/0

EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Is It Science? ⇒

Is Evolution Science?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Is Evolution Science?

crashfrog

Member (Idle past 1487 days)

Posts: 19762

From: Silver Spring, MD

Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 7 of 55 (49849)
08-11-2003 2:11 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by joshua221
08-10-2003 8:26 PM

It names Evolution instead of an unproven theory

You can't have an unproven theory. (I use "proven" in the scientific sense of "established to be tentatively accurate via significant evidence.")

If you don't understand why a theory can't be unproven then I suggest you bone up on scientific terminology.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1 by joshua221, posted 08-10-2003 8:26 PM		joshua221 has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 14 by Percy, posted 08-11-2003 10:02 AM		crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog

Member (Idle past 1487 days)

Posts: 19762

From: Silver Spring, MD

Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 8 of 55 (49850)
08-11-2003 2:13 AM

Reply to: Message 3 by joshua221
08-10-2003 10:00 PM

Re: Turned to a debate...

Science is OBSERVABLE. Evolution isn't!

Sure it is. Rrhain has an experiment you can do in your own biology lab (I love when he says that) where bacteria evolve resistance to disease, and then the disease evolves new ways to atack the bacteria. You can watch it happen and observe evolution.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 3 by joshua221, posted 08-10-2003 10:00 PM		joshua221 has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 11 by Rrhain, posted 08-11-2003 5:30 AM		crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog

Member (Idle past 1487 days)

Posts: 19762

From: Silver Spring, MD

Joined: 03-20-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 50 of 55 (51191)
08-19-2003 6:21 PM

Reply to: Message 49 by :æ:
08-19-2003 5:44 PM

BTW, Descarte's famous statement is also fallacious -- it begs the question by assuming its conclusion (I am) in the premise (I think).

Is it fallacious? Isn't it just a tautology? You've correctly pointed out it's the same as "I am therefore I am", but is that truly fallacious?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 49 by :æ:, posted 08-19-2003 5:44 PM		:æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 51 by :æ:, posted 08-19-2003 6:56 PM		crashfrog has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button