RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:22 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 12:25 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(August 7, 2019 at 12:05 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(August 7, 2019 at 12:00 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Stop with the games, dude, lol. You didn't know what a theory means, LFC had to correct you on that, and now you're trying to save face by acting like you were trying to make some clever rhetorical point.
There's no rhetorical point. If you think hypothesis become theories when there is evidence for them, you are mistaken. If that were the case every scientific paper that gets published would be the birth a new theory, since the reason they're published is (sadly) because they got positive results for their hypotheses.
Moreover, what do you do with theories that begin having evidence against them, demote them to hypotheses?
Quote:scientific theory:
A coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world, and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: the scientific theory of evolution.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
