RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:44 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 12:52 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(August 7, 2019 at 12:37 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(August 7, 2019 at 12:34 pm)Grandizer Wrote: You still think a theory is no different from a hypothesis ...
You have the wrong idea of what a theory is. You really do.
If we're both saying that theories and hypotheses are their own separate category, how am I wrong? We're agreeing lol. Either we're both right, or we're both wrong.
Quote:“Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge. The meaning of the term scientific theory as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid.”
Evolution is a scientific fact. If you have a hypothesis that evolution via natural selection cannot account for the human eye, that is a proposition you are responsible for demonstrating. Coming to an atheist forum and whining, “Well, how do you explain this?” is not demonstrating the truth of your claim. It’s a textbook argument from personal incredulity. Or, colloquially, shit reasoning.
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.
