686
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 55:
Line 55: + + + + +
→To be taken seriously
:In fact, tonight I watched the DVD of a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978/ debate between a creationists and an evolutionist], and the evolutionist, whilst not using those terms, did acknowledge that with evolution one can't reproduce the results like one can with other fields of science, thus tacitly admitting that such a distinction exists.
:In fact, tonight I watched the DVD of a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978/ debate between a creationists and an evolutionist], and the evolutionist, whilst not using those terms, did acknowledge that with evolution one can't reproduce the results like one can with other fields of science, thus tacitly admitting that such a distinction exists.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Philip, the citation does not illustrate the difference between the two types of sciences it asserts. It lists evolution as an origin science but disregards the fact that TOE has allowed for expansion to germ theory and also to virology. So that would place it in the operational sciences category. If you followed the literal interpretation of what was stated on the page all sciences would be considered operational, they contribute to modern society. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:I am sorry about the "Can be" and "Is" point. You are correct and I respect that you did not wish to assert something as fact without the evidence.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)