686
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 67:
Line 67: + + +
→To be taken seriously
::If it is true that germ theory and virology have grown out of evolution (which I would dispute), all that means is that ''those'' fields are 'operational science', not that evolution is. But I could show you quotes from evolutionists admitting that evolution has ''not'' contributed much to "real" science.
::If it is true that germ theory and virology have grown out of evolution (which I would dispute), all that means is that ''those'' fields are 'operational science', not that evolution is. But I could show you quotes from evolutionists admitting that evolution has ''not'' contributed much to "real" science.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:55, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:55, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I do refer to reference 4. It has many generalizations but no substantial evidence to support its claims nor does it give reference to the position outside of creationistic POV. Therefore it is another matter of POV vs empirical evidence.
:::Please withhold the quotes, there have been many scientists that have been misquoted or have their quotes taken out of context of what they were saying, quote mining is not a substitution for empirical evidence. I know not a molecular biologist that would say otherwise in regards to evolution's contribution to the understanding of Germ theory or Virology. In fact, many medications for the treatment of HIV are based on the evidence of HIV evolving resistance to the medications, due to the mechanisms discussed in TOE. Many antibiotics are also developed with this understanding of how bacteria evolve, once again through the mechanisms describe in the TOE, and are more effective at treating a patient. So the science behind the TOE is something applicable to the modern world and therefore would fall under the definition of operational sciences discussed in the article. However, consider that the distinction is only applied by those of the creationist POV and shown to only be useful in a broad meaning of sciences.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:14, 7 May 2007 (EDT)