nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: +
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 14:02, August 5, 2007
, 14:02, August 5, 2007→Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution: But does the "field" exist?
:So you are agreeing that evolution per se is not falsifiable? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:So you are agreeing that evolution per se is not falsifiable? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:::I think that Perpetual is correct. Maybe in fact Evolution should be considered a separate branch of science itself like Physics, Chemistry or Biology. No one would claim that Physics is not falsifiable because Physics is a field of study that is made up of laws, theories and hypothesis all of which are falsifiable. In the same sense Evolution is the study of the laws, theories and hypothesis that describe a larger process of evolution. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
:::I think that Perpetual is correct. Maybe in fact Evolution should be considered a separate branch of science itself like Physics, Chemistry or Biology. No one would claim that Physics is not falsifiable because Physics is a field of study that is made up of laws, theories and hypothesis all of which are falsifiable. In the same sense Evolution is the study of the laws, theories and hypothesis that describe a larger process of evolution. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
::::A process upon which there is no agreed definition, and which, unless a meaninglessly-broad [[Definitions of evolution|definition]] is adopted, there is no conclusive evidence that that this "field" even exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:02, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
::With apologies to Mr. Rayment, I must take issue with Angst's claim that "The Bible claims to be inerrant." It makes no such claim. And even if it did claim to be inerrant, finding an error would only disprove the individual proposition of inerrancy -- it would not prove that everything in the Bible is wrong. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]]
::With apologies to Mr. Rayment, I must take issue with Angst's claim that "The Bible claims to be inerrant." It makes no such claim. And even if it did claim to be inerrant, finding an error would only disprove the individual proposition of inerrancy -- it would not prove that everything in the Bible is wrong. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]]
:::Correction accepted. The Bible makes no claim to be inerrant. Instead, others make this claim of the Bible. Similarly, finding an error in the theory of evolution would only disprove the individual proposition -- it would not disprove evolutionary theory in it's entirety. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::Correction accepted. The Bible makes no claim to be inerrant. Instead, others make this claim of the Bible. Similarly, finding an error in the theory of evolution would only disprove the individual proposition -- it would not disprove evolutionary theory in it's entirety. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]