303
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 68:
Line 68: + + + + + + + + + +
Following is incorrect
:: So what is the point of citing the evidence if Giant-Impact theory is not scientific anyway? I really don't understand your position. Why are you willing to say that the other models were disproven? Does the evidence show that the Giant-Impact theory is better than the other models or not? If yes, then the Giant-Impact theory must be scientific. If not, then I guess the other models weren't really disproven. Either way, you make no sense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:53, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:: So what is the point of citing the evidence if Giant-Impact theory is not scientific anyway? I really don't understand your position. Why are you willing to say that the other models were disproven? Does the evidence show that the Giant-Impact theory is better than the other models or not? If yes, then the Giant-Impact theory must be scientific. If not, then I guess the other models weren't really disproven. Either way, you make no sense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:53, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
== Following is incorrect ==
From the article "This new theory fail lacks testability and falsifiability",
The theory is falsifaiable if future mineral analysis detects materials which could not have originated from Earth, or if closer examination of Earths mineral content produces results which are inconsistant with the theory.
The theory can be tested by carrying out mineral analysis upon the moon (for example in deep moon bores), which would either support the theory or falsify it.
Thus this sentence is factually incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)