303
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 68:
Line 68: + +
→Honest question from a frustrated user
:: 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)
:::If a theory can be proven wrong (as is alledged in the article), then it is by definition "falsifiable". [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
== Following is incorrect ==
== Following is incorrect ==