Difference between revisions of "Evolution and science"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(See also)
 
(17 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Evolution and science''' have some things in common, but otherwise are in conflict on several points. Darwinists say that the [[theory of evolution]] is scientific and that no other theory is worthy of consideration. This in itself is anti-scientific, because science has always progressed by exposing every existing theory to criticism and testing and welcoming any new theory which can explain known phenomena.
+
'''Evolution and science''' conflict with each other. [[Evolution]] is clearly [[atheism|atheistic]]<ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref> and a [[pseudoscience]], easily disproven by numerous [[Counterexamples to Evolution|counterexamples to evolution]] that exist. Evolution is not real science because it makes guesses as to what happened in the past, which cannot be observed and is not repeatable, while real, observational science can be observed through repeatable tests. While [[creation science]] is similar to this, the evidence, including in science, in history, and in [[Bible|divine revelation]], points to something other than [[evolution]] and long ages.
  
'''Tests of the Theory'''
+
Creationists also disagree with evolution as it requires a time frame of billion/millions of years. This is incompatible with their time frame for creation of approximately 6000 years, as derived from the [[Bible]].
----
+
A scientific theory must by definition be falsifiable.  It must make a prediction that can be shown through observation to be right or wrong.  The theory of evolution is arguably one of the most thoroughly tested theories. Every excavation into ancient rock is a fresh opportunity to disprove the theory.  If a fossilized monkey were discovered in Jurassic Rock the theory of evolution would be on the block for a major revision.
+
  
 +
People who can distinguish real [[science]] from atheistic secular [[junk science]] are increasingly embracing the [[logic]] of [[creation science]].
 +
 +
==See also==
 +
*[[Evolution and creation]]
 +
 +
==References==
 +
 +
<references/>
  
 
[[Category:Science]]
 
[[Category:Science]]
 +
[[Category:Evolution]]

Latest revision as of 04:07, March 4, 2017

Evolution and science conflict with each other. Evolution is clearly atheistic[1] and a pseudoscience, easily disproven by numerous counterexamples to evolution that exist. Evolution is not real science because it makes guesses as to what happened in the past, which cannot be observed and is not repeatable, while real, observational science can be observed through repeatable tests. While creation science is similar to this, the evidence, including in science, in history, and in divine revelation, points to something other than evolution and long ages.

Creationists also disagree with evolution as it requires a time frame of billion/millions of years. This is incompatible with their time frame for creation of approximately 6000 years, as derived from the Bible.

People who can distinguish real science from atheistic secular junk science are increasingly embracing the logic of creation science.

See also

References

  1. http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm