Difference between revisions of "Talk:Cladistics"
From Conservapedia
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
We can't refer to "the evolutionary relationships" without indirectly asserting that living things evolved. Since there is no proof of that, we should be clear that [[evolution is an unproved theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:49, 19 May 2007 (EDT) | We can't refer to "the evolutionary relationships" without indirectly asserting that living things evolved. Since there is no proof of that, we should be clear that [[evolution is an unproved theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:49, 19 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | :All theories are unproven and unprovable. Singling out evolution as an "unproven theory" suggests that you are dishonestly trying to imply that it is somehow on less solid footing than any other scientific theory. --[[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 11:42, 8 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 15:42, August 8, 2007
We can't refer to "the evolutionary relationships" without indirectly asserting that living things evolved. Since there is no proof of that, we should be clear that evolution is an unproved theory. --Ed Poor 06:49, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- All theories are unproven and unprovable. Singling out evolution as an "unproven theory" suggests that you are dishonestly trying to imply that it is somehow on less solid footing than any other scientific theory. --Dimensio 11:42, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
