Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Enigma'07, May 28, 2005.
creationism not considered to be a valid scientific theory?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
but the same is true of macro evolution
Science has to be falsifiable, and it can't use the "supernatural" to explain phenomena.
1. No testable hypothesis.
2. No supporting evidence.
3. Lots of contradictory evidence.
Evolution, in contrast, is a proper scientific theory because it has a testable hypothesis, boat-loads of supporting evidence, and no contradictory evidence.
What if I claimed that little green men created it all? Would that also be a valid scientific theory?
to be clear, there is no such thing as "Macro" or "micro" evolution in Science. There is the Theory of Evolution, which discusses the changes in a population overtime (fueled by random mutation and directed by environmental pressures), and the possibilities of those changes to result in new species.
That *correct* definition of Evolution has been observed in the lab many times, so evolution has a very nice supporter - eye witnesses.
Evolution is different than abiogenisis, which is the theory of how life started. Evolution can more than happily exist with a creationist view - something may have created life, and then evolution varried that life.
I would also like to know how you can possibly know that they are little, green, or could be defined as 'men'. Couldn't they also be giant blue octopi hermaphrodites?
That sort of thing is one of my big problem with people who point to genisis.
Creationists believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Science has proven that it is over a billion years old. Creationists believe that all animals were created on the same day. Science ahas proven that animals actually evolve over millions of years. The key differences is that science can prove their statements with facts but creationists only tell you what they believe happened.
Separate names with a comma.