Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jaguar
No, they don't. That's the point of scientific discovery - best theory till another one comes along, no faith needed, just study of the evidence. I'm yet to see a hole in evolution as it stands, only missing parts.
|
Jag, I'm really not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I would like you make sure we're talking about the same thing.
When I say "Theory of Evolution", I mean the idea that millions of years ago and by phenomenal randomness, suddenly, from no life whatsoever came life, and from that life all the species of the planet, including humans "evolved". This is sometimes shortened to "Molecules to Man".
In this sense, "evolution" is NOT the same as "mutation" or "speciation". Mutation is observable fact, and it happens and it's very scientific. I don't have a problem with observable, duplicatable results.
Science, to me, means you can PROVE and DUPLICATE your results. If Scientist A has a theory, they advance their theory, and scientists B C and D take that theory and can DUPLICATE the tests and obtain the very same results, then yes, that is a valid theory. That is science.
The big bang can't be duplicated. A primordial soup with no life in it suddenly having life in it can't be duplicated. There are no transitionary forms in nature. There is no duplicatable evidence for origins, Jag, and therefore origins is not science.
Origins does not effect how the world works. It doesn't effect seismic theory or volcanology or virology, or gravity, or how cells divide or any other real science. Origins is a completely separate field, and it's NOT science, merely speculation.