Curt169 Wrote:
Jul 25, 2013 12:28 PM
"To be a scientific theory there must be scientific evidence." Negative. To be a scientific theory, fist it must be a postulate. That postulate must then be studied to make sure it holds up to its own logic. Then the postulate is put through the test of all known universal laws in an attempt to discredit the postulate. Once a postulate can not be disproved by itself or known laws, then it becomes a theory. Then the theory is extrapolated to see what effects it would have were it to be true. The effects are sought using empirical techniques that strive to isolate the elements of the theory from outside influences to see if they are the cause or not. If the effects are not seen, the theory is thrown away. (All of this I learned in HS science class. Why doesn't anyone else seem to know this??) Evolution isn't even a theory, it's a dis-proven postulate. It doesn't hold up to it's own logic. (ie. the data transfer between DNA and cells is not possible by evolution). Also, it can't be empirically proven so it can't become a theory to test. Evidence is meaningless without a presupposition with which to interpret. Both evolution and ID have the same evidence. Both interpret it differently. Neither is empirical.