Evolution is not a scientific theory

[mantra]

PS: Mantra... I ws playing the ball not the man (or women)

You've never insulted me SN and always been polite. As far as sexism existing at PA - I've never noticed it if it does.

[Neferti]

OK. SN/Mantra

I still want to know about UNICORNS and why/how you could,"scientifically" prove that they exist.

Then I want you to apply the same research to how/why God exists.

[freediver]

Why not answer the question?

If you want a simple answer, don't ask a loaded question. I think I explained my position.

It's a relevant question considering all his little blog spiels are on discrediting evolution as a scientific theory

A theory does not have to be scientific to be credible. Being scientific usually equates to being wrong. Can you name a single scientific theory that you can honestly say you never expect to be disproven? Would you say the same about evolution?

Completely wrong. If there are two theories then a valid question is which one do you find has a more valid scientific weight

Neither of them is scientific. Your question makes no sense.

You don't claim they exist.

They exist before you impale them, but not after.

If both you and he watched only this final lecture, toward the last few minutes of it, I think you will see what I mean.

You could always just try explaining it youself. That way you would demonstrate to yourself that you understand it.

One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything. So when people try to use science to disprove the existence of unicorns or they they can be killed by their own horns, they're using science illegitimately. They're misusing it, and this just makes science look bad.

Can you use science to disprove the occurence of beneficial mutations?

This is only relevent to the question as I need to know what a unicorn is.

It's a horse with a horn on it's head.

By impale I assume that this impalement will penetrate the heart or vital organ. This was not specific in the question.

You impale it in the rectum.

All this only proves that so much science is bulldust and whoever can promote it the most successfully is believed and so the "theory" is deemed true.

Except that it is promoted most successfully by repeated experiment. That is hardly trivial.

Science should be based on material evidence or that's what the average person believes - not guesswork. What a furphy and what a great job those scientists, who are heavily subsidised by governments or private corporations, have to promote fantasy to the masses.

Are you aware of the quality of scientific research into unicorns? If you aren't familiar with the work, how can you criticise it?

Indeed and as you speak to the discipline of science, so to should we appreciated that it is educated guesswork.

So the entire field can be characterised by a small component?

The question asked by FD was a challenge to the definition of science and it's process. While I cannot prove unicorns don't exist or that they will die by being impaled with their own horns, i could construct a theory to address the question. I refernced Wiki which is a peer reviewed body on knowledge to collect known characteristics of a unicorn.

There is an often overlooked part of the scientific method, one of the very first step, that you are skipping. First, you check whether it is a scientific theory, or hypothesis.

The acceptance of a theory by the scientific community does not make it fact. There are many forms of "String Theory" out there at the moment and they have been peer reviewed. None are deamed as facts... not yet becauase we have not a method to experimentally check them or tools to observe their prediction in the universe. When that happens one or none will be promoted as the most accepted theory to be pursued and refined.

It should be obvious from the theory whether it will ever be possible to test it scientifically.

How many times have we been told to discard some form of scientific information and embrace another - only to be told a little later that the replacement is also wrong?

You should stop getting your science from ads for vitamin pills.

[IQS.RLOW]

If you want a simple answer, don't ask a loaded question. I think I explained my position.

It wasn't a loaded question...but it obviously scared you.

You still haven't answered it

Neither of them is scientific. Your question makes no sense.

You are wrong

[freediver]

It wasn't a loaded question...but it obviously scared you.

It assumed a false dichotomy.

You are wrong

Can you explain why?

[IQS.RLOW]

It wasn't a loaded question...but it obviously scared you.

It assumed a false dichotomy.

Why do you have such difficulty answering a question?
Which theory do you give more weight to?
If its neither then explain how you think we got from primordial sludge to here

You are wrong

Can you explain why?[/quote]
consensus

[Neferti]

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy

Explains FD to a T.

[Super Nova]

FD,

Why in the rectum. Uncorns could have magical arses that are indestructable.

Does your theory of unicorns include a weakness in the rectum. The WiKi resource did not expose this.

They could be protected from the bestiality of the gods or Monks.

I answered your question. Sticking a horn up a horses arse may not kill it. They may have big long arses.

My analysis still stands... don'tyou think.

[IQS.RLOW]

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy

Explains FD to a T.

Usually used as an excuse to deliberately avoid stating the position he is arguing from because it would reveal a devils advocate or show a red herring in a trivial attempt to discredit the accepted science

[Neferti]

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy

Explains FD to a T.

Usually used as an excuse to deliberately avoid stating the position he is arguing from because it would reveal a devils advocate or show a red herring in a trivial attempt to discredit the accepted science

Everyone knows what Freediver does. Why he continues doing it, who knows? Perhaps he is having withdrawal symptoms since his lover of green stuff retired?