Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
After all, how would one go about showing that the
theory of evolution (life starting as some muck in the primordial soup
and continuing up the ladder to us) is wrong?
In the statistical sense,
what would be the null hypothesis? And what if you show the null
hypothesis to be more likely than evolution?
The evolutionists require a tremendous amount of faith to come to
accept the doctrine of macroevolution, and still have the problem of
"what makes something alive?"
The biologists take the "theory" of evolution more as a "model" than a
true explanation.
And when taken in that light, it becomes as good a
model as creationism.
After all, how many times do you hear theAnd you know that that is just a shorthand for what would otherwise
biologists say that a creature is the way as if it were designed that
way? (Example: The elephant has very large ears so it can cool itself
better. That sounds like a design decision to me.)