 |
Jabriol@excite.com wrote:
> Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, LP, BLT, ETC. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> > news:1106070501.561900.77200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > Gary Bohn wrote:
> > >> jabriol@fastmail.fm wrote in
> > >>> >
> > >> > yes, yes.. please tell us how evolution pass the Scientific
> Method.
> > >> > every time I ask this question.. the thread dies..
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> You are not worth answering.
> > >>
> > >
> > > translation: " I do not know the answer, and therefore my reply
> will be
> > > an ad-hom attack"
> >
> > So Jabriol, what part of the Scientific Method do you think
evolution
> does
> > not "pass"?
> >
> > Or do we need to explain Scientific Method to you all over again?
>
> Let see first if I got SM correct:
>
> 1. Observe what happens.
>
> 2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.
>
> 3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
>
> 4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true
>
>
>
> That being said, let me know if it is correct, note the following
> mentioned by a a peer review journal:
>
> New Scientist: "An increasing number of scientists, most particularly
> a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian
> evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . .
> Many of the critics have the highest intellectual
> credentials."-June 25, 1981, p. 828.
Muahahahahahaha!
Jabbers is holding up New Scientist as a "peer reviewed journal!"
Jabbers, New Scientist is a popular science magazine. In no sense of
the phrase is a journal of peer review.
|
|
