Joined: July 2006
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,05:32)|
|All in your clubhouse should be just as proud of your new status as having helped make the Theory of Intelligent Design even better, as I am, but I doubt they will.|
|n modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative. Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.|
If you really have a "theory" then you are using the word in a way that nobody else understands.
You don't have a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, you have a computer program that only you know anything about.
Your "theory" is not consistent with the scientific method as it has neither been falsified nor verified.
And of course you have totally failed to describe your theory in a way that any scientist in the field would be in a position to understand.
So, whatever you want to call it you certainly don't have a "theory" do you?
You've got a timecube.
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand