mmm well the essence of science is that it is not dogma, is what I hear you saying. And any new evidence should of course be weighed. But -- what Maureen said. They don't call it a theory until there's already a LOT of evidence to support the model. Sure, something new COULD come to light that would raise a question. But the consensus is that probably it will not. Beyond probably. I think it's more that scientific consensus can't envision a better explanation for the many many facts that underlie it.
You can always say yes but there is some possibility but then why bother with science at all? On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:10 AM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > the term "theory" has a very specific meaning in science. I am not sure > > which theory would need more testing. AFAIK it would not be considered a > > theory if it did. > > > > All theories need more testing. > > Science never stops testing...they never say "welp, that's the end of > that!" > > (Course, that's exactly what Intelligent Design does.....God did it. QED!) > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:342828 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
