Originally posted by Wulebgr
It's not semantics to observe that your terminology either is rooted in, or attempts to spew ignorance regarding the nature of scientific inquiry. Your whole argument in this thread, indeed the article itself, hinges upon the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. A mere hypothesis can fall after a single refutation. Your article mportance for an argument as when they are used incorrectly to obscure the absence of reason.
actually trout fly since you have failed to notice the whole point of the text i shall need to state it plainly, here was a scenario, in which one piece of data, had been accepted as providing 'evidence', through an evaluation, which to all intents and purposes was not viewed objectively, but as has been the case in the past, the 'theory,' was formulated and the evidence, if you could call it evidence, in this case a lower jaw bone and a few teeth, evaluated to fit the theory. Does that sound like good scientific method to you? And my dear trout fly, this was the point, the same piece of evidence , the exact same data may be evaluated and a different conclusion drawn, as was seen in this instance. thus the statement stands, that you may evaluate the evolutionary hypothesis, theory to you, and i may also evaluate it, and our conclusions may be different, thus the most that anyone can state is, that it seems plausible to them. It was not an attempt to somehow undermine the God of science, for everyone knows, like the pope, how infallible he is, it was merely a tongue in cheek dig, which, as predicted, had the exact same effect and produced, as with religionists, a somewhat defensive response. It as not even a nick, but a drop in the ocean.