Re: If evolution is proved. . .
- From: "SJAB1958" <balfres@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Mar 2007 00:59:27 -0700
On 27 Mar, 20:01, "RobinsonCrusoe" <exma...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snipped for brevity and clarity]
If it should be proved that complex
biochemicals or physical structures associated with living organisms
could develop from simpler states as a consequence of the ordinary
properties of matter, such proof would not constitute evidence that
these features actually evolved in this manner; it would introduce
only the evolutionary process as one possibility in addition to the
fiat-creation stipulation set forth in the Bible.
[snipped for brevity and clarity]
I would like to draw your attention to these extracts from the New
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1997 edition)
Proof - (A piece of) evidence or (an) argument establishing a fact or
the truth or validity of a statement.
Evidence - An indication, a sign, indications, signs (of something).
Facts or testimony in support of a conclusion, statement, or belief.
Something serving as a proof.
As you can see evidence is used as proof, and proof is made up of
evidence.
But this begs the question, if as you claim 'such proof would not
constitute evidence' then how does one prove anything?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: If evolution is proved. . .
- From: SJAB1958
- Re: If evolution is proved. . .
- References:
- If evolution is proved. . .
- From: RobinsonCrusoe
- If evolution is proved. . .
- Prev by Date: Re: Re: Galileo - Take 2
- Next by Date: Re: OT: test
- Previous by thread: Re: If evolution is proved. . .
- Next by thread: Re: If evolution is proved. . .
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|