It was the chemical composition of comets, Prof. Bar-Nun believes, that allowed them to kickstart life. He has published his theory widely in scientific journals, including recently in the journal Icarus.
Already reached the status of scientific theory has it? What's all this nonsense about reproducibility, experimentation, duplication, and falsifiability then?
EXACTLY, sheer nonsense! All that is dismissed when it suits liberal sensistivities but let something even remotely impact liberals over their relationship with God, THEN all that suddenly is relevant again.
It's about God, not science. Liberals project-alot.
"It was the chemical composition of comets, Prof. Bar-Nun believes, that allowed them to kickstart life. He has published his theory widely in scientific journals, including recently in the journal Icarus.
"Already reached the status of scientific theory has it? What's all this nonsense about reproducibility, experimentation, duplication, and falsifiability then?"
By definition, a "theory" is a "confirmed hypothesis." But confirmed by what, and how? And just who says, "yup, that's confirmed"?
Here's my theory: for sake of their already minuscule circulations, scientific journals don't want to talk about "hypotheses," much less "some scientist's wet dream," so they call anything and everything laying by the side of the road "a new scientific theory."
Of course, that makes it harder to distinguish the Real Thing when it (rarely) comes along. Also makes it harder to tell faux scientists (aka "creationists") that their "theories" are just religion.
But, they've got to sell their magazines, so what's a little blurring of distinctions amongst friends?