If that was at me... I'm not dishonest.
I see it that way:
You can't test the rise of man, for instance. You can't test it in the wild nor in the lab. You can't just but that apelike ancestor in a lab and test if some time later later humans evolve. You can't do that.
You can do other things though... you can test if foxes develop a new number of rips if put in certain circumstances, for instance. This is testable science, as I understand it. You wait decades and observe the changes. That's an experiment or test.
I think we have a different understanding of what testing actually means.There are ways to test the concept.
I see it that way:
You can't test the rise of man, for instance. You can't test it in the wild nor in the lab. You can't just but that apelike ancestor in a lab and test if some time later later humans evolve. You can't do that.
You can do other things though... you can test if foxes develop a new number of rips if put in certain circumstances, for instance. This is testable science, as I understand it. You wait decades and observe the changes. That's an experiment or test.
well, these trees could point to a God who potentially wants history.There is no reason that DNA has to form a phylogenetic tree, if creationism is true.