 | | Re: slight
|
|
I think from the whole tone of the subsequent discussion that I should have put smileys everywhere. I was originally going for the humourous ribbing--wink wink nudge nudhge--who really cares--i mean, take a look at the last line I put about (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Rational: After repeated trials eliminating as many external variables as possible, it is apparent that penicillin has a positive medicinal effect on the disease tuberculosis Intuitive: I slept with the window open, and my tuberculosis (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) False. Evolution describes the changes to fit the environment (simplifying greatly). If the Ceolacanth evolved to the point *where it succeeded in its' environment*, it doesn't necessarily have to change any more to fit Evolutionary Theory. (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) Well, that's not the part that's falsifiable. And, I agree-- if we take the absolutemost non-literal translation of the Bible and say 1 day = 8.6 billion years or what-have-you, then yes, you're right, it may *not* be falsifiable. Certainly (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
|
(...) But I could say the same about the existence of an infinite Being. <snipping here> (...) This is because science is using a loaded bat (to continue the metaphor). The presuppositions of science are that if you can't test it, observe it, (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
