 | | Why not Both?
|
|
Okay, since it's apparent that the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence will never convince the diehard Creationists of the fact of evolution, just as the utter non-existence of any pro-creation evidence will not sway critical-thinking (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) Really Bad Pseudo-Science designed to sway public opinion, not pass scientific inspection. Sophistry taken to a new level. Bruce (25 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
|
(...) Okay, but you haven't named names in any thread in which you've participated. My objection isn't simply to your line of reasoning (which is a substantial objection, I grant you) but rather to your willful choice not to support your claims (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with science and metaphysics
|
|
(...) No, it's universal because any advanced (I'm speaking extra-terrestrial) society is going to come up with the exact same rules. Different languages, different morals, different outlooks, different values, but the math will be the same. Bruce (25 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with science and metaphysics
|
|
(...) I perfectly agree, as was my point, I think-- it's not NECESSARILY wrong, but I *think* it's wrong based on what I've seen... (...) That's kinda what I thought might be happening-- I.E. I'm taking the absolutest of theoretical arguments, (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
