 | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | I see from the below that we have a difference on debate styles and definitions Ok. I believe that when I present scientific evidence I'm arguing scientifically. If I don't, then I'm not. That simple. Anything else is philosphical. (by my (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Scientific argument isn't simply about presenting evidence; it also entails analyzing that evidence in accordance with the scientific method. This is a failure of that article you cited (in addition it its idiosyncratic spelling and grammar). (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Jon Kozan
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes: (URL) revised again in: (URL) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) later this evening or tomorrow, because I have to consult a text at home. Dave! (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why not Both? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Scientific argument isn't simply about presenting evidence; it also entails analyzing that evidence in accordance with the scientific method. This is a failure of that article you cited (in addition to its idiosyncratic spelling and grammar). (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why not Both? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Ok, so the reason: "it misses the scientific evidence for creation that is indeed consistant with the Biblical account - a literal 7-day creation." is a philosophical rebuttal because it doesn't specify WHAT evidence? I disagree because it's (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
