Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:08:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
404 times
|
| |
|
|
SRC wrote:
> > Further effort on our part is pointless. You just don't grok science.
>
> If I don't accept Darwinism, (or "macro-evolution" or whatever the
> preferred name is) how does that mean I don't "grok" science?
> Doesn't science involve repeatable and verifiable "lab tests"?
> Isn't studying fossils and putting forth a theory based upon those
> fossils something more within the field of archeology than science?
Steve,
You pretty much proved with the above statement that you truly DON'T grok
science at all. Think about it for a while.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) Well, I wonder a bit about this-- is 1900's American History a science? Sure, but we don't often think of it as such. The only reason we tend to think of archeology as a 'science' or biology as a 'science' is that they're more based off of (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) I've read some general statements which make huge assumptions. What I'm asking for is some evidence - Some simple basic evidence. (...) If I don't accept Darwinism, (or "macro-evolution" or whatever the preferred name is) how does that mean I (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
95 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
