Re: History of "Evolution Science"
- From: "Desertphile" <desertphile@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Mar 2006 11:00:12 -0800
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
In article <1143313553.430014.115640
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, brianrookard@xxxxxxxxxxx
<brianrookard@xxxxxxxxxxx> declared...
Ross Langerak wrote:
Sometimes, we just have to admit that we just don't know.
But human beings, being who we are, love to pretend that we can know
something which is beyond our knowing.
Good point. I'll contact all the world's scientists and let them
know that they should cease and desist all scientific inquiries
immediately.
Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, which is why evolution is still
around.
I wonder if you see the dogmatism in that statement.
I can't. Can you point it out to me?
I've read the sentence a few times looking for the "dogmatism" in it
and I cannot see any either. (I suppose one needs occult blinders on to
see it.) However, the sentence is wrong: even if the fact of evolution
occuring and occured were not supported by the massive weight of the
evidence that it is supported by, evolution would "still be around."
--
Greg
.
- References:
- History of "Evolution Science"
- From: mccoy
- Re: History of "Evolution Science"
- From: Ross Langerak
- Re: History of "Evolution Science"
- From: brianrookard
- Re: History of "Evolution Science"
- From: Gregory A Greenman
- History of "Evolution Science"
- Prev by Date: Re: Elections & ID
- Next by Date: Re: The Shutup Factor
- Previous by thread: Re: History of "Evolution Science"
- Next by thread: Re: History of "Evolution Science"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading