Re: It's not ALL pseudo-science

On 30 May 2006 19:42:35 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:


Ye Old One wrote:
On 18 May 2006 18:50:17 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:


wf3h wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:

Here's the real problem: the assumption inherent in Darwin's theories
that life MUST have evolved naturally.

what's wrong with that?

You summarily rule out all other possible, albeit non-natural,
alternatives, including the intercession of an intelligence. Dude,
just go where the science leads you. Don't begin by putting on the
scientific blinders like a draft horse pulling a milk truck.

You see Jim, there is this really big problem scientists face if they
try to follow your logic. There is ZERO evidence to support a
"non-natural" alternative.

Hello? They have already summarily ruled out non-natural causes before
they even began.

If there was evidence then a scientist would look at it.

There is no evidence.

--
Bob.

.

Relevant Pages