Re: Editorial: Sub-standard science standards
- From: Delaware Dave <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:40:52 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 2, 6:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
It simply confirms what the world knows about evolutionary theory: a
scam from beginning to end. How else do you explain the success of a
theory that assumes objective reality is tricking us (appearance of
design does not indicate invisible Designer)?
There's another theory that assumes objective reality is tricking us:
the sun moving across the sky does not indicate geocentricism.
<snip>
Cheers,
Delaware Dave
Do you see the invisible cat? Of course not, that proves it's there.
~ Unknown
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Editorial: Sub-standard science standards
- From: Desertphile
- Re: Editorial: Sub-standard science standards
- References:
- Editorial: Sub-standard science standards
- From: Jason Spaceman
- Re: Editorial: Sub-standard science standards
- From: Ron O
- Re: Editorial: Sub-standard science standards
- From: Ray Martinez
- Editorial: Sub-standard science standards
- Prev by Date: Re: Distinguishing Intelligent Design from Natural Evolution
- Next by Date: Re: Distinguishing Intelligent Design from Natural Evolution
- Previous by thread: Re: Editorial: Sub-standard science standards
- Next by thread: Re: Editorial: Sub-standard science standards
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading