Re: Harshman says successful reproduction is natural selection
- From: Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:44:56 -0700
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:20:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Iain
<iain_inkster@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
On Apr 12, 7:19 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
backspace <Stephan...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
[...]
Natural means of selection was due to Patrick Matthews who was a
theist. But the tautologies have nothing to do with getting
naturaled.
What do you mean by "getting naturaled"? That's not a phrase I've
heard before, and (so far, anyway) it makes no sense to me.
That's classic.
Backspace is the one whining about unclear, undefined language, and
yet he is the first and only person here ever to use truly nonsense
language.
As contrasted with using language in nonsensical ways, a la
UC?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Harshman says successful reproduction is natural selection
- From: backspace
- Re: Harshman says successful reproduction is natural selection
- References:
- Harshman says successful reproduction is natural selection
- From: backspace
- Re: Harshman says successful reproduction is natural selection
- From: Charles Brenner
- Re: Harshman says successful reproduction is natural selection
- From: backspace
- Re: Harshman says successful reproduction is natural selection
- From: Bruce Stephens
- Re: Harshman says successful reproduction is natural selection
- From: Iain
- Harshman says successful reproduction is natural selection
- Prev by Date: Re: Where do the laws of physics come from?
- Next by Date: Re: Harshman says successful reproduction is natural selection
- Previous by thread: Re: Harshman says successful reproduction is natural selection
- Next by thread: Re: Harshman says successful reproduction is natural selection
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading