On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:51:10 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris wrote:
> Pastor Frank wrote:
>> "Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.beau@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:fuguth$1ui$01$2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Semper Libèr® . wrote:
>>>> "John Baker" <nunya@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:av6l04d6b07v6fg4kur9qogvgj7akererg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:58:38 GMT, "Semper Libèr® ."
>>>>> <.nopolicestates????!?~Hj77@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> <Truthfinder@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:20080417063601.539$7Q@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> Here is a little about the upcoming movie that dares to question
>>>> atheists,
>>>>>>> evolutionists etc. It should upset quite a few and already has
>>>>>>> but
>>>> are
>>>>>>> they afraid to go see this movie and can many Not handle the truth
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> there is design and a Designer that exists??
>>>>>> There are some fine examples of those people already blowing
>>>>>> gaskets in here... I'm looking forward to seeing this. Its amazing
>>>>>> how many people still think evolution is sup****ted by science, when
>>>>>> just the opposite is
>>>>>> true.
>>>>> Perhaps you'd care to take the time to "enlighten" all those tens of
>>>>> thousands of actual *scientists* who still think evolution is
>>>>> sup****ted by science, eh, S****t?
>>>> They choose to hold onto their cultish faith, dispite the evidence...
>>>> Or they could just be 'thick-as-a-plank' stupid...
>>> Dispite the evidence? WHAT evidence? Let's have it!
>>>
>>>> ...but the evidence is extremely clear, and many are finally getting
>>>> it - S****t.
>>> Same thing. Let's have it!
>>>
>>>> "A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the
>>>> evolutionist camp ... moreover, for the most part these 'experts'
>>>> have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or
>>>> biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some
>>>> instances, regretfully." - Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and
>>>> mathematician
>>> Argument by numbers doesn't count and you would loose it anyway.
>>>
>> You hate democracy? That's pretty well argumentum ad numerum. I
>> give you
>> more. See below
>
> It might come as news to you but the scientific method is not a
> democratic process.
>
> Tokay
Actually it is, kind of.
It's a democracy of many competing ideas.
Scientists votes through the peer review procedures.
It evolves and therefore has a history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
Of course it has several underlying principles,
but even they need to be reconstructed occasionally
and no specific articulation of them is accepted by all.
Do you think it is something fixed, permanent, and eternal?
That is your flat reasoning talking.
If you disagree,
kindly prove its validity once and for all, please.
--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
|
