On Apr 29, 9:56=A0pm, "~saba*gracile~" <veron...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Danwood" <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i
meldingnews:fKuRj.144$_.96@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarna...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >news:450fe5-pg6.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> [snips]
>
> >> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:26:53 +0200, ~saba*gracile~ wrote:
>
> >>> An alternative to evolution theory? Put the damn freud into the
trashc=
an
> >>> for starters, then we can start talking science.
>
> >> You were asked for an alternative. =A0One which works as well as
evolut=
ion,
> >> makes as many validated predictions (or postdictions, as the case may
b=
e)
> >> as evolution, and is supported by as much evidence as evolution.
>
> > How does postdictions differ from 20/20 hindsight?
>
> >> It is wholly pointless to point at something - evolution, whatever -
an=
d
> >> scream how we need to replace it, unless one has something *better*
to
> >> offer.
>
> > Why must something to replace evolution be presented. One should be
> > able to falsify any argument or theory without offering an altenative
to=
> > replace it.
>
> Because it's a religion, it's their TRUTH. =A0Either one must shut up or
f=
ind
> something else as an alternative, just like the Jehovahs Witnesses
demand.=
> It's not science, its just dogma.
My karma just ran over your dogma.
"I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the
better for it". (Abraham Lincoln).
>
> Saba
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
