"Tiktaalik" <corneliusjmchugh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i melding
news:32826999-aee1-4f21-98a2-826dc039bd17@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apr 29, 9:56 pm, "~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
trashcan
> >>> for starters, then we can start talking science.
>
> >> You were asked for an alternative. One which works as well as
evolution,
> >> makes as many validated predictions (or postdictions, as the case may
be)
> >> as evolution, and is sup****ted by as much evidence as evolution.
>
> > How does postdictions differ from 20/20 hindsight?
>
> >> It is wholly pointless to point at something - evolution, whatever -
and
> >> 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. Either one must shut up or
find
> 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.
-->nice, dumbass. The JW's claims everyone who doesn't believe in their
theories are idiots, the evolutionists play the same game.
S
|
