| May 5, 2024, 12:07 pm UTC |
 |
| In: The Hall of Maat > Laboratory - Science and Technology > Topic |
| Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
|
Ancient History •
Ancient Egypt •
Laboratory •
Humanities •
Apocalypse •
Paper Lens •
Coffee Shop Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology |
| April 19, 2005 05:46PM |
> > Say what!? Facts need to be demonstratable, re-produceable and verifiable...
>
> This is covered by the phrase "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", just as it is in a court room.
This is probably why I never liked that phrase!
> The mechanism of random changes taking place in DNA is fairly well understood.
Then they would not be random! Dave, do you understand straight and forward logic!?
> > > This is why Darwin is accepted as the current working theory, and why Creationism
> > > isn't a scientific theory, let alone a current working hypothesis.
>
> > This is a boggus argument at best! For example, I don't accept either!!!
>
> You can't just disagree! you have to provide a reason, otherwise accept it.
The reason why I don't accept Darwinian Evolution is because it does not make any sense to me!
The reason why I don't accept Creationism "as is" is because there is no common acceptable definition of GOD!
Maybe I should say, acoording to your logic, I have "Reasonable Doubt" about both!
> "This" is wrong with my logic? What is? Something I never said is wrong with my logic???
You said that because creationism is not scientific it must be wrong and since Darwinian Evolution is scientific it must be right!
In your brand of logic, what "reference" do you use to make that call?
-wirelessguru1
>
> This is covered by the phrase "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", just as it is in a court room.
This is probably why I never liked that phrase!
> The mechanism of random changes taking place in DNA is fairly well understood.
Then they would not be random! Dave, do you understand straight and forward logic!?
> > > This is why Darwin is accepted as the current working theory, and why Creationism
> > > isn't a scientific theory, let alone a current working hypothesis.
>
> > This is a boggus argument at best! For example, I don't accept either!!!
>
> You can't just disagree! you have to provide a reason, otherwise accept it.
The reason why I don't accept Darwinian Evolution is because it does not make any sense to me!
The reason why I don't accept Creationism "as is" is because there is no common acceptable definition of GOD!
Maybe I should say, acoording to your logic, I have "Reasonable Doubt" about both!
> "This" is wrong with my logic? What is? Something I never said is wrong with my logic???
You said that because creationism is not scientific it must be wrong and since Darwinian Evolution is scientific it must be right!
In your brand of logic, what "reference" do you use to make that call?
-wirelessguru1
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.