theres no egg here to wipe. and no, theres not really much difference. they mean the same thing. and yes, darwin was a scientist. if youve read his works, youd know that. he formulated theory, made observations, changed his theory based on observations. he allowed his religion to color his theories, yes, but at the time, thats nothing remarkable.
and i notice, you still havent answered my question. you might want to stop jabbing that strawman in the corner, the discussion is over HERE. On 4/24/05, RC Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Leaking pen wrote.. > > <how... does that refute darwinian theory? at the point that humans > <took control of the environment, we no longer had to adapt as much to > <survive, therefore one WOULDNT assume that we are simply more > <intelligent than previous humans, we simply know more. > > <take your personal biases OUT of a science discussion, please. > > > Leaking pen.. words mean things, there is a difference in meaning between " > refute" and the word "contradict" as used in my post. > True , this is a science discussion where nimble minds meet to examine and > refute. > > However, when a person like Darwin, that was NOT a scientist passes off > religious theory as science as he has done so with help of many that believe > in his religion, he represents a contradiction to science for the simple > reason that no demonstrable experimental proof can be structured to examine > his theory. > > You must be careful that you discern bias from thoughtful discourse in a > science discussion.. > > You have my permission to wipe the egg from your face. > > Richard > -- "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" Voltaire
