Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Coyoteman
Happy now?

Very Happy. The additional quote does not show that they've provided good evidence for these so called transitional forms they've been hypothesizing. I'm glad you added even more words.

I will leave it to you and the lurkers to decide whether this changes any meanings.

I believe lurkers can make up their own mind. To me, the evidence ( even with the additional paragraph you added ) does not show evidence at all. It simply shows MORE SPECULATION.

Your links to the Discovery Institute I did not follow. I do science, not apologetics.

BUT YOU DO APOLOGETICS SIR, YOU DO.
355 posted on 07/23/2006 6:58:00 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies ]


To: SirLinksalot
BUT YOU DO APOLOGETICS SIR, YOU DO.

You have to go to the eighth definition on a "Define:apologetics" google to get a non-religious meaning, and that definition is from Wikipedia, hence suspect. Apologetics is "defense of religious belief":


362 posted on 07/23/2006 8:17:28 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson