[f.Christian]

To: Dimensio
As I see it, evolution is an ideological doctrine. If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along. The people defending it are doing so because they do not like the alternatives to an atheistic basis for science and do not like the logical implications of abandoning their atheistic paradigm and, in conducting themselves that way, they have achieved a degree of immunity to what most people call logic.

488 posted on 7/29/02 5:18 AM Pacific by medved

[Dimensio]

Do you have any original thoughts that aren't inane and meaningless babble, or do you think that medved, the man who believes that Earth once orbited Saturn, is a credible source of scientific information?

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: log·ic

Pronunciation: 'lä-jik
Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English logik, from Middle French logique, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at LEGEND

Date: 12th century

1 a

(1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning

(2) : a branch or variety of logic

(3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS

(4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge

b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty

(2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY

c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable

d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves

2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason < the logic of war >

- lo·gi·cian /lO-'ji-sh&n/ noun

[narby]

If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along.

medved obviously doesn't understand the scientific community. Scientists thrive on controversy. That's how they get funding. If someone has some shred of evidence that say some new Blodget particle could be discovered if they only build some billion dollar gizmo. Then they'll build it.

Likewise, if there was any scientific evidence of a "creator", it would instatly be big news, and would then attract huge funding to discover facts about "Him". It would be like finding ET, who could resist it?

But there is no genuine scientific rebuttal yet found to evolution. If there were, it would be big news, and big science would study it.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Re-hashed spam?