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

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Why? Theories, unlike religion, change with new evidence. More recent material can be considered more relevant that earlier material for that reason. Honestly, even going back to 1989 may be too ancient for a science (biology) which updates itself every day. Mind you, no definition of the theory of evolution accepted nowadays mentions life coming from non-life, and none of them jibe at all with biblical creationism.
202 posted on 02/12/2003 9:55:48 AM PST by Junior (The New World Order stole your tag line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies ]


To: Junior
Why?

You said:

Since the quote I pulled is dated 1989, and the one you pulled is dated 1988, one could make the point that your quote is outdated in light of new evidence.
So what is this "new evidence" that must have come up between 1988 and 1989 which makes Mayr "outdated"? Or are you only relating to me a fantasy of yours?
203 posted on 02/12/2003 10:08:25 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies ]

To: Junior
Theories, unlike religion, change with new evidence.

False. When theories are disproven by new evidence they are thrown out and the discoverer of the replacement usually has his name put on the new theory. Evolution is not a theory, it is a materialist ideology.

220 posted on 02/12/2003 7:42:22 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | 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