To: Dimensio
My point stands: a scientific theory cannot include within it any supernatural claims.>>>>>
You should read "Reason In the Balance" by Philip Johnson. Your definition of science as BY DEFINITION in the domain of implied naturalism is completely and totally arbitrary, and has less to do with "science" than the prevailing philosophical whims of the current scientific community.
To: chronic_loser
Thanks, I'll look it up to. I was making that point, but it was excaping his grasp.
581 posted on
04/12/2005 2:48:20 PM PDT by
MacDorcha
("Do you want the e-mail copy or the fax?" "Just the fax, ma'am.")
To: chronic_loser
You should read "Reason In the Balance" by Philip Johnson.
I'll take advice about science from scientists, not lawyers with no scientific background trying to argue science.
596 posted on
04/12/2005 6:04:17 PM PDT by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson