To: Dimensio; furball4paws
The problem is in claiming that evolution is somehow "limited" because it doesn't explain things outside of its scope.Well, come on now - certainly we agree that there are biological "things" outside the scope of evolutionary biological science. This point is made time and again on these threads: furball4paws reiterated it again to me in post #170.
Now why on God's green earth (colorful language intended) is it so friggin' unacceptable to articulate this point regarding biological "things" - to students who are there to learn about biological "things"?
180 posted on
09/29/2005 9:56:14 AM PDT by
KMJames
To: KMJames
Now why on God's green earth (colorful language intended) is it so friggin' unacceptable to articulate this point regarding biological "things" - to students who are there to learn about biological "things"?
Why should it be necessary to explicitly explain that evolution has "limitations" when, if it is being taught correctly, there should be no misunderstandings regarding its scope?
182 posted on
09/29/2005 10:01:08 AM PDT by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: KMJames
Ain't no problem with that as long as you don't call it a flaw in the TOE.
BTW you'll have to do better than "things" if you want a substantive answer.
187 posted on
09/29/2005 10:23:47 AM PDT by
furball4paws
(One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson