[orionblamblam]

> that is your conclusion, not what the article says at all.

Oh, agreed. Because my conclusion is based on *facts*, while the article is based on ignorant drivel. They quote Aristotle on the topic of evolution vs. Creationism? Might as well look up what the man had to say about quantum mechanics. How can someone make a sound judgement about a discovry or a theory centuries *beofre* that discovery is made or the theory postulated?

[yankeedame]

How can someone make a sound judgement about a discovry or a theory centuries *beofre* that discovery is made or the theory postulated?

B/c its their court and they can do what they want to -- that's how.

[MortMan]

How can someone make a sound judgement about a discovry or a theory centuries *beofre* (sic) that discovery is made or the theory postulated?

Does this mean that any new theory automatically supercedes any precedent theory on the same subject? Or is it encumbent on the postulant to provide evidence that opposing theories, previously stated, are obsoleted based on an objective and honest appraisal of all evidence?