To: freedumb2003
No, the author is plainly pointing out that the definition does not and never has supported the position that science has taken with evolution as regards the word "theory". He is noting specifically that they are trying to redefine the word in order to move the goal posts on responsibility and proof.
Like it or not, you have to prove your case. Beg off if you want, it only hurts your case. Bottom line, with nothing but hot air, you can't win.
276 posted on
02/20/2006 6:52:25 AM PST by
Havoc
(Evolutionists and Democrats: "We aren't getting our message out" (coincidence?))
To: Havoc
He is noting specifically that they are trying to redefine the word in order to move the goal posts on responsibility and proof.
Kind of like how you redefined the word "species" so that you could prove that speciation does not occur by dishonestly claiming that all corn plants are the same species?
313 posted on
02/20/2006 12:06:48 PM PST 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