To: RadioAstronomer
You can win with some people. If you state facts in a forthright manner, and express confidence in your conclusions, the creationists complain that you're being dogmatic. But if you state facts in the traditional manner, as being tentative and subject to further verification, with conclusions expressed in the subjunctive mode, the creationists complain that we're just putting out a bunch of "maybes." So I guess they're going to complain in any event. Might as well ignore them.
42 posted on
10/07/2006 12:03:42 PM PDT by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry
Do you believe in "punctuated equilibrium"?
43 posted on
10/07/2006 12:05:15 PM PDT by
EternalVigilance
(What man doesn't know about God's creation is still enough to fill a universe...)
To: PatrickHenry
Do you see any proofs for "punctuated equilibrium" in the article you posted?
44 posted on
10/07/2006 12:06:00 PM PDT by
EternalVigilance
(What man doesn't know about God's creation is still enough to fill a universe...)
To: PatrickHenry
If you state facts in a forthright manner... *ahem* There isn't a fact to be found in this piece.
45 posted on
10/07/2006 12:07:25 PM PDT by
EternalVigilance
(What man doesn't know about God's creation is still enough to fill a universe...)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson