To: blam
It’s amazing. New discoveries knock down one theory after another but the replacement theory is always posited as rock-solid proven fact. Often in error never in doubt.
12 posted on
04/02/2007 8:43:25 PM PDT by
hometoroost
(TSA = Thousands Standing Around)
To: hometoroost
It’s amazing. New discoveries knock down one theory after another but the replacement theory is always posited as rock-solid proven fact. Often in error never in doubt. If that is what you think, perhaps you need to study some evolution. Fossils that are excavated provide data points. The arrangements and interrelationships of those data points and millions of other related data points are provided by theories.
For the point of this article, it is not one theory vs. the other: it is two different wrinkles within the same overall theory. Either wrinkle, and the overall theory itself, fail to support both a young earth and creation at 4004 BC or thereabouts.
13 posted on
04/02/2007 8:55:09 PM PDT by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: hometoroost
You notice that too. In the past I called it the evo magic 8 ball.
24 posted on
04/02/2007 10:05:14 PM PDT by
RunningWolf
(2-1 Cav 1975)
To: hometoroost
It’s amazing. New discoveries knock down one theory after another but the replacement theory is always posited as rock-solid proven fact. Often in error never in doubt.Thank you. Isn't that the truth.
31 posted on
04/02/2007 10:27:37 PM PDT by
Lijahsbubbe
(Ah don't feeeeel no ways taihrd.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson