Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: betty boop
I'm in agreement with VadeRetro's observation that if Darwin had put a whole lot of stock to the "warm little pond" scenario, he would have put it in his published work.

Somehow, I missed this in your post.

What I actually said was that if he thought the question--never mind how much stock he put into a particular answer--was at all important he would have addressed it in his published work. He didn't address it because HIS THEORY WASN'T ABOUT THAT.

But that's almost the same thing, so if I don't hear from you I'll assume we're still in agreement.

1,929 posted on 10/02/2006 2:01:04 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Science, a systematic study of nature, cannot meet you halfway in accepting things not in evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1796 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro; Alamo-Girl
He didn't address it because HIS THEORY WASN'T ABOUT THAT.

We're still in agreement. :^)

1,937 posted on 10/03/2006 6:18:46 AM PDT by betty boop (Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1929 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson