To: Coyoteman
When you were "studying" the history and philosophy of science and came to the secondary literature on the 17th-century roots of mechanistic scientism, you took a wrong turn.
Checkmate.
To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
When you were "studying" the history and philosophy of science and came to the secondary literature on the 17th-century roots of mechanistic scientism, you took a wrong turn. Checkmate.
As I thought. No specific scientific objections to the theory of evolution.
Care to try again? I suggest you try science this time, not religious fundamentalism.
Or, be brave and admit where your arguments are really coming from.
78 posted on
07/07/2007 7:15:20 PM PDT by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
When you were "studying" the history and philosophy of science and came to the secondary literature on the 17th-century roots of mechanistic scientism, you took a wrong turn.
Dislike for Enlightenment methods of inquiry into natural phenomena doesn't translate into a refutation of them. Or do you have actual evidence of the supernatural?
79 posted on
07/07/2007 7:17:21 PM PDT by
omnivore
To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
Another great response. You are really good at ignoring questions. And you declared checkmate! It is hard to lose when you invent the rules as you go!
81 posted on
07/07/2007 7:26:55 PM PDT by
burzum
(None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson