Bourgeois Science-How about Darwinism?
cleon42 at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 4 07:18:32 MST 2001
--- nemonemini at cosmiverse.com wrote:
>> And exactly what would you require for "real proof?"
> Best not to quibble here.
"Quibble?" It's a very serious question.
> The Darwin debate has gone on too long and
> I am sick of it, and the Darwinists will lose it here.
Wow, how arrogant can a person get?
> Proof means
> proof, and the Darwinists don't have, because it may be impossible to
> obtain, making the wish to insist on a lower standard very strong.
> We have no proof of Darwin's theory for language, and the rest.
Of course, if you won't clarify what you want as "proof," you have no
basis for making such a sweeping statement.
> And I am under no obligation to call speculation science.
And yet you speculate and call it science. Ah, the irony.
I'm sorry, your email was the funniest thing I've read in a while. "I
won't clarify what I mean by 'proof,' but I know you don't have any. I
won't say what evidence is in favor of my ideas, but you should take my
word for it that it's there." Typical pseudoscientific twaddle.
I've had more rational "arguments" come from the ICR.
Adam Levenstein cleon42 at yahoo.com
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-- Douglas Adams
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism