Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 191 (20468)
10-22-2002 7:20 AM


Furthermore, if there is such thing as a non-random mechanism I guess not a single theistic evolutionist would object to that.
If there really is such a thing, then no scientist would object to it. I'd be surprised, however, given the lack of serious evidence, not to mention the efficacy and sufficiency of random mutation + NS.
So, I have my doubts on the socalled theistic evolutionists.
Tough. Last time I checked, I still existed.

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by peter borger, posted 10-22-2002 8:23 PM Karl has not replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 191 (20544)
10-23-2002 4:32 AM


My dear boy, science is not about objecting to, or wanting things. It's about evidence. Produce the evidence for your pet theory, design hypothesis tests for it, perform them and publish in a peer reviewed journal. Then we'll be interested.

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by peter borger, posted 10-23-2002 8:12 PM Karl has not replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 191 (20674)
10-24-2002 4:20 AM


Well, publish these findings then!

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024