1
#13912
Julian
Now if she'd said that in 1799, she might be one of those 'genuine psychics' \"Interesting\" Ian was talking about. As opposed to adding a little Old Testament to her brain and becoming 'genuinely psychOTic'
2/7/2006 5:08:31 AM
#13930
Crosis
No, we actually know quite a bit about evolution.
But science never says that there is no other possible explanation - it says that this one is the best explanation we have. Untestable claims are almost never the best explanation available, simply because they don't really explain anything - they simply substitute an unsolvable mystery for a solvable one. Science sticks with natural explanations because an \"unnatural\" one is next to useless in terms of predictive power.
2/7/2006 6:43:21 AM
#13954
Coffee
A classic case of projection. Faith and ignorance indeed!
2/7/2006 1:55:32 PM
#13977
King Spirula
Britt,
Having produced an incoherent sentence as an explanation of what evolution is, you have demonstrated you know shit about evolution and science. I suggest you move over to \"The Debasing Realm\" where your abilities are better suited.
2/7/2006 6:06:05 PM
#14079
g-21-lto
SIGH
2/8/2006 2:07:50 AM
#14166
Jade
\"...using faith and ignorance...\"
*collapses in a fit of giggles*
Pot, I've *got* to introduce you to kettle. You have so much in common that it's scary...
2/8/2006 3:03:32 PM
#14182
Peachy
Okay so...science must be a natural phenomenon, that we don't know about yet...So, if we don't know about it yet, what exactly are we making science? Ow...there it is, the heebeejeebee migraine.
2/8/2006 3:55:34 PM
#14653
Kettle
Actually, I think you might have misrepresented the pot-kettle phrase. As far as I'd heard it used, the implication is that the pot is accusing the kettle of a characteristic they share. Religion calling science a matter of \"faith and ignorance\" is more like projection.
2/10/2006 4:21:45 PM
#1283106
Quantum Mechanic
Must have been below Ann Coulter in high school biology.
4/27/2011 1:42:22 PM
1