(June 11, 2015 at 12:31 pm)Anima Wrote:(June 11, 2015 at 12:21 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: We're talking about scientific theories, Anima. Trying to compare evolution to the colloquial usage of the word is goddamn dishonest as shit. And I think you know that.
You were talking scientific theories and assuming those to be what Steve was talking about. He is not necessarily talking scientific theories. "
(June 11, 2015 at 12:23 pm)abaris Wrote: Yeah, go give your former science teacher a good kicking, since he obviously didn't explain to you the difference between all of the above and the resurrection, to take only the most obvious example of supernatural fiat claims.
Uh. I believe are already stated that the resurrection is not considered a historical fact.
(June 11, 2015 at 12:23 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Oh, come on Anima. You really can't think of anything that would falsify evolutionary theory as it currently stands? Sorry, I don't believe you.
So you are saying it is Evolutionary Law? I wonder why they still call it a theory if there is nothing which could falsify it. Wait... If it cannot be falsified than can it be considered a scientific theory or is it just some ridiculous assertion like a man coming back from the dead?(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Orig..._selection)
How the hell did you get that from what I wrote?
