Joined: July 2006
|Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,07:00)|
"Probably". That old saving grace of creationists everywhere. AFDave's "it could have" springs to mind.
If you had the confidence of your convictions you'd have no need for the "Probably". I mean, if you knew it for a fact you can just state as much. No Probably required.
If you have evidence to back up your claims, you'd state it, no Probably required.
If you are just guessing wildly because you don't really have a clue and need to justify it to yourself, because otherwise where does that leave the rest of your belief system, then yes, you might need to throw in quite a few "Probably".
In fact, I might invest in shares of "Probably", this thread will have more then it's fair share.
SuperSport - Here's a tip. Your answer to my question is a "just so story". Handwaving essentially.
And you say there's no evidence for "evilutionism".
Here's laughing at you, kid.
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand