RC Macaulay wrote:
If you folks continue to snip this heavily you're both going to start yelling incoherently in another post or two.Leaking Pen wrote
>and i notice, you still havent answered my question. you might want >to stop jabbing that strawman in the corner, the discussion is over >HERE.
Asked and answered.
LP asked:
how... does that refute darwinian theory?
And RCM said:
no demonstrable experimental proof can be structured to examine his [Darwin's] theory.
At this point LP said RCM hadn't answered the question. Was there another question, or did he overlook the answer, or did he feel the response was incomplete or off-topic? Dunno; you both snipped so heavily the lurkers can't tell.
At this point it seems to me that LP could talk about longitudinal studies of restricted ecologies (e.g., those on islands), or examples of artificial selection, or the contrast between Lysenko and Darwin, or the flaws in the intelligent design theory, or some such. Or he could attack the link between the assertion of nonfalsifiability (which is what RCM's statement really amounted to) and the claim that something specific refuted Darwinian theory and his use of the term "religious theory". But just asserting that the question hasn't been answered without even reposting it is a little weak.
