To: betty boop
f Bohr is right -- epistemologically speaking -- then it needs to be recognized (IMHO) that even such a widely-accepted theory as Darwinist evolution is to some degree compromised as science, because it rests so much on things that no one has ever directly observed.
To what as yet unobserved events do you refer?
133 posted on
10/30/2006 7:53:17 AM PST by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio; Alamo-Girl
To what as yet unobserved events do you refer? Hi Dimensio! Do you mind if we turn this question around, so that I might ask you: What part of evolution theory have you directly observed?
137 posted on
10/30/2006 8:16:10 AM PST by
betty boop
(Beautiful are the things we see...Much the most beautiful those we do not comprehend. -- N. Steensen)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson