Changes

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)

Revision as of 01:11, August 30, 2010

305 bytes added , 01:11, August 30, 2010

→‎Chipmunks on Devil's tower?: If a math proof is flawed, then it is flawed regardless of whether a valid proof is available

Line 169: Line 169:

:: Sorry, perhaps I misstated my question. The stated counterexample suggests that chipmunks have no means to reach the top of Devil's tower, and that this is problematic for the evolutionist paradigm. How does science (including the [[global flood]]) provide such a means? Were the chipmunks dropped off there from the ark as the waters receded? --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 21:02, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

+

::: I have an open mind about possible explanations. But proving that one theory is wrong does not require proving that another theory is right. If a math proof is flawed, then it is flawed regardless of whether a valid proof is available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

Aschlafly

Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators

126,310

edits