You can't be less than 100% guilty. You're guilty or you're not guilty. If the man wasn't guilty then there would be reason to believe the jury was biased.
Miller used environment X, performed the test and it was conclusive. Someone else said it could have been environment Y, they tested it, it was inconclusive. Others said it could have been environment Z, A, B, C, whatever. No scientists have ever ruled out the first environment X.Originally Posted by geoff
Once again you present evolution as some "universal" fact.[/quote]Where did I say evolution was a universal fact? I just looked through the whole thread and no where did I say that. I just said evolution only explained ONE thing. You are trying to argue that it IS universal.
Thats because Abiogenisis and evolution are two different theories of how and whyOriginally Posted by geoff
You mean search for correct answersOriginally Posted by geoff
No. No it doesn'tOriginally Posted by geoff