 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) It should be extremely obvious what I mean, except for someone doing their best to dodge the point. (...) November 98, if I recall. (...) By all means, share your source for it being a fake. (...) You don't admit beating your wife, is the (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Let's not even start that ugly debate again. I've still got scars. Dave! (25 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) OK. (although it's no more "my" theory than GR is "my" theory...) (...) You claim we haven't provided evidence refuting it. Yet we have discussed the wide variety of fossils, the different ages of various fossils, the transitional fossils, (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Even if he hasn't, I have, and I ask you what does it prove? Bruce, DaveL, and I (among many others) have stated for months that one of the primary strengths of science is its ability to modify itself to provide an increasingly complete (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) What do mean? You've never seen National Geographic? You don't consider it a scientific source? You're not familiar with the reptile/bird fake? All the various evolutionist who were fawning all over it aren't scientists? You don't admit that (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
