 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Well, I wonder a bit about this-- is 1900's American History a science? Sure, but we don't often think of it as such. The only reason we tend to think of archeology as a 'science' or biology as a 'science' is that they're more based off of (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Ooh, can I handle this? We just covered this in my astronomy class I am pretty psyched about the whole concept. Yes, you are right, the earth is slowing down. Furthermore, you are also right that in the very small amount of time that humans (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I gave a long list of fossils directly related to human evolution. No response from you. Please present your evidence that any or all are fake. Cite scientific sources, please. This is the third time I've asked. (...) There is ONLY evolution (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Mount Cadiz, southern California. An exposed abuttement of Cambrian and Precambrian rock. Zillions of Trilobites. Hip deep in them. Zillions may be an underestimate. Bruce (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) This has been shot full of holes centuries ago when they found chinese genealogies going back further than 4004 BC. I've mentioned this before. Europeans were scratching their heads about this almost 400 years ago - why can't Creationists get (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Steve, You pretty much proved with the above statement that you truly DON'T grok science at all. Think about it for a while. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) ? Why's that? Should I instead expect to find at least one fossil from every living 'species' that ever existed on Earth? I don't. On what sort of basis would you assume otherwise? (...) ? Ok, 1st off, I dunno if that's true. There's certainly (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Bwahaha. The vast majority of fossils are of non extinct animals? Find me a live trilobite, will you? Trilobites are the most common fossil out there, which isn't too surprising since they apparently lived 300-600 million years ago and had (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
You know what I always wondered Tim? Have you ever seen the chromosome numbers on the DNA of different species? There is no (apparent) relationship of chromosome numbers to the complexity of make up of animals. That means that through evolution, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
