 | | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) 1650 for Bishop Ussher (and some further expansion in 1654). 17th century. (...) The earth is slowing. Tidal forces are doing it, similiar to what the earth has already done to the moon, just a lot weaker. If one considers the 8 hour workday, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Um, well, let's see--the majority may be of animals of a similar *type* (e.g., "teleost fish" or "reptiles") but very, very few are of the same species (or even genus). The most common living fossils cited are the coelecanth (genus Latimera), (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Morganucodon is no faked fossil. Yet it shows a perfect transitional stage of arrangement of mandibular bones and ossicles between the condition in modern mammals and reptils. The same transition occurs during the embryonic development of (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) No way! 20th-century American history, or any history, isn't a science. (I can say this quite confidently.) Science is about objective measurement and conclusion; history, while often grouped with the "social sciences," is a member of the (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) I'll point to the talk.origins clearinghouse site, which is one of the best catch-all refutations of the Creationist argument (and exploration of misconceptions about Evolution that cause otherwise intelligent people to subscribe to Creation (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
