 | | 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)
|
| |
| | (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)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
Tim Culberson <t_c_c@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3A7F69BB.27714E...hoo.com... (...) Check out (URL) these arguments and many more creationist arguments are refuted (with references). (...) Guess so 8?) ROSCO (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
....that I wouldn't re-enter the creation/evolution debate but I've changed my mind. Oh well. (For reference sake and to clarify some definitions): I believe that God created everything about 6000 years ago (possibly as much as 10) and that about (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
I promised I wouldn't re-enter this debate but... (...) I find it interesting that you do in fact find it extremely lucky. I also find it EXTREMELY convenient that vast majority of these (supposedly) few fossils just happen to be of non-extinct (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) And now can we finally end this "debate" (I argue that it is not in fact a debate). I rest my case that certain Christians (which seem to comprise the set of bible literalists) can not productively participate in a debate about certain aspects (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
Rearranged to make points and snipped almost at whim. (...) Which has been done. You don't accept it. Not our problem. But the evidence is out there, and has been studied and researched for decades. Centuries in some cases. Your response to any (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
