 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) What have I denied or claimed inapplicable? I've been presented only with some specialized snippets which I've ignored because they're based upon more foundational things which I'm asking for evidence about. Why is it (seemingly) such a (...) (25 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) For the 39th time. The fossil record seems to indicate that species appear, then disappear. Take trilobites, for example. Older ones are not as specially diverse as later ones. But after the Devonian extinction, they're all gone. Where did (...) (25 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) So therefore chromosomal change never happens? Is that the point? (...) Maybe. Seals seem to do okay though. (...) Could be an okay fin and a really ordinary leg first. Ever heard of lungfish? (...) If there wasn't anything else on land to eat (...) (25 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Welcome back Tim. Would you mind having a look at an earlier post of mine, questioning your basic assumptions? (URL) rather than getting bogged down again (in different interpretations of observed phenomena), could we examine the premises of (...) (25 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Good point - Lack of common definitions is often a problem with these types of discussions. I'll admit right away that I'm not the one to do the defining - I chose Physics over Biology. Archeology isn't my area either, which is part of why I'm (...) (25 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
