 | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I guess the problem I have is that the peppered moth was shown as THE proof of evolution in our time to the masses. There should be some sort of accountability that expresses, "We were wrong here" in a very public way. You can't be so (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) No, I think Downs Syndrome is a case of such chromosomal changes. I just want to know why critters that look so much alike outwardly are so genetically different and how they got to be that way. I wish I had the charts that I found in my (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I think you mean "Fahrenheit 451." I don't think 45 degrees F is going to burn much in the way of reading matter. :) best LFB (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Such as, for instance, positing "Creation Science" as if it were science. (...) No one is blaming you for the ignorance of others, but others' ignorance doesn't excuse them, either. The fact is that certain people are pushing an agenda to have (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) The spanish inquisition didn't "control" Galileo, but it did destroy the ability to think in a host of lesser folk. You haven't grasped the pernicious damage that pushing a bunkum "theory" into impressionable kids, placing it as equally valid (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) (URL) wouldn't necessarily be so bad. I wish the Creator-scale figs were a bit more articulated, but I don't see what everyone's big problem with them is. Yeah, I'd be upset if they completely replaced Minifigs, but I don't think that's going (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
The author of this article also reveals science illiteracy at best and bias at worst in describing evolution as positing a "random" force at work in shaping variations. Darwin's theory of descent with modification postulated the principle of natural (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes: <snipped explanation of why I'm so vehement in my disdain for bunkum of the Literal Creationist sort... thanks!> (...) Me too, sort of... (well, if there *was* a bejeezus in me he's gone now) :-) What I (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
Sorry, (...) should of course read as: 1.800.000 different species ... (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
I'll now go ahead and try to argue like Creationists do: Currently there are about 1.800.000.000 different species of living beings described. Do you seriously want to tell me that Noah had time enough to sample 1.100.000 insect species (wait a (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Maybe Chris Tracey (or someone else) can explain this a bit better, but I think it's important to point out the main flaw in "intelligent design". To take Behe's mousetrap analogy: it's true that half a mousetrap isn't much of a mousetrap. But (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I think Larry has a problem with the truly "lost" people, mostly in the SouthEast US, who have decided they basically want the Bible taught in school in place of true scientifically based textbooks. Biblethumpers already pound the Bible into (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Actually it took me a day or two but I did happen to find a grip eventually: (URL) (...) I wish I had said that. (...) Where did you come up with this crazy ide that I'm out to control thoughts? I assure that was never my intent nor do I (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Wow we MUST be good if we can control whether or not someone is able to think. It's a good thing you're smarter than everyone else Larry so we can't exercise our super powers over YOU! You must be among the more evolved humans....your (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) EGAD! A Clone! What is the world coming to!?! ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) That's OK, since that's the vision I have of every Literal Creationist. You don't have to physically burn a book to destroy knowledge or worse, destroy the very ability to think. You literal creationists, with your incessant pushing to get a (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Midifigs? Is this the new music stuff from Lego? Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
Ack! Don't suggest it! You know why? To get the right scale, they'd end up using minifigs for the Hobbits, and the new Midifigs for humans. Ick! (...) -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | iPlanet (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) 8^) Okay, maybe I was exaggerating a little. And anyway I wouldn't be burning quality textbooks--just books that purport pseudoscience to be the equivalent of science! Dave! (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Go get em' Dave you crazy text book burning machine! I'm getting these mental images of you as one of the firemen in "Farenheit 45" walking around Pittsburgh with a big flame thrower raiding schools to burn books. (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I've heard nothing about it in the Pittsburgh area, other than a poorly-written editorial in the Gazette. Be assured I will personally burn every textbook, funded by my tax money, that espouses creationism or intelligent design as viable (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) The major scientific community? Are you basing this on Behe's statements or maybe the intro to the article? Most of the major scientific community that I know have dismissed Behe-- I know I have. He has flaws in many if his arguments. One of (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) The article stated: "What distinguishes intelligent design from creationism is that it has won the backing of a minority of scientists" To my way of interpreting things "a minority of scientists" does not imply "the major scientific (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Hope away. Since you've demonstrated your inability to understand the processes of science and what science represents, your assessment of the alleged merits of Dr. Behe's theories is meaningless. (...) Yeah--just like begging the question of (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I can only hope that you take this as an indicator that the major scientific community does recognize the futility of macro-evolution explanation for how life cameinto existance and 'progressed'. The intelligence often pointed to is often (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
My views about creationism should at this point be fairly well established, but I came across this piece in the local paper today. (URL) Pittsburgh Post Gazette isn't exactly a rigorous scientific journal, so the inclusion of this article shouldn't (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Yea, what a game... What I'd like to see is ICE re-release Riddle of the Ring. It was a nice game, and one of the few games I have ever seen which played well for 3 players (too many 3 player games consist of 2 of the players ganging up and (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Fellowship of the Ring - Christmas 2001 The Two Towers - Christmas 2002 Return of the King - Christmas 2003 *sigh* Have to wait 3 years to see them all. ARGH! In any case, I'm sure we'll see plenty of merchandise, but LEGO sets would be darn (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Err bad news.. from what I read quote The Lord of the Rings game will follow along the lines of the popular(sic) warhammer fantasy battle series unquote (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) As long as it's not anything like "Fellowship of the Ring" by Iron Crown Enterprises. "So, the Fellowship player wins if he makes it to here by turn 11, but if he hasn't been to Rivendell by Turn 6 he has to make it over here to (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) That's an excellent point-by-point clearinghouse (with some cross-links to the talk.origins site I posted, as well). Thanks for posting it, Ross. (...) article is the singularly most unflattering "official" photograph ever taken of a person? (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Well, there ought to be a lot of cool "wizardy" stuff...I expect potions, cauldrons, owls (hopefully they won't use the same bird piece they use for falcons and parrots), maybe a rat (is Scabbers in the first book?), castle walls, probably (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) I dont think lego are bothered with minifig size. look at the Star Wars anakin v's chewbacca, about 3 foot difference - both the same size minifig. The minifig has been around 20 odd years and hasnt changed. I do agree that the Harry Potter (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Oh well I'd have to see what they came up with first... (...) The enviroment will shift to a magical castle enviroment once you read on... (...) That would indeed be a very cool product line, lots of possibilities. I have my doubts about the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) I suspect that minifig proportions are actually correct for Hobbits and wrong for most others! Jennifer Clark (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
Is it just me? I just cant seem to get excited over the imminent Harry Potter line. O.k I have only read 50 pages of the first book, but it all seemed to be based in a modern day town environment with characters who wouldn't translate well into (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) And here's a couple of late-breaking stories which seem to contradict the idea of a "young world": (URL) I havent investigated these at all... (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apples and oranges
|
|
(...) Of course the immediate question I raise about his research is what is the transmission spectra for carbon?... Still the article has a very good point. There are plenty of ways you can compare apples and organges on. (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Just a note: Trilobites as a group aren't gone after the Devonian. They take a major hit in the Devonian extinctions, but have a minor comeback, surviving until the Permian. However, that means it's a great example of evolution, extinction, (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apples and oranges
|
|
Hmmm ... I wonder if he really followed through there. What he did was compare the transmission spectra of the resulting dried products. Now what does he get if he does a nutrition test on the apple and the orange? :-) -- Cheers ... Geoffrey Hyde (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Apples and oranges
|
|
(URL) "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I haven't been there in a couple of decades, so I don't know what the policy is now. Certainly in the past you could collect them - it would be hard to enforce much in the middle of nowhere (don't take your low-slung sports car). Finding (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) I'm neither into biochemistry or microbiology, so I have no great opinion on the matter. Or were you refering to evolution in general? (...) Look at your statements: they don't say that anything is impossible - simply put, they do not argue (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
Tim Culberson <t_c_c@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3A806AF4.C5570B...hoo.com... (...) (URL) > ments/ (...) Just as my quoting the above site doesn't mean I agree entirely with everything there. But there are some very good references! Regards, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Hmmmm, are you allowed to pick them up and keep them, or is the area protected? If you can collect, I see a roadtrip in my near future. -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | iPlanet Support - (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) I'd just like to clarify that I never said that at all, but you rather assumed that's what I meant. I did say "interestingly enough". Just one response to this message (see my reply to Ross's message for why I didn't respond to the others) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Thank you Ross. This citation is the most direct refutation you could have found :)...and since I don't have any counter-refutations myself, I'm not going to argue it :) Please note that this does not, however, mean that I believe it or admit (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) I can't say as I've actually pondered those particular facts personally....but you sure do have some good points! (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I think the main point here is that while some things can be objectively stated, their implications may be subject to historical context. For example, say 100 years from now, it would be true to say that Elizabeth II and Henry VIII were both (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Well it's nice that you bring that up....what is it about evolution that you DO believe exactly? (...) Jeepers Bruce! At least Ross showed me where I could find counter-arguments! Not only do you not cite a source you just throw a couple (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Oh? Prove Clinton used to be president of the US. Can you? We're talking 100% prove. However, like science, you can show that it's ridiculously likely that he WAS president. How? Analysis of evidence. We read the papers, we ask people, we do (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) There are two levels of mediation: That of the writer, and that of the reader. You and I may agree that Ford being President constitutes and objective fact because our reading (or your writing and my reading) are the same, or similar enough. I (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
Mr L F Braun <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: G8CJyH.BCq@lugnet.com... (...) But don't you differentiate between the fact as such and the assumptions and conclusions you draw from it? To my understanding, THERE ARE objective facts (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I could say that about the horseshoe crabs at Point Pleasant, NJ. Is the geographical distribution wide on those? Do you get them in California? (Or are you not there anymore?) One specimen of a trilobite really stands out. It's the one with a (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) We makes certain assumptions about its meaning. We (at least the Americans) will all understand these because we're in the same rhetorical system. But why did you choose Ford? What is the context of the statement, both here and in terms of its (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Ack, you're right. I have no idea why I typed 18th. Do I have to give back my Secret Historian Decoder Ring and washroom key now? :( I should always remember to check my desiderata. But in any case, it just strengthens my point. And actually, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Hm, let's see: Gerald Ford was a president of the U.S. Is this an objective historical fact or not? Am I missing something? Arnold (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Yup, been there, done that. I think it was for a class in stratigraphy many years ago. It was the quietest place I have ever experienced in my life. We weren't out there for the trilobites (and well noted about the Horseshoe crab), but you (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory)
|
|
(...) When chicken fingers are outlawed, only outlaws will have chicken fingers. "Have you registered that chicken finger?" And, possibly, chickens--but only after a backwards evolutionary step (possibly forwards in their case, considering how well (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) And don't forget that earth is basically spinning within a vacuum! Of course a spinning ball in our atmosphere soon gets slower and will stop, but without friction a ball (even a big ball called earth) will spin for a VERY long time almost in (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I thought archeology was a science? from m-w.com 1 : the scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts, and monuments) of past human life and activities -chris (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I was going to post a reply to an argument last week concerning species concepts in the macro-evolution/creation debate, unfortunately other responsibilities got in the way. Thanks for bringing it up. As Sproaticus said, there are many, many (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I've read some general statements which make huge assumptions. What I'm asking for is some evidence - Some simple basic evidence. (...) If I don't accept Darwinism, (or "macro-evolution" or whatever the preferred name is) how does that mean I (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Actually, while I'm not an expert on the issue, shouldn't there be more normal than transitional? As I understand the 'current' theory of evolution, mutations happen in 'spurts'-- hence there would be much more probability (assuming standard (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) For anyone to give you that, you also need to "define" what a species is -- specifically, what criteria there are to decide where one species stops and the other starts. So much of your point depends on establishing a discrete categorization (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Umm, Steve? You said:[...]what I'm asking for evidence of is the theory regarding evolution OF species from one to another Arnold said:[...]In fact, the entire fossil record of mammal-like reptils has a DENSE transitional field of species that (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) All I said was that it was a good example of how AFAIK there are no "transitional" fossils that aren't faked, even though there should theoretically be more transitional than normal. (...) Yet again, I remind you that what I'm asking for (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Our Schools Safe
|
|
(...) cut (...) the (...) I know a little boy who was expelled from a private school for the first offense. I thought it was a bit dramatic, but was wondering if that was the general perception. Chris (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Our Schools Safe
|
|
(...) nice pun. (...) no. no. I hope not. not really. Did we remember that the kid was 8 years old? I'm sure some of you have children this age and I have a brother who is currently 8. This kid probably would have gotten less punishment if the (...) (24 years ago, 4-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Our Schools Safe
|
|
(...) Would it be at all different if the 'victim' was peer? Would it be at all different if the aggressor were also saying "I'm going to shoot you with a gun" or something? Would it matter if the victim were traumatized by the event? Would it (...) (24 years ago, 4-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego Stories (was Re: Remote Control Figures? (Was Re: Bionicle Sets))
|
|
Err, can we keep this out of off-topic.debate? FUT: lugnet.general (24 years ago, 3-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego Stories (was Re: Remote Control Figures? (Was Re: Bionicle Sets))
|
|
(...) If I were an executive at LEGO I would not consider the AFOL market a group to which to cater. AFOLs are only incidental to the core market and marketing that LEGO has developed over DECADES. AFOLs may just be a temporary anomaly. Yes, we seem (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego Stories (was Re: Remote Control Figures? (Was Re: Bionicle Sets))
|
|
"Jonathan Lill" <jonathanl@myriadweb.com> wrote in message news:G853FG.2ID@lugnet.com... (...) [snip] (...) my (...) This is a good point. It is difficult now as an adult not to impose our desire for more complexity, more complete sets, etc. onto (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory)
|
|
(...) Actually, yep. I should've listened to my insticts more. After corresponding with Bruce, it's now clear that the article he was referring to was in the July 1998 National Geographic, pp. 74-99. A great article, lots of great side articles, it (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory)
|
|
(...) Dave! (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
