Subject:
|
Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:15:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
596 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
>
> > > > In my opinion debating the existence of evolution is akin to debating the
> > > > existence of gravity. It does exist. How it works is the real question and
> > > > the question Darwin was answering in his theory.
>
> > > I agree. There is virtually no debate in science on whether there is
> > > evolution (including macro-evolution). The particulars, yes.
>
> > Hardly - but that shows you just how easliy you've bought into the theory.
> > If my statement isn't sufficient for you, please write one, and I'll address
> > it. Please be concise.
>
> Jon:
> You've repeatedly mentioned leading scientists and overwhelming numbers to
> defend your case against evolution without giving actual names or numbers.
> For the umpteenth time, can you provide any actual names or numbers, other
> than those gleaned from that single misleading web-article you cited? Can
> you, for instance, point to any studies within the legitimate scientific
> community (by which I mean people who pursue science as a means of
> understanding, as opposed to proponents of Creation Science, which is a
> misnomer) or any non-virtual articles using science to discredit evolution
> (the process, not the theory).
> Further, Bruce hasn't "bought into" the theory; he has given the matter,
> judging from his posts and from correspondence, appropriate critical thought
> and formed his conclusions. This is not, I should add, the "final"
> conclusion impervious to future modification. Rather, it is logically the
> best conclusion based on the staggeringly overwhelming evidence in support
> of evolution.
> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give one or, preferably, a few citations other than
> The Bible or your single Web-Article to support your claim.
First - I've never said "leading" scientists, since that is always open to
debate.
I understand your thoughts/feelings on this - however, with this thread I'm
trying to establish what it is that I should be addressing regarding evolution
- macro evolution, and in specific the fossil record.
Please try to stay on the thread, and I will address the specifics as we come
to them.
-Jon
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
| (...) Okay, but you haven't named names in any thread in which you've participated. My objection isn't simply to your line of reasoning (which is a substantial objection, I grant you) but rather to your willful choice not to support your claims (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
| (...) Jon: You've repeatedly mentioned leading scientists and overwhelming numbers to defend your case against evolution without giving actual names or numbers. For the umpteenth time, can you provide any actual names or numbers, other than those (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
78 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
