Subject:
|
Re: A whole new debate.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 05:23:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
109 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> No matter what Jon or I say, it seems the only thing anyone wants to
> argue is whether or not we understand what science is.
We pointed out that you don't seem to understand that theories are part of
science. Your response is to change the subject. How can you tell us that
evolution isn't science if you don't understand what science involves?
How's this for another question you won't answer:
Do you understand that all those with doctorates aren't scientists? I admit
that the public at large has a broader definition of what a scientist is
than scientists do (engineers are not generally considered scientists for
example), but someone with a doctorate in history is not a scientist even on
that broader public perception. Many of those "scientists" noted at that
website you listed aren't scientists (not to say they aren't highly educated
or worthy of respect in their fields).
Although we have
> both on more than one occasion asked for someone to cite a _specific_
> example of why the Creation theory contradicts emperical science (that
> which is observable, testable, and repeatable) I have yet to see one.
> Therefore, I will shift places from "defensive" to "offensive"
Plate techtonics, sea-floor spreading, magnetic polar reversal: we can
pretty much count the time it took for the Americas to separate from the old
world and arrive at their present locations. The world is pretty old on
that basis alone.
Bishop Ussher gave a date of 4004 BC for the creation of the earth based on
Biblical evidence - we don't even need to go the science route on that one:
recorded Chinese geneologies go back further than that.
>
> So, for the purposes of this thread, let's pretend that nobody has said
> anything about anything concerning Evolution and/or Creation and that I
> didn't say anything in this message preceding this sentence.
Oops. :-)
>
> Assume that this message is the first ever posted in this newsgroup.
> -----BEGIN NEW MESSAGE BELOW THIS LINE-----
>
> If you do not believe in Creationism (http://www.m-w.com lookup
> "creationism"), please anser the following question.
>
> Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if
> your theory is right?
All over the place. *Everything* is a transitional fossil (well, sharks are
pretty darn stable, but even they change).
> Billions! Not a handful of questionable
> transitions.
Tell us how fossilization takes place and thus how likely that everything is
fossilized. Then you still have to deal with the ones that exist.
Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all
> living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
> (from http://www.creationscience.com/quest.shtml)
We are getting a pretty good one for man, but there are others, just not as
widely publicized. Further, the road isn't always smooth (just ask
Neanderthals). :-)
And you are going to explain the fossilization process, correct? And the
unlimited power to sift through all the strata to find these? All fossils
at once? On demand?
>
> Also, FYI, I present to you a very real challenge:
> http://www.creationscience.com/debate.html
I can refer you to evolution websites - it's hard to debate a static site
either way.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A whole new debate.
|
| (...) Although indirectly it seems that you are agin debating terminology and avoiding the real question (unless you misunderstood what I (they) meant by "transitional". Why are there no fossils that demonstrate transitions between any modern (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | A whole new debate.
|
| No matter what Jon or I say, it seems the only thing anyone wants to argue is whether or not we understand what science is. Although we have both on more than one occasion asked for someone to cite a _specific_ example of why the Creation theory (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
8 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
|
|
|
|
