 | | Re: A whole new debate. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: A whole new debate. —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A whole new debate. —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) What sort of "cross" are you looking for? Do you require a fish with legs or an ape with gills? As Bruce points out correctly, *everything* is a transitional stage. I myself am a transitional point between my father and my son. The fact that (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: A whole new debate. —Tim Culberson
|
| | | | | | (...) Essentailly, yes. Show me how a dog reproduces where its offspring contains NEW material (for example, has grown an entirely new organ) and is able to undeniably pass that organ on to all succeeding offspring. "Please understand, when I talk (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: A whole new debate. —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Since you conveniently cut the first half, let me point that you are clearly not disputing that you are in fact ignorant of what constitutes science, and what constitutes a scientist (there's nothing wrong with being ignorant, but I have a (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
