Subject:
|
Re: A whole new debate.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:51:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
143 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> What sort of "cross" are you looking for? Do you require a fish with legs
> or an ape with gills?
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 about evolution I am not referring to
simple variations that occur in any species. Dogs produce a variety of
puppies, but never will dogs produce hamster or pine tree offspring!
Creationists do not argue that all dogs, wolves, and foxes may have had
a common ancestor, nor do they argue that natural selection occurs.
These would both be true whether plants and animals were created or
evolved. However, real evolution, as presented in the textbooks, teaches
that dogs share a common ancestor with pine trees!"
(from http://www.drdino.com/Articles/Article6.jsp)
> If there were no
> Bible, would the lack of such a book invalidate Creationism for you? I hope
> not, because then you'd be saying that the thing only happened because a
> book told you it happened.
The lack of such a book would severly discredit the exact Genesis
record, but would not necessarily invalidate the theory. In the same
manner, however, the lack of such a book would in no way add to supposed
credability of Evolution. One of the reasons I accept creation over
Evolution IS based on the fact that it does have the Bible as its
foundation.
> Proponents of evolution admit, obviously, to the necessity of inference in
> analyzing the fossil record. Of course it isn't complete, just as your new
> reference indicates, otherwise we'd be buried up to the sky in fossil
> remains. The fact that they happen at all, given the rarity of
> circumstances required, is only indicative of the abundance of life at the
> time the organisms died.
What you have said is true if you are an Evolutionist.
I argue that what you have said in fact rather discredits your claim
that the fossil record supports Evolution. If there has been millions
of years of life on earth (therefore millions of separate organisms) and
only a handful of fossils comparatively, then fossils aren't a credible
piece of evidence to support Evolution.
> clear that your citation is taken to imply the Noachian Flood, but that is
> hardly the only, or even the most likely, conclusion.
> Paleontolgists have known for decades that specific conditions are
> necessary for the formation of fossils; that's why they're so rare,
> comparatively speaking.
If the flood isn't the most likely explanation, then why does the fossil
record fit the record so perfectly. Surely you don't dispute that the
record of the Noachian flood was written BEFORE the fossil record. Why
does the evolutionist insist on blindly guessing at another possible
explanation if the "Noachian Flood" one so perfectly explains it.
Scientists today don't try to explain the gravitational theory in any
other way because they have yet to find a flaw in it. The creation
theory contains no flaws, and Evolutionists are trying with everything
they have to find a flaw so as to discredit it.
> > "Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct types of
> > animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to
> > creatures living today. It is said there are many more living species of
> > animals than there are types known only as fossils. If Evolution is
> > true, one may wonder why the case is not just the reverse! Evolutionary
> > history is supposed to be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of
> > Evolution, from amoeba to man.
>
> Certainly not in that order, and once again you're supporting Bruce's view
> with this quote. Evolutionary history has always been filled, as it is
> filled now, with temporary, intermediate stages of life. You're assuming,
> as your reference is assuming, that we have some way to judge any organism
> as the "final" stage of that organism.
Think about the probability that of the millions of fossils that we have
uncovered to date the MAJORITY of them are of very similar and often
totally identical living creatures today (which should be a relatively
small percentage of the likely millions of now extinct species that had
to exist in order for these ones to evolve if Evolution were true)
> > "Sufficient fossils. There is a continuing lack of evidence for
> > Evolution despite an enormous number of fossils.
>
> Now wait a minute. First you claim that the process by which fossils form
> is much more rare than scientists think, and now you're saying that there's
> an enormous number of these rare fossils? The implication, of course, is
> that the enormous number of actual fossils must have arisen from a vastly
> larger number of potential fossils (ie, carcasses), thereby refuting your
> own previous point.
No, that is not the only implication. Although I agree it is a POSSIBLE
one, the creationist's implication is that the enormous number of actual
fossils is a result of the Noachain flood. This does not refute my own
previous point.
> > Although scientists will continue to discover new varieties of fossil animals
> > and plants, it is generally agreed that the millions of fossils already
> > discovered (and the sediments already explored) provide a reliable indication
> > of which way the evidence is going. That is, there will continue to be little
> > or no fossil evidence found to support Evolutionism."
>
> "Evolutionism," by which you can only mean the pursuit and support of
> evolutionary theory, is certainly not a finished body of information, and
> therefore perhaps fossils will indeed alter the theory as you say.
So you are saying that it is in fact LIKELY that there are millions and
millions of fossils yet to be discovered, which might show that the
current millions of fossils are such a small percentage of the total
number of existing fossils so that they weren't in fact a supporting
evidence for either theory.
> That is
> what science does. However, the process of evolution, which is not dependent
> upon evolutionary theory, took place whether or not we are able to draw a
> direct grandpa-pa-son-grandson line for your satisfaction.
So you finally revert to arguing the terminology. I tried to make it
clear by providing that dictionary definition the meaning of the word
Evolution. The word definately has several possible meanings, and I am
arguing the meaning of the Evolutionary, although I may refer to it as
"the process of evolution", in which you may assume "the process of
macro evolution"
> At last you've cited someone who actually seems able to claim himself as a
> scientist. Have you abandoned Dr. Dino now that you realize he doesn't have
> a legitimate scientific leg to stand on?
I still consider Dr. Hovind a leading authority on the subject and am
trying to remember where you cited any actual scientists in this
particular thread.
--
-TiM
NB, CA
http://echofx.itgo.com
t_c_c@yahoo.com
3ch0fx
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A whole new debate.
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
