Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 23:55:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
365 times
|
| |
|
|
I've been remise in waiting so long to reply - I apologize.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
>
> > ...Below are a few fundamental points against Darwinism that
> > none of its supporters has yet been able to successfully refute...
>
> > - The fossil record does not support evolution.
>
> You're likely referring to the so-called absence of so-called "transition
> fossils" that would supposedly link arbitrarily chosen stages of evolution.
> First of all, if I provide you with a link between, say, reptiles and birds,
> you'll ask for a link between reptiles and link1, and then for a link between
> link1 and link2, and so on ad infinitum.
Ad infinitum? No I won't. The only links I've heard of have been faked.
The recent reptile/bird fake that made the cover? of National Geographic
being a great example. If cats really evolved from dogs (my example - feel
free to adjust it to fit the theoretical "tree of life") slowly and gradually
over millions of years, then there should be more "transition" fossils than
the species fossils themselves, right? Where are they?
If I say "The fossil record does not support evolution" and you say
"Yes it does." - that isn't a refutation. I'm expecting you to attempt
to provide evidence to show how a fossil of a cat and a fossil of a dog
someone "prove" that one evolved into the other.
I'm going to skip (at least for now) the other points and the cases
of falsified "evidence". Given the rate at which this subject seems
to expand, I think it's best to stick to one point. I'll therefore restate
my original premise/challenge regarding this subject. (Skip to end.)
> We (collectively) can cite evidence in support of evolution all day long
> and refute the counter arguments until we're blue in the collective face.
I've seen/read plenty of theory - I've yet to see any solid evidence.
> I'll cut to the chase, though, and ask if you can provide even a shred
> of evidence to support creationism. Are you willing to subject your
> own theory to the same kind of scrutiny you're applying to evolution?
Sure - I never said I could prove creationism. I said I expect
(collective) you to admit that Darwinism is no more scientific or
proven than is Creationism. I stand by my original statement, and
I've seen nothing here to indicate any reason to change. Jon can't
even get a _definition_ out of "you guys" let alone any evidence... :-)
_______________________________________________
I challenge you to show me ANY scientific evidence supporting the
current theory of evolution of species. I invite you to start with "my"
first point against Darwinism that none of its supporters has yet been
able to successfully refute - The fossil record does not support evolution.
SRC
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| Snippety Snip. (...) Faked, faked... always with this faked. You sound like a broken record. Everything that you can't explain away must be faked, right? I found this quote from one of the creationist resources rather interesting((URL) By basing our (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) I have seen no such claims in any scientific source. (...) I listed those for human evolution from hominids to current man. That's the family/genus/species record. (...) A cat didn't evolve into a dog or vica versa. (...) It's hard to see with (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| Hi, (...) If you think of the number of animals that have existed over the previous X million years, and the small fraction of these whose remains have survived to exist as fossils, and the smaller fraction of these which actually have been found (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) As Bruce and I have pointed out countless times previously, *EVERY* organism that ever lived is a transitional form, fossil or otherwise. Further, my "ad infinitum" comment is a straightforward rhetorical consequence of demanding a (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) Sure it does. Ever heard of Morganucodon? Why the heck did the ossicles of your ear start to develop in your mandibula and successivly moved into your ear during your embryonal development? Because this reflects your phylogeny - the ear (...) (23 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
95 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
