Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 02:48:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1324 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> 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.
I have seen no such claims in any scientific source.
> 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?
I listed those for human evolution from hominids to current man. That's the
family/genus/species record.
>
> 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.
A cat didn't evolve into a dog or vica versa.
>
> 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.
It's hard to see with your head placed in the sand, I would imagine.
>
> > 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... :-)
Jon said he would defend anything on that one particular web site. Dave
listed a number of objections, including inaccuracies on the 1st and 2nd
laws of thermodynamics, which should be right up the alley of a guy with a
degree in physics. No response.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> 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.
Done it. Deal with it.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) What do mean? You've never seen National Geographic? You don't consider it a scientific source? You're not familiar with the reptile/bird fake? All the various evolutionist who were fawning all over it aren't scientists? You don't admit that (...) (26 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 30-Jan-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
