Debate : 9173


Off-Topic / Debate / 9173

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Steve Chapple

(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Dave Schuler

(...) Even if he hasn't, I have, and I ask you what does it prove? Bruce, DaveL, and I (among many others) have stated for months that one of the primary strengths of science is its ability to modify itself to provide an increasingly complete (...) (24 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Steve Chapple

(...) All I said was that it was a good example of how AFAIK there are no "transitional" fossils that aren't faked, even though there should theoretically be more transitional than normal. (...) Yet again, I remind you that what I'm asking for (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —James Brown

(...) Umm, Steve? You said:[...]what I'm asking for evidence of is the theory regarding evolution OF species from one to another Arnold said:[...]In fact, the entire fossil record of mammal-like reptils has a DENSE transitional field of species that (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) For anyone to give you that, you also need to "define" what a species is -- specifically, what criteria there are to decide where one species stops and the other starts. So much of your point depends on establishing a discrete categorization (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Christopher Tracey

(...) I was going to post a reply to an argument last week concerning species concepts in the macro-evolution/creation debate, unfortunately other responsibilities got in the way. Thanks for bringing it up. As Sproaticus said, there are many, many (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Steve Chapple

(...) Good point - Lack of common definitions is often a problem with these types of discussions. I'll admit right away that I'm not the one to do the defining - I chose Physics over Biology. Archeology isn't my area either, which is part of why I'm (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) For the 39th time. The fossil record seems to indicate that species appear, then disappear. Take trilobites, for example. Older ones are not as specially diverse as later ones. But after the Devonian extinction, they're all gone. Where did (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Just a note: Trilobites as a group aren't gone after the Devonian. They take a major hit in the Devonian extinctions, but have a minor comeback, surviving until the Permian. However, that means it's a great example of evolution, extinction, (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —David Eaton

(...) Actually, while I'm not an expert on the issue, shouldn't there be more normal than transitional? As I understand the 'current' theory of evolution, mutations happen in 'spurts'-- hence there would be much more probability (assuming standard (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Tim Culberson

I promised I wouldn't re-enter this debate but... (...) I find it interesting that you do in fact find it extremely lucky. I also find it EXTREMELY convenient that vast majority of these (supposedly) few fossils just happen to be of non-extinct (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Bwahaha. The vast majority of fossils are of non extinct animals? Find me a live trilobite, will you? Trilobites are the most common fossil out there, which isn't too surprising since they apparently lived 300-600 million years ago and had (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Tim Culberson

(...) Actually it took me a day or two but I did happen to find a grip eventually: (URL) (...) I wish I had said that. (...) Where did you come up with this crazy ide that I'm out to control thoughts? I assure that was never my intent nor do I (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Tom Stangl

(...) I think Larry has a problem with the truly "lost" people, mostly in the SouthEast US, who have decided they basically want the Bible taught in school in place of true scientifically based textbooks. Biblethumpers already pound the Bible into (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes: <snipped explanation of why I'm so vehement in my disdain for bunkum of the Literal Creationist sort... thanks!> (...) Me too, sort of... (well, if there *was* a bejeezus in me he's gone now) :-) What I (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Problems with Creationists' theory —Arnold Staniczek

I'll now go ahead and try to argue like Creationists do: Currently there are about 1.800.000.000 different species of living beings described. Do you seriously want to tell me that Noah had time enough to sample 1.100.000 insect species (wait a (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Creationists' theory —Arnold Staniczek

Sorry, (...) should of course read as: 1.800.000 different species ... (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Creationists' theory —Tim Culberson

(...) I'm not quite sure what you mean by this - because this sure does sound like an evolutionist's argument to me. Certainly you have hit on a point where "practically" speaking a creationist can't argue against the monstrosity of the event you (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Creationists' theory —Tom Stangl

(...) Hah! Like that matters! Do you want to even TRY to calculate the sheer volume of 2.2MILLION insects, especially since then would have to be housed separately to avoid some eating others? Want to try to figure out the food requirements for (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Creationists' theory —James Brown

(...) "Riiighht. What's a cubit?" :) James (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Problems with Creationists' theory —Tim Culberson

(...) Okay now I'm REALLY questioning the credability of these numbers. Please give me an authoritative source on this. First you (inclusive of "the evolutionists in this discussion") say "1.800.000.000 species", then you correct yourself and say (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Creationists' theory —Tom Stangl

(...) I think you need to reread his original post: (...) Obvious typo, which he corrected, he added 3 too many zeros, he meant 1.8Million. But note the "different species OF LIVING BEINGS" (...) The LARGE majority of species on this planet are (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Creationists' theory —Tom Stangl

(...) I was so busy at work that I forgot one of the more obvious grevious errors with your speaker. He seems to think that Noah only needed to gather land dwelling animals, that the water dwelling ones just swam around happily....PAP. Have you ever (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Creationists' theory —Tim Culberson

(...) I don't even knwo why I bother since I could cite every source ont he subject known that explains this but here's another one just for the record: (URL) to answer your fish question from the next message: (URL) Kent Hovind also explains this (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Creationists' theory —Arnold Staniczek

(...) That's right. There are currently about 1.8 million species (plants and animals) described. Of course this is just an estimate - general textbooks vary in giving numbers from 1-2 million of DESCRIBED species, and estimates go even up to 8 (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —David Eaton

(...) ? Why's that? Should I instead expect to find at least one fossil from every living 'species' that ever existed on Earth? I don't. On what sort of basis would you assume otherwise? (...) ? Ok, 1st off, I dunno if that's true. There's certainly (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Mount Cadiz, southern California. An exposed abuttement of Cambrian and Precambrian rock. Zillions of Trilobites. Hip deep in them. Zillions may be an underestimate. Bruce (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Um, well, let's see--the majority may be of animals of a similar *type* (e.g., "teleost fish" or "reptiles") but very, very few are of the same species (or even genus). The most common living fossils cited are the coelecanth (genus Latimera), (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Yup, been there, done that. I think it was for a class in stratigraphy many years ago. It was the quietest place I have ever experienced in my life. We weren't out there for the trilobites (and well noted about the Horseshoe crab), but you (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I could say that about the horseshoe crabs at Point Pleasant, NJ. Is the geographical distribution wide on those? Do you get them in California? (Or are you not there anymore?) One specimen of a trilobite really stands out. It's the one with a (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Tom Stangl

(...) Hmmmm, are you allowed to pick them up and keep them, or is the area protected? If you can collect, I see a roadtrip in my near future. -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | iPlanet Support - (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I haven't been there in a couple of decades, so I don't know what the policy is now. Certainly in the past you could collect them - it would be hard to enforce much in the middle of nowhere (don't take your low-slung sports car). Finding (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I gave a long list of fossils directly related to human evolution. No response from you. Please present your evidence that any or all are fake. Cite scientific sources, please. This is the third time I've asked. (...) There is ONLY evolution (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Arnold Staniczek

(...) Morganucodon is no faked fossil. Yet it shows a perfect transitional stage of arrangement of mandibular bones and ossicles between the condition in modern mammals and reptils. The same transition occurs during the embryonic development of (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) OK. (although it's no more "my" theory than GR is "my" theory...) (...) You claim we haven't provided evidence refuting it. Yet we have discussed the wide variety of fossils, the different ages of various fossils, the transitional fossils, (...) (24 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Dave Schuler

(...) Let's not even start that ugly debate again. I've still got scars. Dave! (24 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —James Brown

(...) Well, not that I want to bring up any ugly memories or anything, but I'll content myself with saying that Larry still hasn't proved that Greek gods exist, let along that they're visiting the moon and bringing back rocks. James (24 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Dave Schuler

(...) Nonsense! Why, just last week I saw lightning. How can you explain it other than Zeus? For that matter, I suppose you're going to suggest that the accompanying rain was *not* Zeus urinating through a seive? Dave! (24 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Hah! Shows how much you know, you big ignoramus you. It's not a sieve, it's a collander. ;) Olympically, LFB (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Mark Sandlin

(...) I'll sift through this debate eventually... ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) You're such a whiz with this! :-, Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Tim Courtney

"Sproaticus" <jsproat@io.com> wrote in message news:G8D2yJ.FyF@lugnet.com... (...) I'm flushed at how far you guys have taken this. It pee's me off when you do this, wipe that smirk off your faces now. -Tim (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Mark Sandlin

(...) This conversation sure is dribbling off. ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Tim Courtney

"Mark Sandlin" <sandlin@nwlink.com> wrote in message news:B6A62C2C.CCEA%s...ink.com... (...) do (...) Man, that was draining. -Tim (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Mark Sandlin

(...) We better evacuate. ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Tim Courtney

"Mark Sandlin" <sandlin@nwlink.com> wrote in message news:B6A6EAA5.C5FA%s...ink.com... (...) ...before we all get wiped out. -Tim (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Mark Sandlin

(...) No re-using puns in the same thread! You lose. ;^) ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Tim Courtney

"Mark Sandlin" <sandlin@nwlink.com> wrote in message news:B6A6EB3B.C5FE%s...ink.com... (...) you (...) Oh crap, I'm such a turd for forgetting. -Tim (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Brian Bacher

(...) Can we wash our hands of this thread at last? -Brian (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Ross Crawford

(...) when (...) If I had my way it'd be flushed down the toilet.... ROSCO (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) You really had to dredge that one up from the bowels. Can't we keep our language clean and toidee? In loo of that, I think the lot of you should just scat. wishing you warm seats at midnight, LFB (24 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I have no choice but to agree as you're in the know, too. ++Lar (how many puns can YOU find in there? You may need to vocalise) FUT trimmed to .pun only (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Steve Chapple

(...) I've read some general statements which make huge assumptions. What I'm asking for is some evidence - Some simple basic evidence. (...) If I don't accept Darwinism, (or "macro-evolution" or whatever the preferred name is) how does that mean I (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Christopher Tracey

(...) I thought archeology was a science? from m-w.com 1 : the scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts, and monuments) of past human life and activities -chris (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Larry Pieniazek

Rearranged to make points and snipped almost at whim. (...) Which has been done. You don't accept it. Not our problem. But the evidence is out there, and has been studied and researched for decades. Centuries in some cases. Your response to any (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Frank Filz

(...) And now can we finally end this "debate" (I argue that it is not in fact a debate). I rest my case that certain Christians (which seem to comprise the set of bible literalists) can not productively participate in a debate about certain aspects (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Steve Chapple

(...) What have I denied or claimed inapplicable? I've been presented only with some specialized snippets which I've ignored because they're based upon more foundational things which I'm asking for evidence about. Why is it (seemingly) such a (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Tom Stangl

(...) Steve, You pretty much proved with the above statement that you truly DON'T grok science at all. Think about it for a while. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —David Eaton

(...) Well, I wonder a bit about this-- is 1900's American History a science? Sure, but we don't often think of it as such. The only reason we tend to think of archeology as a 'science' or biology as a 'science' is that they're more based off of (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) No way! 20th-century American history, or any history, isn't a science. (I can say this quite confidently.) Science is about objective measurement and conclusion; history, while often grouped with the "social sciences," is a member of the (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Arnold Staniczek

(...) Hm, let's see: Gerald Ford was a president of the U.S. Is this an objective historical fact or not? Am I missing something? Arnold (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) We makes certain assumptions about its meaning. We (at least the Americans) will all understand these because we're in the same rhetorical system. But why did you choose Ford? What is the context of the statement, both here and in terms of its (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Arnold Staniczek

Mr L F Braun <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: G8CJyH.BCq@lugnet.com... (...) But don't you differentiate between the fact as such and the assumptions and conclusions you draw from it? To my understanding, THERE ARE objective facts (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) There are two levels of mediation: That of the writer, and that of the reader. You and I may agree that Ford being President constitutes and objective fact because our reading (or your writing and my reading) are the same, or similar enough. I (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Jennifer Clark

(...) I think the main point here is that while some things can be objectively stated, their implications may be subject to historical context. For example, say 100 years from now, it would be true to say that Elizabeth II and Henry VIII were both (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —David Eaton

(...) Oh? Prove Clinton used to be president of the US. Can you? We're talking 100% prove. However, like science, you can show that it's ridiculously likely that he WAS president. How? Analysis of evidence. We read the papers, we ask people, we do (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Tom Stangl

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) It should be extremely obvious what I mean, except for someone doing their best to dodge the point. (...) November 98, if I recall. (...) By all means, share your source for it being a fake. (...) You don't admit beating your wife, is the (...) (24 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Jeremy H. Sproat

A fascinating discussion, from the POV of one who believes in both evolution and creationism. It's also a bit amusing to find that so many on both sides apparently (1) reject the notion that it's a little bit of both. But anyway, concerning the fake (...) (24 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Problems with Darwin's theory —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I don't claim that God didn't make everything. I'm only concerned here with the evidence on hand on what happened. I'm not addressing whether it was directed by God in any fashion or not, but simply what actually took place. (...) If it's (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Sorry -- I wasn't aiming that one at anyone specifically -- just hoping for some colattoral damage. An old nasty habit. :-, (...) Wow, chilly. Touche. OK, I thought that since you were familiar with the first Geographic article ("Feathered (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Fakes happen. Defaking stuff is fun, as Bruce alludes to. Investigating why people do fakes is interesting. But the question is not whether a particular observation is faked. The question, rather, is whether there the preponderance of evidence (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Kinda throws things into confusion, but it also reminds everyone to be wary. (...) Pretty much. If they want to seize on the small number of fakes, they'll have to answer to the large number of fake faith healers as a disproof of God. I don't (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) How is Larry's viewpoint necessarily Libertarian? Libertarians can espouse good science, but espousing good science (and freedom) is not necessarily Libertarian (though it can't hurt). :) best LFB (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I'm making the jump that this would not be an issue under Libertarian non-government schools. We'd have a bunch of scientific morons in the Creationist schools, which is why I say on the theoritical level. You are correct in my estimation that (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Larry Pieniazek

Bruce and Lindsay are both right. (...) Agreed. Although I would argue that it's more likely in some systems than others... (c.f. the wacky trait inheritance theories popular in the SovUnion under Stalin which were there to please him, supposedly) (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) It tells one a lot about the scientific profession--and academia in general--when things like that happen. Thanks to Jeremy for providing the cites; I read both the "original" and the followup in National Geographic. As in religion, vanity can (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Dave Schuler

(...) Dave! (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) When chicken fingers are outlawed, only outlaws will have chicken fingers. "Have you registered that chicken finger?" And, possibly, chickens--but only after a backwards evolutionary step (possibly forwards in their case, considering how well (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Bruce Schlickbernd

My God! Someone actually noted a source! Miracles do happen! :-) My wife has been on a anti-packrat campaign of late (me) and has been tossing my National Geographics when the new one comes in, whether I've read it or not. I'll have to go back and (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory) —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Actually, yep. I should've listened to my insticts more. After corresponding with Bruce, it's now clear that the article he was referring to was in the July 1998 National Geographic, pp. 74-99. A great article, lots of great side articles, it (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)