Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:28:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
330 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > 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.
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 it's a fake?
> > > 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 can't speak for Jon - Perhaps he's preparing a response.
As was mentioned before when I didn't respond as soon as
expected - Not responding instantly doesn't mean acquiescence.
> > 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 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.
"Done it." is no more of a refutation than "Yes it does".
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
<snip>
> So Steve is asking for something that can't be given. NOTHING can
> prove evolution. But evolution is the best explanation of the observations,
> it is supported by all sorts of things, and it is a great predictor.
I haven't asked for (collective) you to prove evolution. I've challenged
you to provide some evidence in support "your" theory. I've even narrowed
it to one small portion of the theory and one simple statement waiting for
refutation - The fossil record does not support evolution.
SRC
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 31-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
|
|
|
|
