Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:02:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
295 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > 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?
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 explanation of the natural world. The fact or
non-fact of a single faked fossil (or even a hundred faked fossils) is
irrelevant to the fact of evolution.
Yet again, I remind you that everything is a transitional fossil (well,
everything that passes on its genes), so your question is nullified before
it's even asked. You ask me for a transitional form, and I say that *you*
are a transitional form between your father and your (perhaps hypothetical)
son. Further, if you (and all evidence of you) should disappear for some
reason but your son and father lived on, would you claim that no link
existed between them simply because you can't be found?
> > > 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... :-)
Darwinism is a misnomer. If you're referring to a critical acceptance of
the phenomenon of evolution, then I admit to such acceptance. Evolution is
not scientific, of course, just as gravity is not scientific; it is a
phenomenon.
However, evolutionary theory *is* scientific because it is based on
observations of natural evidence as well as repeatable experimentation and
examination of empirical evidence. Creationism is not scientific because,
among other things, it is not subject to these scientific methods.
Evolution is the process by which, over time, desirable traits arise and
accumulate to form organisms increasingly well-suited to their environment.
We are not discussing the big bang, nor socialism, nor the origin of life,
much as Jon might have wished otherwise.
> > > 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".
A fabulous refutation has been provided by Arnold Staniczek here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=9199
He's done it. Deal with it.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
