Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:10:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
577 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> I haven't asked for (collective) you to prove evolution. I've challenged
> you to provide some evidence in support "your" theory.
OK. (although it's no more "my" theory than GR is "my" 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.
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, dealt with much of the junk science from these
creationist resources posted, etc. etc. in an attempt to satisfy this
statement of yours.
But I suspect that while everyone but the creationists is satisfied that the
record does indeed "support" evolution (that is, it's consistent with the
predictions that evolutionary theory makes), you're not. And the problem is
either with your definition of "support", or your ability to grasp the
workings of science, not with the information that we've presented.
Further effort on our part is pointless. You just don't grok science.
The onus is on you, as the advancer of what is now (after many many decades
of serious science on this topic and a pretty robust theory) an
extraordinary claim, to provide extraordinary evidence in support of
creationism.
Or better yet, answer my question. Why persist? Why not just say you accept
the whole improbable mess on faith and leave it at that. This thrashing
around just makes you look increasingly silly, just like if you were trying
to prove the moon was actually made of green cheese after Apollo brought
rocks back.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) 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)
|
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 (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
