 | | 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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, 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)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
"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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
"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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
"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" <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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
