Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:46:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
621 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > 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?
It should be extremely obvious what I mean, except for someone doing their
best to dodge the point.
> You've never seen National Geographic? You
> don't consider it a scientific source?
November 98, if I recall.
> You're not familiar with the
> reptile/bird fake?
By all means, share your source for it being a fake.
> All the various evolutionist who were fawning
> all over it aren't scientists? You don't admit that it's a fake?
You don't admit beating your wife, is the example I believe you just gave
Larry. I have not seen any evidence it is fake. Perhaps it (they,
actually, since it was more than one) is a fake. Just point me where.
>
> > > > 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.
Perhaps you shouldn't complain about getting a definition out of "you guys"
if you aren't prepared to do the same.
>
> > > 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".
It was posted. I note you conveniently deleted my references to such. So
here it is again:
To figure relationships, refer to the taxonomic scale: Kingdom, Phylum,
Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Just to complicate things, there are
sub- and super- appended. Phylum chordata (bilateral symmetry, notochords)
has the rather important sub-phylum Vertabrata (where the notochord becomes
a more complex spinal column). For man, taking up from Vertabrata: Class -
Mammalia; Order - Primates; Family - Hominidae; Genus - Homo; Species -
Sapiens. I skipped a few of the intermidiary levels (placental mammals
rather than marsupial, but I don't remember the exact name).
Man used to be considered the only Hominid, but due to genetic reasearch,
Gorillas, Chimps, and Orangutans share the same family name. Man (Homo) only
has the one species. Other species are gone for one of two reasons: they
were a dead end, or they evolved into modern humans. Thus you may see Homo
Neanderthalensis listed, or perhaps Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. The
first indicates that Neanderthals are a seperate species, the second
indicates if a Neanderthal was walking down the street and of the
appropriate sex, you could mate with it and produce viable offspring
(offspring that can have offspring). Last I saw genetic research indicated
that Neanderthals were a dead end - they are related further back in time to
modern humans, but do not continue forward. Proceeding back in time, Homo
Heidelbergensis (or Homo Sapiens Archaic), which is one of those smooth
transition pieces you refered to; Homo Erectus, possibly the first fire
user; Homo Habilus, first to use stone tools. We then switch to Genus
Parathropus, which was formerly part of the next Genus, Australopithecus.
Several species of each (Africanus and Afarensis probably the best known).
From there we go up the scale to the Hominid superfamily. There are several
there, but the only one I remember is Proconsul. So there's the links
between us and the other Hominids, the great apes, which in turn derived
from other placental mammals, which evolved from other vertebrates, which
evolved from creatures with notochords, etc.
Things may get refined as we acquire more information.
End clip. Please, no *unsupported* claims that all or any of these are
fakes. I don't see how lying serves God at all.
>
> 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.
>
>
No doubt you'll continue to dodge what is inconvenient and repeat the same
claims over and over again.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
