Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:14:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
363 times
|
| |
|
|
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 fossil that was published in National
Geographic:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > 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.
Motivation. Remember the motivation behind the fake. The fossil in
question was most likely faked to increase its black-market sale value, and
not with a goal of slyly filling in evolutionary blanks. The museum
curators who ultimately published their erroneous findings on the fossil
were also motivated by sales -- ticket sales for their BFE
middle-of-no-freakin-where museum. Once the findings were published and the
fossil was placed under scientific scrutiny, it didn't take long before it
was revealed to be the glue job that it was.
Taken in the right perspective, this faked fossil really bears no relevance
in the whole evolution / creationism debate.
Cheers,
- jsproat
1. I say "apparently" since, for the purposes of debate anyway, folks tend
to gravitate past their center towards the extreme...but this is just fodder
for a completely different debate. :-,
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) I don't claim that God didn't make everything. I'm only concerned here with the evidence on hand on what happened. I'm not addressing whether it was directed by God in any fashion or not, but simply what actually took place. (...) If it's (...) (23 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
