Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Feb 2001 00:01:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
442 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> 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.
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.
>
> But anyway, concerning the fake fossil that was published in National
> Geographic:
If it's fake, I'd *love* to verify that. Fakes are great fun. Just tell me
your source (preferably before the Ice Age hits hell).
>
> 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.
Hmmmm, well, this is interesting. The National Geographic represented that
the fossil-finder is a scientist of long-standing repute, and her
arch-enemies are the black marketeers (this is in China). The fossils
weren't on display (except to other scientists). Of course, they could have
gotten it all wrong, but your explanation doesn't seem to fit with what they
reported. Again, I'd like to see your source.
>
> Taken in the right perspective, this faked fossil really bears no relevance
> in the whole evolution / creationism debate.
Helps establish the link between dinosaurs and birds. Evolution.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
