Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Feb 2001 21:00:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
420 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
>
> > 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.
I've read some general statements which make huge assumptions.
What I'm asking for is some evidence - Some simple basic evidence.
> Further effort on our part is pointless. You just don't grok science.
If I don't accept Darwinism, (or "macro-evolution" or whatever the
preferred name is) how does that mean I 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.
Why do you keep turning things around rather than addressing the
issue? I've said I'm not trying to prove creation, and I've also said
I'm not asking anyone to prove evolution. I _have_ said that I
accept creation on faith - I'm asking that (collective) you admit
the equivalent. Isn't insultingly dismissing someone (or something)
with whom you disagree the mark of a closed mind?
Why persist in what? This thread? Isn't the result awhile back
evidence that I'm _expected_ to reply? :-) In the more general
sense, when I see a fraud being perpetrated, shouldn't I respond?
Doesn't science involve repeatable and verifiable "lab tests"?
Isn't studying fossils and putting forth a theory based upon those
fossils something more within the field of archeology than science?
SRC
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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, (...) (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
|
|
|
|
