 | | 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
