Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:24:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
375 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> I promised I wouldn't re-enter this debate but...
>
>
> > And something else here-- there really are very very very very few fossils
> > that we've found compared with the number of living beings on Earth in the
> > last billion years or so. I'd consider us EXTREMELY lucky to get one sample
> > of every species, let alone any of the so-deemed 'transition' fossils.
>
> I find it interesting that you do in fact find it extremely lucky. I
> also find it EXTREMELY convenient that vast majority of these
> (supposedly) few fossils just happen to be of non-extinct animals living
> today
Bwahaha. The vast majority of fossils are of non extinct animals?
Find me a live trilobite, will you? Trilobites are the most common fossil
out there, which isn't too surprising since they apparently lived 300-600
million years ago and had 15000 different species spread across 8 orders.
If the vast majority of fossils are of non extinct animals, there should be
live trilobites everywhere you look, since evidence points to them filling
many many niches at the time (large ones, small ones, ones with well
developed legs for speed, ones with armor, ones with spines, ones equipped
for plankton straining, ones adapted for deep water, ones adapted for free
swimming, ones with tearing mandibles, etc. etc.) And there ARE trilobites
everywhere you look. Old dead fossilized ones. Heck, I found one when I was
a kid, along with some fossilized coral.
Oh, I know, Trilobites all died in the great flood right? Never mind that
they were sea creatures who liked both salt and fresh water. Never mind that
their entombing rock had to form from sediment in a few thousand years.
Never mind that every last one in every one of the thousands of niches died
and none survived.
Get a grip.
> compared with (your belief of) the millions of other living beings
> that have lived on the earth for the past billion years or so --- namely
> those mysterious transition fossils.
We've explained this transition fossil thing over and over. I fail to
understand what, other than simple stubbornness or a lack of understanding
of the tenets of science, is preventing you from grasping it.
Give it up. It's a waste of time. Just keep believing your silliness but get
out of the way of real scientists who get real work done. And stop
pretending your nonsense is real science, and stay out of public schools.
I was hoping you would pack it in but if you keep bringing up the same tired
foolishness it'll keep getting punctured.
Wait, this is where you say in an injured voice "you're not giving an
alternate idea the respect it deserves". Tell it to Galileo. He didn't get
much respect. And he was even right.
You lot are the new luddites, the new inquisitors, the new thought
controllers. "Scientific" creationism makes me ill.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) Actually it took me a day or two but I did happen to find a grip eventually: (URL) (...) I wish I had said that. (...) Where did you come up with this crazy ide that I'm out to control thoughts? I assure that was never my intent nor do I (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| I promised I wouldn't re-enter this debate but... (...) I find it interesting that you do in fact find it extremely lucky. I also find it EXTREMELY convenient that vast majority of these (supposedly) few fossils just happen to be of non-extinct (...) (23 years ago, 6-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
|
|
|
|
