Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:41:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
348 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> I find it interesting that you do in fact find it extremely lucky.
?
Why's that? Should I instead expect to find at least one fossil from every
living 'species' that ever existed on Earth? I don't. On what sort of basis
would you assume otherwise?
> I
> also find it EXTREMELY convenient that vast majority of these
> (supposedly) few fossils just happen to be of non-extinct animals living
> today
?
Ok, 1st off, I dunno if that's true. There's certainly more EVIDENCE of
existing creatures, but that goes without saying. Can you refer me to some
proof to that effect? And further, it would even make SENSE if what you're
saying WERE true because older fossils are down further and are more likely
to be destroyed by things like lava flows, earthquakes, etc, and are even
less likely to be unearthed and discovered just because they're down so far.
Basically, so what?
> 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.
Ok, I'm really not sure where you're going with this... I was commenting
that according to the 'current' theory of evolution, specimens that
specifically Steve would call 'transition' fossils would be phenomenally
rare. I would assume that you would want to suggest otherwise?
If you're saying that a lack of 'transition' fossils indicates that species
haven't changed, that's been said. And in fact I was trying to explain
science's excuse for the matter-- are you attacking the excuse? If so, are
you insinuating that if evolution is right, what I'm saying is wrong? Or are
you simply going back and attacking evolutionary theory?
You're perfectly entitled to think that the so called 'lack' of the so
called 'transition' fossils doesn't suggest that evolutionary theory is
right, but I was merely trying to explain why it's not disproven by such a lack.
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
