Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:02:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
500 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Rearranged to make points and snipped almost at whim.
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > I've read some general statements which make huge assumptions.
> > What I'm asking for is some evidence - Some simple basic evidence.
>
> 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
> particular thing is to deny, claim inapplicability or ignore it.
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 difficult request?
> > > 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?
>
> > Doesn't science involve repeatable and verifiable "lab tests"?
>
> No. Science is more than labwork. You don't grok science.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> http://w3.one.net/~wap/wapGrok.html
Do I understand science so thoroughly that I merge with it? No.
Do I automatically accept something just because Larry says it? No.
> You've dismissed the work of hundreds of years by thousands
> (hundreds of thousands??) of scientists because reality apparently
> conflicts with your pet belief system.
How does my not accepting a theory equate with insulting
you or any of "your" scientists?
> > Isn't studying fossils and putting forth a theory based upon those
> > fossils something more within the field of archeology than science?
>
> No. Archeology *is* a science. You don't grok science.
Certainly archeology (or paleontology) makes use of science,
but unless one of us has a time machine, we can only speculate
on what happened prior to written records. If you're claiming that
evolution is proven, we're talking about something along the lines
of proving the existence of UFOs, not the existence of Brazil.
Wasn't it you that said an extraordinary claim requires an
extraordinary proof? Am I really asking for so much?
SRC
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
95 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
