To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 9332
9331  |  9333
Subject: 
Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:27:56 GMT
Viewed: 
175 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Markus Wolf writes:

Maybe what they told you in school was wrong. Maybe dinosaurs were wiped out
by a virus. Maybe all sorts of things. I don't understand your point, please
explain it more clearly.

I think it had something to do with those speckled moths.  Again, I'm not a
scientist and I'm dropping questions that have yet to be answered.  In
response to your comment, is there any evidence for a world wide virus?  How
did these dinosaurs that have been found appear to have died?  Surely there
is enough knowledge about autopsies and things that it could be determined?
I don't know.

Generally a full autopsy requires the examination of such soft bits as are
seldom preserved for 65+ million years.  With this in mind, it's difficult
to assess the viral pathology of an organism of which you have only
fossilized bones remaining.  He was speaking speculatively and addressing a
possible cause of cataclysmic extinction, rather than positing a virus as
the definite cause of extinction.
  In contrast (and not necessarily addressing your own view) is there any
evidence to show that all the dinosaurs were wiped out by a flood?  Even the
marine dinosaurs and the ammonites?

Junk science.

Like creationism you mean?

No, more that the only answer you can afford me was "Lungfish."  Thanks for
your wisdom.

   Creationism *is* junk science, since it purports to be science while
simultaneously rejecting all scientific methods and principles.  It was only
a single example; I'll point you to a study of the subject if you'd like,
but my source material is at home.  In any case, 'lungfish' is a fine
example of something that may yet come to be, ie: a fish with legs.  We
can't know, because the process takes so long.  In the meantime, the point
remains that, even if they're not fully functional legs, leg-like fins are
better for ambulatory movement than non-leg-like fins.  The same reasoning
applies to thumbs, wings, etc:  a partially opposable thumb offers better
utility than a non-opposable thumb.

     Dave!



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
 
(...) No, I think Downs Syndrome is a case of such chromosomal changes. I just want to know why critters that look so much alike outwardly are so genetically different and how they got to be that way. I wish I had the charts that I found in my (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

24 Messages in This Thread:











Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR