 |
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001 time: 00:20
|
|
Horse : Can you turn it into wine ? Or beer ?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CyberShy
Urban Ranger, don't mix up gravity with the evolution from reptiles into mamals. |
I'm not mixing them up.
quote: Originally posted by CyberShy
We actually can observe gravity but we didn't and will never observe the evolution from reptiles into mamals. |
Of course not. The evolution of mammals occured in the past. Of course we will never observe it. There is always the fossil record.
How would you explain the existence of transitional forms? Creationism cannot do it.
Last edited by Urban Ranger on 17-07-2002 at 19:28
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
CyberShy

|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999 time: 06:20
|
|
MOBIUS, go read the readme file of the new patch. Those kinds of arguments are really pathatic. Now go and make personal insults to your relatives.
For the mature atheists:
Some quotes on the fossil record:
"...innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ...why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory". Origin of the Species.
David M. Raup, U. Chicago; Ch. F. Mus. of N. H., "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35
Niles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N. H., "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search.... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46
quote: sheesh, go watch the Discovery Channel |
I'm sorry, I forgot that I should behave as arrogant as you guys to keep this debate going.
I'll rephrase:
The existance of these fossils is a fake and you guys can't prove it by showing me a picture here.
uh, yeah...... I prefer the normal way, can you show me pictures of the fossils, please? thanks! (you can answer as arrogant as you want of course, since it would make you look silly if you would take your debate partner serious )
Some more quotes from scientists on fossils:
PALEONTOLOGY DOES NOT PROVE EVOLUTION, D.B. Kitts, U.of OK, "The claim is made that paleontology provides a direct way to get at the major events of organic history and that, furthermore, it provides a means of testing evolutionary theories. ...the paleontologist can provide knowledge that cannot be provided by biological principles alone. But he cannot provide us with evolution.", Evolution, Vol.28, p.466
DON'T USE THE FOSSILS, Mark Ridley, Oxford, "...a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." New Scientist, June, 1981, p.831
FOSSILS INDICATE CREATION! E.J.H. Cornor, Cambridge "Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." CONTEMPORARY BOTANICAL THOUGHT, p.61
I most like Ridley's quote in the New Scientist:
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
You guys are 'real evolutionists'?
In that case you should read the New Scientist more carefull from now on 
Your 'priests' seem to advise you to not trow in the fossil record 
CyberShy
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20. Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|