Originally posted by rwingettHave you met dj's identical twin sister yet. the only way to tell em apart is the other one has bad-breath.
Hey, dj2becker, how much of that website I recommended to you have you had a chance to read through yet? You asked me for one shred of evidence for evolution earlier today. When you dismissed the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution I pointed out to you within 11 minutes of me posting the link, I thought maybe you were just confused or something.
I mean, si ...[text shortened]... ef system crumbles when you start shaking the foundation.[/i]
Let us know when you're done.
The purpose of life IS life . Also darwin did not coin the phrase 'survival of the fittest' it was coined by Herbert Spencer the English evolutionary sociologist. darwin would have not agreed with Spencers phrase as darwin believed evolution to be quite arbritary and not a matter of the survival of the fittest, and fittest for what??
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by rwingettI browsed through your site. I did not find evidence of one transitional fossil. In order for macroevolution to be true you need millions.
Hey, dj2becker, how much of that website I recommended to you have you had a chance to read through yet? You asked me for one shred of evidence for evolution earlier today. When you dismissed the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution I pointed out to you within 11 minutes of me posting the link, I thought maybe you were just confused or something.
I mean, si ...[text shortened]... ef system crumbles when you start shaking the foundation.[/i]
Let us know when you're done.
All the evidence in the site can just as well be used as evidence for common design.
Originally posted by SerendipityDarwin at heart was a LaMarckian and recent lab tests (epigenetics)are showing that LaMarckian evolution was tossed out quite prematurely.
The purpose of life IS life . Also darwin did not coin the phrase 'survival of the fittest' it was coined by Herbert Spencer the English evolutionary sociologist. darwin would have not agreed with Spencers phrase as darwin believed evolution to be quite arbritary and not a matter of the survival of the fittest, and fittest for what??
Originally posted by dj2beckerSince you read sites of " expert" on fossils that don't even know what a fossil is, I find your opinion on fossils about on the level of stuff that people have to take off their lawns with pooper-scoopers.
I browsed through your site. I did not find evidence of one transitional fossil. In order for macroevolution to be true you need millions.
All the evidence in the site can just as well be used as evidence for common design.
In the case of your opinions it's a sooper-dooper-blooper-pooper-scooper that's needed.
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo not true . When you don't summarally toss out Punctuated Equalibrium because it doesn't fit your view . Your assumptions about what TOE is about are not correct . YOU would need to have millions of transitional fossils for YOUR concept of what TOE is about for it to be true . But your concept of TOE is not the concept of TOE as accepted by modern science . You are arbitrary in what YOU accept and don't accept as proper science with no research or fact backing you up . You have barely cracked book 1 on this , yet you seem to think you are some sort of expert . You believe your opinion founded in willful ignorance counts more than 10's of thousands of hours of research by experts working in these fields for decades . Yet you want us to study every minutia of a text writen by a sun-stroked goatherd thousands of years ago . Where the rubber meets the road , you are one of the most closed minded people I've ever seen .
I browsed through your site. I did not find evidence of one transitional fossil. In order for macroevolution to be true you need millions.
All the evidence in the site can just as well be used as evidence for common design.
Now , before you pick up and throw the same stones you always throw at Punctuated Equalibrium ask yourself ; do you know what that really means . And when you say "Oh how convenient ! A little theory that explains all that away !"-with spite and contempt in your tone - THINK this instead : Maybe it's convenient because it's correct , and it fits .
If you don't want to do that , or read about what this is really all about , then you may as well just stick your fingers in your ears and go , "LALALALALALA...." at the top of your lungs , because it's about all you have left at this point .
Originally posted by Moldy CrowLet's just say if you have not read The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould, then you are not competent to criticize the PE version of TOE. It is a quick read, only 1474 pages!
No not true . When you don't summarally toss out Punctuated Equalibrium because it doesn't fit your view . Your assumptions about what TOE is about are not correct . YOU would need to have millions of transitional fossils for YOUR concept of what TOE is about for it to be true . But your concept of TOE is not the concept of TOE as accepted by modern sci ...[text shortened]... ALALALALA...." at the top of your lungs , because it's about all you have left at this point .