board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Back to the dark ages

Post Reply   Page 4 of 22  [ 438 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 622 »
Author Message
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 7:48 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
Speaking of horses... I don't see how any one can look at the fossils of horse ancestors and fail to see evolution in progress.

Check this out: http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution ... lution.htm

As it says on that website:
Quote:
How can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if you insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?

Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 8:04 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
vison wrote:
Evolution is a fact. The arguments in the scientific community are only over the details, not the mechanism. To go on arguing against evolution is like insisting the world is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth,
So it isn't a theory after all, but a fact. So 'it' must be something observable, as the world being round and the earth revolving around the sun are observable.

So do you also consider it a fact that the species we see around us (including ourselves) evolved from single-celled organisms? Or does that still rate as a theory?

Quote:
Funny how often people react that way when their certainties are questioned.
I did not react that way because my certainties were questioned. I don't consider that anyone has even questioned my certainties. I think I'm the one questioning certainties here.

I reacted that way because what you said was condescending and insulting.
Quote:
I can tell you that you are wasting your time. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Wearing those blinders is comforting. And the comfort endows the wearer with a peculiar mindset ...
You put your words, vison, into any other discussion as coming from anyone else, and tell me they do not reflect a condescending and insulting attitude toward someone because they don't share the speaker's point of view.

Quote:
It is, however, beyond me to allow the "creationist" assertions to go unchallenged.
I don't believe I've made any creationist assertions.

Quote:
Bringing religion into a discussion of the Theory of Evolution is counterproductive in nearly every way.
I have not done this.


Jnyusa

Thanks for being so patient. That was tremendously helpful.
Quote:
It's not legitimate for me to go to the legislature and demand that they pass a law stating that changes in Velocity are not inversely related to changes in the Money Supply.

Agreed. :)


Primula_Baggins wrote:
Once there is a large enough body of evidence that does not falsify a theory, it's established until and unless it's falsified.
Is this the same as a large enough body of evidence that supports the theory? Does 'does not falsify' equal 'support'?


Top
Profile Quote
Meril36
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 8:04 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Thu 01 Sep , 2005 7:06 pm
Location: Lancaster, CA
 
MariaHobbit wrote:
A donkey crossed with a horse (or pony, for that matter) produces a mule which will never bear or father offspring, no matter what sort of animal it is bred with.
Never say never. I mentioned on another thread (I forget which one) that I had recently learned that occasionally mules and hinnies are fertile, (usually the females if I remember correctly) and if bred with a horse or donkey will produce a horse with some donkey characteristics or a donkey with some horse characteristics.

_________________

Trying for profundity only limits depth.

With all the anger in the land, how long before the judgement day? Before we cut the fat ones down to size? Before the barricades arise?

Visit my art gallery at deviantART.


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 8:10 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Yet another lesson learned from the Manwe evolution thread: those who question evolution, as Cerin and halplm doing, will almost always get automatically lumped into the same group as those who question evolution from a religious, creationist POV. This will happen even if the person questioning evolutioning never once brings up religion, god, the Bible, ect. This happened repeatedly in that thread, and I took it as a sign that one side was sometimes interested in having a discussion...and the other side was not.


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 8:11 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8041
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
Meril,
Life finds a way, eh? :)


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 8:21 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
Cerin wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
Um, there is not plenty of evidence against the theory of evolution. If there was, then it would no longer be a theory.


Obviously that isn't true, because there is plenty of evidence against it (hence the large numbers of people who don't subscribe), and it is still taught as the prevailing theory.
Pray tell, what is the evidence against it? Actual evidence? The large number of people who don't subscribe do so in spite of the evidence, not because of it, and precious few of those who don't subscribe are scientists.

If there really were evidence against it, the theory would be discarded.
Cerin wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
this is the best explanation we have to date based on the available data. That includes evolution, gavity, electromagnetism, gas pressure, germ theory, relativism, etc.


I would not put evolution in the same class as gravity, electromagnetism and the others you mention. It shouldn't be given that status, because it isn't as sound a theory as those others. Or put another way, why are there not similarly large numbers of people who disbelieve the prevailing theories of gravity, electromagnetism, gas pressure etc.?
Actually, it is quite as sound a theory as the rest, but the rest do not contradict a religious book that some heretically use as a science text. Creationism is a heresy.
Cerin wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
Hypothesis: based on available data, I suspect that things operate this way.


Yes, and I suspect that there would be less of a problem with evolution being taught if it were made clear that it is being presented as 'we suspect things happened this way'.
The problem isn't the one you state, because what is presented is "we suspect based on evidence and the lack of contradictory evidence that things happend this way", and "based on evidence and the lack of contradictory evidence" is the point that the creationists have the hardest time with.
halplm wrote:
To address the topic of the thread. Intelligent design should not be taught as science. For the EXACT SAME REASON, evolution of man from single celled life should not be tought as science.
But the latter IS science.
halplm wrote:
It's not enough to say "I don't believe in your religion," people need to be able to say "Your religion is wrong, therefore I don't believe it."
That is what creationists often say to scientists. Evolution doesn't make Christianity wrong, it makes the heretical creationists wrong since they commit the heresy of bibliolatry and posit their religious text as a scientific text.
Cerin wrote:
Well then, why and how does this debate exist? I know it does exist, and it was my understanding that there are many scientists who do not subscribe to the idea that the species we see today evolved from simpler life forms. But obviously I don't know enough myself to make any sort of case.
The debat exists because those who follow the heresy of creationism are opposed to teaching evolution because they mistake religious writing for scientific writing. There are many Christians who understand and accept the theory of evolution as the current best explanation for how things work, and many scientists are Christian. However, there are not many scientists who do not subscribe to the idea of evolution as the best explanation.
halplm wrote:
I'm not going to repeat all the arguments I've made in the past, but there are two components to evolution. The first is what we see, can experiment with, and what happens as we go forward in time. This is science, it is the scientific method. The second is that this mechanism of biology explains the origins of mankind. This is not science. It is history, and however much science is used to make our guesses about that history more accurate, those guesses are NOT science.
The distinction you make does not exist.

Like every theory, evolution makes predictions. One of the ways to prove a theory wrong is to show that the predictions made do not occur. For instance, with gravity, you will have the prediction that objects will accelerate to each other at a certain rate. If the rate is off, then the theory of gravity is off.

Evolution made the prediction that we would find, in the fossil record, remains of some of the ancestors of certain life forms, and common ancestors. Then we did find them. It's not history, it's science.
halplm wrote:
The basis for historical fact is quite different than for scientific fact. History is inherantly unknowable, because we weren't there. Therefore we rely on what has been written, and what we can observe. However, if things are not spelled out for us, the consensus is, what we have to do is guess, and support that guess with evidence while we can never "know." Perhaps using science to increase what we can see and the accuracy of our guesses.
How do you know I wasn't there? ;) Were you there?

Seriously, we can figure out what happened before based on what is left. If what is left is different, we have a different what came before.
halplm wrote:
What people here are saying about historical evolution and that it is a Scientific Theory is the opposite of that. Science works on the assumption that a guess is right until proven wrong. In other words, that we CAN explain the universe, we just have to find out how. In an experimental sense, this works, because we can guess, and "know" that something is right because it makes sense with the data we have... until someone proves it's wrong, and then we have to guess again.
Historical evolution is a theory based on evolution, geology, physics, and the assumption that we weren't created, complete with memories, last Tuesday.
halplm wrote:
History declares itself unknown except for guesses. Evolution declares itself known until you can prove otherwise. History is not science, but Evolutionary historians claim to be science to try and make their guesses seem "right until you prove me wrong." Where other historians just accept that it can't always be known, as much as we would like to.
You always leave out "based on data". Historical Evolution (an incorrect division) is the best guess based on data. Then the "prove me wrong" is a call to prove, not the theory, but the data wrong.
MariaHobbit wrote:
Horses & ponies are the same species and do produce fertile offspring. It's donkeys that are a different species. A donkey crossed with a horse (or pony, for that matter) produces a mule which will never bear or father offspring, no matter what sort of animal it is bred with.
Sometimes, rarely, female mules and female hinnys are back-fertile to their parent species.

The resulting horses and donkeys are a little odd though, because the genes that do match up sometimes end up in the other species produced, and you get a full horse with donkey traits or a full donkey with horse traits.


Top
Profile Quote
Meril36
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 8:36 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Thu 01 Sep , 2005 7:06 pm
Location: Lancaster, CA
 
MariaHobbit wrote:
Meril,
Life finds a way, eh? :)
Every time.

_________________

Trying for profundity only limits depth.

With all the anger in the land, how long before the judgement day? Before we cut the fat ones down to size? Before the barricades arise?

Visit my art gallery at deviantART.


Top
Profile Quote
Sidonzo
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 8:52 pm
Everything Is Numb
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Sat 19 Mar , 2005 12:03 am
Location: back home again in Indiana
 
I agree with hal. I don't think either Intellligent Design or the Theory of Evolution (where it concerns the origin of life) can be taught as science. Micro-evolution IS science. It is something that is observed right now and can be tested right now, but no scientist has ever seen macro-evolution (evolution from one kind of animal to another) happen because it takes millions of years to happen.

I do agree that some of the comments from the pro-evolution posters are harsh and unnessesary. Can't we debate without personal attacks? So what if a person believes God created the world and won't back down from that belief. None of the posters who think that evolution is the explanation for life are going to back down either, and that is fine. I still think we can have a polite, but lively debate and remain friends. :D

~Sidonzo


Top
Profile Quote
Wolfgangbos
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 8:53 pm
Purveyor of the sacred tapioca pudding
Offline
 
Posts: 1425
Joined: Sun 13 Mar , 2005 6:02 am
Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
 
Despite the news article that sparked this discussion, there do appear to be some here trying to use logic (not religious belief) to criticize certain aspects of evolutionary theory.

As such, I would encourage those responding to the anti-evolution arguments to attend only to the actual arguments being made, not to what they suspect to be the underlying religious motivation for those arguments. To do otherwise is to risk engaging in Straw Man arguments, something that only makes you look foolish.

_________________

As far as I'm concerned, the whole of the 80's may as well have been an epic low-budget porn.
-Wolfgangbos


Top
Profile Quote
Onizuka Eikichi
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 8:53 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed 19 Oct , 2005 9:56 pm
Location: Outside of Causality
Contact: ICQ
 
I do not question the fact that life forms change over time. That much is obvious to me. What I have not quite decided on yet for myself 100% is HOW they change, or what determines the change.

CG once explained his version of evolution to me and I really liked it. If I remember correctly, he suggested that life is always putting forth mutations of different varieties (randomly I suppose). One human (for example) is more intelligent than the next, while another has better than usual eyesight, hearing, digestion, skeleton - you name it. People and other animals are very different from one to the next.

The "better" mutations will eventually become more common as they spread through the gene pool from generation to generation (they are determined to be "better" through Natural Selection etc). In addition, if the mutation survives long enough, the potential for two creatures with the same mutation to procreate increases, which means the potential for the mutation to amplify is also increased.

It is interesting with Humans though. Since Humans live in such a different way from other animals, that might affect the way we evolve, too. Since life is relatively easy for us, any mutations we have aren't really put to the test, and so ALL mutations survive (whether good or not so good). I wish I could live a long time to see what happens in that situation. Gene pool stagnation?

Ice Age comes. Who survives? The really clever, the really furry, and the really big. The gene pool now consists mostly of those genes, so those traits are amplified very rapidly and you might end up with an organism so different that it would no longer be able to procreate with the old version - a new species.

Last edited by Onizuka Eikichi on Thu 10 Nov , 2005 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

冬ながら
空より花の
散り来るは
雲のあなたに
春にやあるらん


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 8:55 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Yov, I honestly think you may be the only clear thinker in this discussion.

My arguments in THIS thread, were based on why I think high school science is messed up in teaching Evolution the way it is taught, nothing more.

I rehashed some old ideas from other threads, trying to (once again) make my case, but no one arguing the other side bothers to read it. They've pegged me and have all their arguments canned. I don't really see why they bother to type them out again... I at least vary how I say things trying to get my point across.

I say there's a distinction between what you do in a lab and what you dig up in the ground, and the response is that there is no distinction.

Ok, if not, my argument holds no water. I have no argument in that case.

However, that IS my argument, because if its in a lab, I can splice genes and show how one set of a species survives in antibiotics, and the other doesn't. I CAN'T bury an animal for ten thousand years and see what the bones look like compared to what will exist in ten thousand years, or compare it to what existed a ten thousand years ago. It's just not possible.

But apparently, no such distinction can be made, so I have no point.

Evolution from nothing is a perfectly valid guess for the origin of mankind, but it only MAY be fact. Throwing the weight of science behind it and teaching it to High School students as scientific fact where people who believe in creation might as well be living in the dark ages (to use the oh so eloquent title of the thread)... is at best defamitory, and at worst grossly negligent for education.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 9:01 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5171
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
yovargas wrote:
Yet another lesson learned from the Manwe evolution thread: those who question evolution, as Cerin and halplm doing, will almost always get automatically lumped into the same group as those who question evolution from a religious, creationist POV. This will happen even if the person questioning evolution never once brings up religion, god, the Bible, etc. This happened repeatedly in that thread, and I took it as a sign that one side was sometimes interested in having a discussion...and the other side was not.
Am I really wading into this abyss? Eru help me.

Yov, I think that is because it is the perception of many of us that Cerin and halplm ARE questioning evolution from a religious, creationist POV, even without mentioning religion, God, the bible, creationism, intelligent design or any of the other buzzwords. There is, I think, at least two reasons for this. The first is, quite frankly, that we know enough about hal and Cerin's religious beliefs to make an assumption that their questioning of evolution stems from those religious beliefs. The second is that from a scientific point of view, the questions that they raise about evolution don't really seem to make very much sense. Only when considered as corollary's to the underlying religious beliefs of creationism do these objections seem to make any sense.

My apologies if these words seem condescending and insulting. They are not meant to be. They are only meant to be an honest assessment made solely from my point of view. And unlike Ax, I am open to at least attempting to transcend even these kind of fundamental differences in perception of the universe and develop meaningful relationships with even those who perceive things very differently. To be frank, I have had too few friends in my life to turn away anyone willing to give me the time of day. :)


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 9:05 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
You're a better man than I am, Voronwe.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Sidonzo
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 9:08 pm
Everything Is Numb
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Sat 19 Mar , 2005 12:03 am
Location: back home again in Indiana
 
Voronwe, that wasn't insulting at all. And I (like Voronwe) have no problems being friends with people that don't share my worldview. If that wasn't the case I'd hardly be an active member of b77.

And a :hug: for Voronwe just for being who he is.

~Sidonzo


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 9:15 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
My apologies if these words seem condescending and insulting.
Of course not, V. You have not said it is a waste of time to talk to us, or that we are blind because we choose not to see the truth, or that we blind ourselves to the truth out of a need to comfort ourselves and elevate our own sense of self importance.

You admit that you assume our objections stem from our religious beliefs. And certainly I have given no reason for you to think otherwise since I am not conversant enough in the science to discuss it intelligently.
Quote:
I am open to at least attempting to transcend even these kind of fundamental differences in perception of the universe and develop meaningful relationships with even those who perceive things very differently. To be frank, I have had too few friends in my life to turn away anyone willing to give me the time of day.
:love:

And :love: to Ax

since he can't stop me from loving him from my parallel universe, MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 9:20 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Oh, I love you just fine, Cerin. :) I just can't talk about this kind of stuff with you. Which is why I should know better than to get into these threads, and why I keep trying to stop doing it. But it's like cerebral crack. :oops:

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 9:28 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
First of all, Ax, I know so very very few people that believe as I do, that I've learned to live in such people's world view, as much as it may irk me. The only reason I can argue any of this is that I don't have to live with you guys ;). And I know we could be (and I consider us) very good friends, because we can respect each others minds, and do have such respect, even with disagreement.

One thing its sometimes easy to forget is, none of this stuff (ie. almost any topic discussed on a message board) really matters. Granted, I personally think a discussion on Christianity matters, but I know others have made different choices and I will not hold that against them. Even if all my beliefs are right, it's not my job to judge.

All the politics and evolution, and abortion and all of that, in the end, doesn't matter. What does matter is friendships, love, and good chocolate ;).

And VtF, of course Cerin and I's religious views are known, we make no secret of them. And I understand that makes it difficult to read our opinions without seeing that, and I don't really expect it. What I do expect is people to have the same kind of open mind as I do. My argument in the Evolution debate has changed drastically since its first days in Manwe, and I've learned a lot, and developed my argument into something that I think is much more important and worthwhile for people to understand than it was originally. It's hard to get that point across, however, when people assume I haven't change, refuse to change, and am blinded by a religious belief.

I'm not arguing Evolution is false. To do so convincingly would earn me whatever the nobel prize is in biology, and make me a global celebrity. Now, that would be fun (and would provide much money for m77ting), but it's not my goal. I'm simply arguing that as much as science can be used to study the past, a study of the past cannot be a scientific theory, because it eliminates all but the observing and hypothesizing part of the scientific method. This pertains to all realms of science, I have issues with the big bang, even though if God created the universe, it almost certainly would have been a big bang ;).

The thing about fitting the data to a curve is... no matter how closely the data fits the curve, you could still have the wrong equation.


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 9:33 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Well said, hal. :)


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 9:34 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
yovargas wrote:
Yet another lesson learned from the Manwe evolution thread: those who question evolution, as Cerin and halplm doing, will almost always get automatically lumped into the same group as those who question evolution from a religious, creationist POV. This will happen even if the person questioning evolution never once brings up religion, god, the Bible, etc. This happened repeatedly in that thread, and I took it as a sign that one side was sometimes interested in having a discussion...and the other side was not.
Am I really wading into this abyss? Eru help me.

Yov, I think that is because it is the perception of many of us that Cerin and halplm ARE questioning evolution from a religious, creationist POV, even without mentioning religion, God, the bible, creationism, intelligent design or any of the other buzzwords. There is, I think, at least two reasons for this. The first is, quite frankly, that we know enough about hal and Cerin's religious beliefs to make an assumption that their questioning of evolution stems from those religious beliefs. The second is that from a scientific point of view, the questions that they raise about evolution don't really seem to make very much sense. Only when considered as corollary's to the underlying religious beliefs of creationism do these objections seem to make any sense.

My apologies if these words seem condescending and insulting. They are not meant to be. They are only meant to be an honest assessment made solely from my point of view. And unlike Ax, I am open to at least attempting to transcend even these kind of fundamental differences in perception of the universe and develop meaningful relationships with even those who perceive things very differently. To be frank, I have had too few friends in my life to turn away anyone willing to give me the time of day. :)
An excellent post, Voronwe. Perhaps you ought to consider leaving your present occupation and taking up the Diplomatic Corps. :D

In every single "debate" about Evolution, those who will not accept its validity bring in the same tired arguments. I have yet to encounter one objector who is not, at bottom and eventually revealed to be, objecting on religious grounds.

If we cannot take the fossil record into account, then we must, perforce, discard the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for life's diversity. Since the theory is built on the evidence of what has gone before, to remove the evidence or to claim it does not exist, does not "falsify" the theory, it destroys it.

There is no other explanation, so far, that fits the facts. Observable facts. But if the observations based on those facts cannot be acceptable evidence in favour of the theory, then there is no basis for discussion. There is, in fact, no basis for the theory at all. We will have thrown out that poor shivering infant with its bathwater.

I have often suspected, and have as often had my suspicions confirmed, that it is not so much the Theory of Evolution that sticks in the craw of those who deny its validity. It is the inevitable and logically arrived at flash of horror, the revelation if you will, that IF evolution is indeed the explanation for the past and present diversity of life on Earth, then proceeding backward we come up against: Abiogenesis.

For me, it is not a horror, but a delight. I can imagine nothing more fabulous, nothing more delightful and amazing, than the notion that every living thing on Earth, from Petunias to George W. Bush shares DNA. We do share that DNA, so I am led to the conclusion that we do also share that origin.

We are likely a Cosmic Accident that could never be repeated, and yet here we are, posting on B77 and still some of us are willing to discard such a wonder.

Inevitably someone from the other "camp" will respond with something like this: But vison! You're refusing to let other theories be entertained! You are just as "blind"!

Only I"m not. So far no one has come up with another theory that IS a theory. If and when that happens, I will not be the only person agog to see what happens next.


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 9:41 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
vison wrote:
In every single "debate" about Evolution, those who will not accept its validity bring in the same tired arguments. I have yet to encounter one objector who is not, at bottom and eventually revealed to be, objecting on religious grounds.
And what am I, chopped liver?

:D

:hug:

:Wooper:


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 4 of 22  [ 438 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 622 »
Jump to: