27 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungof course it a position and also inherently a question, let me explain it to you, I will go slow and speak in terms that hopefully you will comprehend, but I expect that you will have further difficulty... anyway.... my position is that darwin's questionable and problematic theory has so many holes in it that it cannot float on the waters of serious belief and is in fact an unsustainable theorem. the immediate question arising from his theory being false and unsustainable is this: what other possible scenarios are there for the creation of the world and mankind.
That's not a position, nor is it a question.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redDarwin did not address the creation of the earth, although he did offer a reasonable explanation for the absence of human fossils through most of geologic history, as well as how those human-like creatures in antiquity gave birth (over many generations) to modern man. His ideas have earned the status of theory because they not only account for the facts available in Darwin's day, but account even better for facts that came to light subsequently.
of course it a position and also inherently a question, let me explain it to you, I will go slow and speak in terms that hopefully you will comprehend, but I expect that you will have further difficulty... anyway.... my position is that darwin's questionable and problematic theory has so many holes in it that it cannot float on the waters of serious b ...[text shortened]... le is this: what other possible scenarios are there for the creation of the world and mankind.
Those who disbelieve his contentions might finds themselves grounded a little more solidly in reality if they were smokin' crack.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redby my count this is your 8th post in this thread, and i don't think you have offered any evidence so far to support your opinion that darwin's theory is "shaky". if darwin's theory is so "questionable and problematic", then surely you can mount a better offensive than this. besides, i actually am interested in hearing what you have to say...so go ahead and make your case...
of course it a position and also inherently a question, let me explain it to you, I will go slow and speak in terms that hopefully you will comprehend, but I expect that you will have further difficulty... anyway.... my position is that darwin's questionable and problematic theory has so many holes in it that it cannot float on the waters of serious b ...[text shortened]... le is this: what other possible scenarios are there for the creation of the world and mankind.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redSo you figure that if somebody just babbles a bunch of unsustainable nonsense that is so full of holes that it cannot float on waters of sustainable belief, that would be evidence that they were smokin' crack huh? Interesting...
of course it a position and also inherently a question, let me explain it to you, I will go slow and speak in terms that hopefully you will comprehend, but I expect that you will have further difficulty... anyway.... my position is that darwin's questionable and problematic theory has so many holes in it that it cannot float on the waters of serious b ...[text shortened]... le is this: what other possible scenarios are there for the creation of the world and mankind.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redSky, I think your aggressive speech betrays your lack of knowledge about evolution. If you did understand evolutionary theory, its insights and its limitations, you wouldn't need to resort to such offensive posturing from the get go.
of course it a position and also inherently a question, let me explain it to you, I will go slow and speak in terms that hopefully you will comprehend, but I expect that you will have further difficulty... anyway.... my position is that darwin's questionable and problematic theory has so many holes in it that it cannot float on the waters of serious b ...[text shortened]... le is this: what other possible scenarios are there for the creation of the world and mankind.
You could explain to us in a civil manner why Darwin's theory, as Darwin conceived it and also its modern form, are vacuous in your opinion.
Because you do not do this, I can only assume that you fear engaging others in a logical discussion due to your gross ignorance of the subject matter.
So which is it? Your future posts will answer this question.
27 Apr 05
1 edit
my position is that darwin's questionable and problematic theory has so many holes in it that it cannot float on the waters of serious belief and is in fact an unsustainable theorem.
Ahh. There we go. Much better. It took you a few tries, but you managed to make a clear claim! Maybe someday you'll learn how to use capitals and proper punctuation.
the immediate question arising from his theory being false and unsustainable is this: what other possible scenarios are there for the creation of the world and mankind.
As was already mentioned, Darwin's theory on the origin of species does not describe the origin of the world. Nor does it describe the "creation" of anything.
His theory of natural selection may have been flawed in some of the details. However, the basics are very solid. Care to share why you think it's "questionable", "problematic", and what the "holes" are?
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker red
the immediate question arising from his theory being false and unsustainable is this: what other possible scenarios are there for the creation of the world and mankind.
That's funny. I think this question points out exactly what made evolutionary theory one of the most important scientific discoveries in human history.
Would you mind expanding on this point?
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redThe old trick - claim evolution is faulty, then tell us creationism is the only alternative.
[bthe immediate question arising from his theory being false and unsustainable is this: what other possible scenarios are there for the creation of the world and mankind. [/b]
If this is your logic, then why doesn't the complete lack of scientific evidence for creationism prove evolution?
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungyou know, its funny, if I actually took the time to enumerate all of the holes in the theory, then this thread would probably never end. However, lets start with the lack of any concrete transitional forms in the geological record.
[b]my position is that darwin's questionable and problematic theory has so many holes in it that it cannot float on the waters of serious belief and is in fact an unsustainable theorem.
Ahh. There we go. Much better. It took you a few tries, but you managed to make a clear claim! Maybe someday you'll learn how to use capitals and proper pu ...[text shortened]... Care to share why you think it's "questionable", "problematic", and what the "holes" are?[/b]
27 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by skywalker redSo you take a living animal and a fossill and claim there is a gap between them. If an intermediate fossil is found - we have not solved the problem, you then tell us there are now two gaps.
you know, its funny, if I actually took the time to enumerate all of the holes in the theory, then this thread would probably never end. However, lets start with the lack of any concrete transitional forms in the geological record.
I could talk about whales, horses, or feathered dinosaurs but what is the point? Creationists are not interested in evidence.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redCreationists (and non-scientific people in general) misunderstand the difference between a scientific theory and a theory as used in common parlance.
you know, its funny, if I actually took the time to enumerate all of the holes in the theory, then this thread would probably never end. However, lets start with the lack of any concrete transitional forms in the geological record.
A scientific theory is not "only a theory", it has been tested and stood up to scrutiny.
Also, your logic is flawed. Lets assume that evolution is wrong, why should creationism be right? i.e. if a=not true then b=true does not work.