XPost: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, alt.bible, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: talk.atheism
From: matts2@ix.netcom.nospam
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:03:15 -0400, Pastor Dave
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:10:12 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> posted thusly:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:12:01 -0400, Pastor Dave
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:42:16 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>> posted thusly:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> There is more scientific evidence, not theory, for
>>>>>creation than there is for evolution.
>>>>
>>>>There is plenty of evidence for evolution. That is why scientists
>>>>developed a theory, an explanatory model, to explain that evidence.
>>>
>>>Now you know better than this. There was no evidence
>>>for it and even Darwin admitted that. The theory came
>>>first and the evidence was never found.
>>
>>This is flat out wrong.
>
>Really? So what evidence did Darwin present, other
>than some finches that looked a bit different?
Have you bothered to read anything he wrote? I will give you a hint:
does the term biogeographic distribution anything to you? Or fossil
record?
> Why did
>he say that the fossil wasn't there to show anyone?
He did not say that.
>Why did he say that the eye must have been designed?
He did not say that.
>Was he a microbiologist? The theory came first. Admit
>it and get over it.
Deliberate ignorance coupled with assertive statements are lies. You
have the burden of knowing what you are talking about. Darwin
traveled, he saw organisms in a wide variety of places, he knew of the
fossils known at the time, he had the pattern of similarity of living
organisms, all of that was evidence, from which he developed his
theory.
That said, yours was a foolish lie. Even if he had developed his
theory sui generis it would not matter. What matters is how well the
theory explains and predicts and it works just fine.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
