XPost: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, alt.bible, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: talk.atheism
From: matts2@ix.netcom.nospam
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:16:40 -0400, Pastor Dave
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:39:39 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> posted thusly:
>
>>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?
>
>Yes. Have his material right here. I buy books from
>both sides.
Then you should be able to see that he presented evidence. Pretty much
every chapter has some. Which would you like to discuss? BTW, have you
read Origins? All of it or some?
>
>>I will give you a hint:
>>does the term biogeographic distribution anything to you? Or fossil
>>record?
>
>Sorry, stating that animals can be found everywhere,
>that are different from each other, is not evidence
>that man came from amoeba.
A no would have sufficed. At least, that is not what biogeographic
distribution means. There is a pattern to the distribution.
>>> Why did
>>>he say that the fossil wasn't there to show anyone?
>>
>>He did not say that.
>
>Yes, he did.
A quote would help. Which chapter in Origins says there are no fossils
to show anyone?
>
>>>Why did he say that the eye must have been designed?
>>
>>He did not say that.
>
>Yes, he did.
No, he did not. You free to provide a quote that says otherwise. I
will give you a hint: you probably want to ignore Ch 6 of Origins,
that is where he discusses the eye.
>
>>>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 is not evidence of amoeba to man. That is
>evidence that different animals live in different
>places.
It is more than that. Sheesh.
>
>>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.
>
>And now come the insults and notice, no evidence to
>back up their claim.
I saw plenty of claims from you and no evidence at all. You have said
that Darwin had no evidence, I recommend either Ch 2 or Ch 3 for
examples of his use of evidence. You said that he said the eye was
designed, that is wrong. You made other false claims you are free to
support.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
