Faith school controversy

Former Member

klintock wrote:

Well, yeah. the odds on a creature becoming a fossil, it being preserved and then found are pointlessly small. The total amount of fossils for hominids fits into a small lorry. It's not so much gaps as amazing we have anything at all.

?

heres what darwin had to say ....

Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" ([11], p.46)
Darwin admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great." The fact that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

Former Member

what the hell your on about in the next bit i know not.ii

Genesis is quiet about those creatures, and claims you can cobble a world together in 6 days. As we know that it takes billions of years, genesis is a bit wrong.

Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

Because his senses were shit?

I never see two things that are the same. No two moments are the same, neither are there any such thing as "species", just lots and lots of individual organisms.

Evolution still describes the apparent process very well. The fact that it's total bollocks is the only flaw.

Darwin admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great."

The fact is that we have very very little information about the past, fossils being rare as fuck for one thing, and only being representative of a tiny fraction of creatures to boot. Aquatic and amphibious creatures are in the fossil record to the exclusion of all else, for a very obvious reason.

There is actually a much better thesis from before Darwins time giving the same theory but from a scottish lumber merchant who was explaining why wood came in different types. Of course, as he wasn't lecturing to scientists no one paid any attention.

If you think for a moment about how evolution supposedly works, it's so obviously horseshit it's laughable.

See my water/whiskey metaphor from earlier in the thread.

Former Member

klintock wrote:

Genesis is quiet about those creatures, and claims you can cobble a world together in 6 days. As we know that it takes billions of years, genesis is a bit wrong.







.

it wasn't written by rolf harris you know.

as for the six days ...only a complete moron would believe that ...there is enough evidence to show millions of years.

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

as for the six days ...only a complete moron would believe that ...

Or several tens of millions in one country alone if a poll I saw the other day is to be believed...

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Or several tens of millions in one country alone if a poll I saw the other day is to be believed...

thats true.

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

Charles Darwin never had a day of schooling in the sciences.

Here is Darwin’s explanation of how one species changes into another: It is a variation of *Lamarck’s theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics (*Nicholas Hutton III, Evidence of Evolution, 1962, p. 138). Calling it pangenesis, Darwin said that an organ affected by the environment would respond by giving off particles that he called gemmules. These particles supposedly helped determine hereditary characteristics. The environment would affect an organ; gemmules would drop out of the organ; and the gemmules would travel to the reproductive organs, where they would affect the cells (*W. Stansfield, Science of Evolution, 1977, p. 38). As mentioned earlier, scientists today are ashamed of Darwin’s ideas.

Read that paper I emailed you...

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

heres what darwin had to say ....

Darwin stated, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" ([11], p.46)
Darwin admitted that the number of transitional links "must have been conceivably great." The fact that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

I posted a link about transitional fossils last night. They do exist.

Former Member

Blagsta wrote:

Read that paper I emailed you...

i've started ...right bundle of laughs it is not.
so glad i'm not a friggin student!
cheers anyway blag ...and i will read the rest but ...it's weekend so you'll be waiting till monday for comment i would imagine.