|
Leaking pen wrote
im waaaaiiiiiitinnnnggg.....
hmm, not so quick on the reply when youve been called on what youve said, and are out of wiggle room, it seems. On 4/25/05, leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seems antiquity is loaded with examples of engineering and > architectural works that have us thinking that perhaps the people of > that age were intelligent beings and had not degenerated which seems > to contradict the Darwinian theorists. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. > again, how is the assumption that ancient people were degenerates > darwinian? and... since according to this supposed thought, people > are naturally smarter now, it wouldnt be degenerated, as nothing had > yet been generated, yes no? > > On 4/25/05, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > RC Macaulay wrote: > > > > > Leaking Pen wrote > > > > > > >and i notice, you still havent answered my question. you might want > > > >to stop jabbing that strawman in the corner, the discussion is over > > > >HERE. > > > > > > Asked and answered. > > > > > If you folks continue to snip this heavily you're both going to start > > yelling incoherently in another post or two. > > > > LP asked: > > > > >how... does that refute darwinian theory? > > > > > > > And RCM said: > > > > > no demonstrable experimental proof can be structured to examine his > > > [Darwin's] theory. > > > > At this point LP said RCM hadn't answered the question. Was there > > another question, or did he overlook the answer, or did he feel the > > response was incomplete or off-topic? Dunno; you both snipped so > > heavily the lurkers can't tell. > > > > At this point it seems to me that LP could talk about longitudinal > > studies of restricted ecologies (e.g., those on islands), or examples of > > artificial selection, or the contrast between Lysenko and Darwin, or the > > flaws in the intelligent design theory, or some such. Or he could > > attack the link between the assertion of nonfalsifiability (which is > > what RCM's statement really amounted to) and the claim that something > > specific refuted Darwinian theory and his use of the term "religious > > theory". But just asserting that the question hasn't been answered > > without even reposting it is a little weak. Leaking Pen apparently took offense to a observation I made in my post
and asked me to keep bias out of the science
discussion. My observation
read:
"The evidence that remains have us thinking that perhaps the people
of that age were intelligent beings and had not degenerated
which seems to contradict the Darwinians theorists."
This is not a bias statement, it is an observable comment on the
obvious.
Darwin's theory became a religion and has never become a scientific fact
because no evidence of a "half" species has ever been found. The pyramids
are fact since they are in evidence.
The parody is that the ancients demonstrated abilities that are in evidence
yet as a people have been discounted as uneducated.. yet Darwinianism is taught
in US schools as "fact" and we are considered " educated", yet are in conflict
with understanding how the ancients were able to accomplish these remarkable
works without being " educated".
To give Darwin his due.. I have observed drunks in Texas saloons
"morph" from alligators to buzzards.
Richard
|
<<Blank Bkgrd.gif>>
