|
Author
|
Topic: Professionalism or Prejudice?
|
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1422 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
Message 16 of 59 (121145)
07-02-2004 7:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
07-02-2004 1:53 AM
|
|
Miss Creant Runner Up
Crashfrog, Not once have I seen an evolutionist instructed to provide evidence which would support their assertion that I am indeed lame, which I may indeed be. Perhaps you would oblige me to quote the primary scientific literature from whence you derived your hebetudinous opinion. font me,
Esteban Hambre
WHO SMELT IT DEALT IT
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 07-02-2004 1:53 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 17 of 59 (121165)
07-02-2004 9:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by MrHambre
07-02-2004 7:24 AM
|
|
Re: Miss Creant Runner Up
I believe the citation you're looking for appeared in last quarter's Proceedings of the Eastern National Internet Society for Harping on Everyone's Assertions Dogmatically (known by the scholarly abbreviation PENIS-HEAD.) The citation is from an article entitled "Dark Star is a l4m3r h00 g0t 0wn23d by my l33t sk1llz!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by MrHambre, posted 07-02-2004 7:24 AM | | MrHambre has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 19 by nator, posted 07-02-2004 4:22 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 18 of 59 (121202)
07-02-2004 12:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by MrHambre
07-02-2004 7:24 AM
|
|
Length of Suspension
I guess it's going to be awhile before you get your posting back but that's your choice.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by MrHambre, posted 07-02-2004 7:24 AM | | MrHambre has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 19 of 59 (121258)
07-02-2004 4:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
07-02-2004 9:48 AM
|
|
Re: Miss Creant Runner Up
quote:
I believe the citation you're looking for appeared in last quarter's Proceedings of the Eastern National Internet Society for Harping on Everyone's Assertions Dogmatically (known by the scholarly abbreviation PENIS-HEAD.) The citation is from an article entitled "Dark Star is a l4m3r h00 g0t 0wn23d by my l33t sk1llz!"
ROTFLMFAO!!!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 07-02-2004 9:48 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 20 of 59 (121713)
07-04-2004 12:26 AM
|
|
|
Chumming the Waters______________________chapter 1
I have never been a believer when it comes to the myth of macroevolution, not even as a child. It is, without a doubt, the most unbelieveable of all the childhood fairytale's, and is a fairytale which any logical and intelligent person, as they develop common sense and reason, simply outgrows. When they were children they thought like children, they imagined like children, they believed like children. When they became adults, they left behind their childish thoughts, their childish imaginations, their childish beliefs, and learned how to properly develop their powers of logic and reason. Still, some have become so wrapped up in childish fantasy's that they will cling to their childhood fairytale's even into adulthood, believing in them all the way to their graves. That microevolution was ever linked to the myth of macroevolution has always been, and may always be, a great stain of dishonor on the credibility of the scientists who willingly propagate the myth in the interest of self preservation, and has become a great stain as well on the sciences as being a beacon of knowledge and truth. If it is not well known by now, it undoubtedly will be before the final chapter is written on the death of darwinian evolutionary thinking, at which time the myth of macroevolution will be forever abandoned by all who demand that science once again stand upon it's four cornered base of logic, reason, knowledge, and truth. MicroEvolution, the only true and viable Theory of Evolution will then take it's rightful place on the center stage of the sciences study of origins. Until then, quotes from evolutionists, both past and present, will be introduced on these pages. Occasionally, I shall even include a quote or two from the creationist side of the fence. No replies are requested and none will be responded to. So just sit back and enjoy the ride! "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."Dr. Fleischman The evolutionary establishment fears creation science, because evolution itself crumbles when challenged by evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding victories, with the result that, today, few evolutionists will debate. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and the late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of creationism, all declined to debate.James Perloff I doubt if there is any single individual within the scientific community who could cope with the full range of [creationist] arguments without the help of an army of consultants in special fields.David M. Raup No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution.Tom Bethell
"Religion without science might be blind but science without religion is lame!"
Albert Einstein
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 23 by nator, posted 07-04-2004 1:10 AM | | DarkStar has not replied | | | Message 25 by wj, posted 07-04-2004 5:16 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6901 days) Posts: 863 From: Texas Joined: 04-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 21 of 59 (121724)
07-04-2004 12:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by DarkStar
07-01-2004 10:50 PM
|
|
Re: Sometimes change is good!
Mr. Einstein had an opinion. How remarkable. You have an opinion. How remarkable.
This creationist is not impressed with your display of arrogance, in this post nor in all the other posts which have levied a measure of discomfort on the readers of your illegible print. Nor did you find it necessary to respond to the requests for change, as a coutesy to those showing interest in what you have to say.
It's just not classy to thumb one's nose at folks.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by DarkStar, posted 07-01-2004 10:50 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 22 by jar, posted 07-04-2004 12:52 AM | | PecosGeorge has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Sometimes change is good!
Damn, PecosGeorge, this is a Group Hug moment.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by PecosGeorge, posted 07-04-2004 12:50 AM | | PecosGeorge has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 23 of 59 (121733)
07-04-2004 1:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by DarkStar
07-04-2004 12:26 AM
|
|
Re: Chumming the Waters______________________chapter 1
Until then, quotes from evolutionists, both past and present, will be introduced on these pages. Occasionally, I shall even include a quote or two from the creationist side of the fence. No replies are requested and none will be responded to. So just sit back and enjoy the ride! Just so you know, lists of quotes will be ignored by most smart debaters, as they are meaningless without context. You will be unproductively taking up space.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by DarkStar, posted 07-04-2004 12:26 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: 08-30-2003
|
|
|
Message 24 of 59 (121741)
07-04-2004 1:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by DarkStar
06-29-2004 8:52 PM
|
|
Re: Evolutionist Miscreants Given Passing Grade
DarkStar
The opening line in one of my first posts in this forum reads as follows: If I step on any toes hear, I apologize in advance. Having said that, allow me to offer my humble opinion. My first intention was to offer apology in advance to anyone who may disagree with my opinion, or may even find it offensive in any way. And what did I receive as my very first reply to that post? It is not a good idea to drop bloody chunks of meat in shark infested waters while you are swimming about. Let the feast begin. Did I receive a cordial disagreement? No, instead I received an obvious warning that coming into this forum and having an opinion different from the mainstream evolutionists here would bring immediate viscious attacks. Let us at least post the full context of our exchange and see how it is.
Biblical Science? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I step on any toes hear, I apologize in advance. Having said that, allow me to offer my humble opinion. The bible is no more a science book than a science textbook is an excercise in religious literature. If anyone thinks they can study science by utilizing the bible then they are most likely grasping at straws for graspings sake. Using this same reasoning, only an idiot would go looking for a revelation from god in a science book. Now, if you believe there is a god, then you may choose to utilize a science book as verification of the "intelligent" designers work, but you will be sorely disappointed if you attempt to utilize this same book in a search for revelation from god for a purpose to life. I will, despite the disagreement of several evolutionists here, give credit where credit is due and acknowledge that the bible does indeed offer some examples of knowledge about the universe that science is only now able to confirm and, to be sure, much of the written verbage is indeed poetic in nature, which to many people is as difficult to understand as is the purpose of a mime, other than to be an obnoxious nuisance. (side note: please don't ask me to quote any verses of the bible that have to do with science. If you don't like poetry, and you don't believe in some sort of god/creator/designer anyway, then you most likely wouldn't accept any verses offered as being scientific in nature and I won't be forced to go dig up a bible. So if you want objective science, stick to the science textbooks. If you want an occasional reference to the handiwork of god in making the universe, then stick to the bible. If you seek revelation from god, don't go looking in the scientific literature and if you seek a revelation from science, don't go looking in the bible, or any other religious piece of literature. Cheers -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Replies to this message: Message 24 by sidelined, posted 06-07-2004 10:16 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sidelined Member Posts: 1052 From: Edmonton Alberta Registered: Aug 2003 Message 24 of 106 06-07-2004 10:16 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Biblical Science? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DarkStar I will, despite the disagreement of several evolutionists here, give credit where credit is due and acknowledge that the bible does indeed offer some examples of knowledge about the universe that science is only now able to confirm and, to be sure, much of the written verbage is indeed poetic in nature, which to many people is as difficult to understand as is the purpose of a mime, other than to be an obnoxious nuisance. You have put forth some rather strong points here concerning science and yet. side note: please don't ask me to quote any verses of the bible that have to do with science. If you don't like poetry, and you don't believe in some sort of god/creator/designer anyway, then you most likely wouldn't accept any verses offered as being scientific in nature and I won't be forced to go dig up a bible. This is a forum where one is expected to back up the claims you make with evidence or arguement.You are saying here that you can indeed show us knowledge about the universe that is in the bible and is only now being studied by science. Well sorry big guy, despite it being necessary for you to dig up a bible I am afraid I must insist.Also, concerning this statement. If you don't like poetry, and you don't believe in some sort of god/creator/designer anyway, then you most likely wouldn't accept any verses offered as being scientific I am sorry to say that is correct since science does not use a creator in any explanation because it cannot be tested which is a requirement of science. As to liking poetry I am sure if it actually shows us a model that fits in with current theories,without mind you, being as easily explained as being something at least as likely, then bring it on. It is not a good idea to drop bloody chunks of meat in shark infested waters while you are swimming about.Let the feast begin. This message has been edited by sidelined, 06-07-2004 10:17 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is the direction, up or down, of the acceleration of a freely bouncing ball at the bottommost point of its bounce, that is, at the instant its velocity changes from down to up? My contention with your statement is contained here:
This is a forum where one is expected to back up the claims you make with evidence or arguement.You are saying here that you can indeed show us knowledge about the universe that is in the bible and is only now being studied by science You made the assertion and not once would you bring arguement forth concerning your claims.I understand what your opinion is seperate from your arguements.Now here you are crying because you took my callenge to debate in good faith with arguements that you cannot substantiate. Then you take this quote
It is not a good idea to drop bloody chunks of meat in shark infested waters while you are swimming about. Let the feast begin. as being threatening? When all this was meant to convey was that you would be challenged to defend your arguements {which you never did} and that the rest of us will mercilessly attack,not you, but you arguements in the spirit of debate which includes rebuttal on your part. I could easily go out and find a whole pile of times where you simply get flustered and start ad hominem attacks insted of bringing somesubstance to the issue at hand. Anyway I meant to place this only to straighten out your seemingly whiny attitude about being picked upon.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by DarkStar, posted 06-29-2004 8:52 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
wj
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 25 of 59 (121787)
07-04-2004 5:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by DarkStar
07-04-2004 12:26 AM
|
|
Re: Chumming the Waters______________________chapter 1
quote:
No replies are requested and none will be responded to. So just sit back and enjoy the ride!
If you refuse to engage in discussion on a discussion then I predict that you will be banned, and rightly so. Is your postion so weak that it cannot withstand scrutiny?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by DarkStar, posted 07-04-2004 12:26 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 26 of 59 (121919)
07-04-2004 8:47 PM
|
|
|
Chumming the Waters______________________chapter 2
As is often the case when making a point on which there is disagreement, attitudes can become less than pleasant and initial statements are either overlooked or are purposely ignored. While posting a few quotes from evolutionists in which they themselves may present a less than desirable picture concerning the true scientific nature of the theory of evolution, no single quote can be used as a source of proof that any individual has subsequently abandoned their belief in the myth of macroevolution. Most quotes from evolutionists that do shine a light of negativity upon the theory of evolution do not, in and of themselves, give the greater overall view of those evolutionists professional opinion. No quote should be viewed as an endorsement of some other theory, which would necessarily include the theory of intelligent design. In fact, if one were to ask most, if not all of the evolutionists for their full opinion on the theory of evolution, they would undoubtedly give it their full endorsement, regardless of any reservations they may have as to it's scientific viability. As was stated earlier, many evolutionists will not even agree to debate a creationist due to a very poor track record of scoring any points against a creationist during the debate. Why this has been the case is not known by me, and neither am I able to ascertain why someone like the late, great Carl Sagan, with his vast knowledge and expertise, would not welcome such a debate in order to squash the creationists and their theory of intelligent design. Assumptions can be made, of course, but any definitive answer as to why evolution scientists shy away from debating creation scientists still escapes me. I have actually been able to listen to some, albeit very few, debates between evolution scientists and creation scientists and at least the few that I have heard seemed to end in a draw of sorts, with both sides earning points against their opponent as well as losing points against their opponent. Perhaps it is the fact that an evolution scientist surrendering any points at all to a creation scientist is enough of a deterrent, which would explain the lack of debates between the two. Hopefully things will improve in the very near future and debates between the two will increase dramatically, with some of them even being televised through the local public broadcasting stations. I am not sure if the bbc has any recorded debates but I would suppose that if they do, the results they encountered were just as abysmal for the evolutionists who insist on clinging to their beloved myth of macroevolution despite it's total lack of any true scientific credibility.
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."Austin Clark "I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."W.R. Thompson "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."H. Lipson "The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."D.B. Gower
"Religion without science might be blind but science without religion is lame!"
Albert Einstein
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 27 by wj, posted 07-04-2004 9:35 PM | | DarkStar has not replied | | | Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 07-05-2004 12:25 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
wj
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 27 of 59 (121924)
07-04-2004 9:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by DarkStar
07-04-2004 8:47 PM
|
|
Re: Chumming the Waters______________________chapter 2
Dudstar, it appears that your quotation from Austin Clark was made in 1930. Is this the best that you can do? Are you prepared to discuss the validity and relevence of such a quotation?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by DarkStar, posted 07-04-2004 8:47 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6901 days) Posts: 863 From: Texas Joined: 04-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 28 of 59 (121943)
07-04-2004 11:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
07-04-2004 12:52 AM
|
|
Well
you shoulda said sumfin'
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by jar, posted 07-04-2004 12:52 AM | | jar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 29 of 59 (121959)
07-04-2004 11:51 PM
|
|
|
Chumming the Waters______________________chapter 3
It would seem that the first two chapters have caused a bit of consternation among those who yet cling to the myth of macroevolution. Apparently, some have even been lax in their reading of the first two chapters, showing a bit of shock, and even some astonishment at certain quotes from evolutionists of the past while assuming, falsely I might add, that the first two chapters somehow did not touch upon the relevance, if any, of evolutionist quotes on the fallibility of the macroevolution myth as opposed to those same evolutionists entire view of the theory of evolution. While it must be said that the myth of macroevolution is an enticing and intriguing idea, it does not negate the fact that thousands of evolutionists, both past and present, have issued statements outlining countless failures within the theory of evolution. Though it has been stated already, I shall reiterate the fact that even though there are an innumerable amount of quotes from evolutionists in which they themselves present a less than desirable picture concerning the true scientific nature of the theory of evolution, no single quote can be used as a source of proof that any individual scientist has subsequently abandoned their belief in the myth of macroevolution. That being said, it does make one question why any scientist, if not only to assure their self preservation within the ranks of the scientific community, would utter such quotable statements revealing the utter failure in their mind, at least on some points, of the theory of evolution to show itself to be a scientifically viable explanation of the origin of species, and then continue to cling to the myth of macroevolution. As referred to earlier, one must always take into account the entire position of any scientist when attempting to pidgeon hole their final stance on the theory of evolution, regardless of any quotes they make in regards to the total failure of the theory of evolution to answer some necessary questions. While one always has the right to be in disagreement with what the intended conveyance may be of any quote by any scientist, that disagreement must, for all practical purposes, be taken up with the individual who actually uttered the quote and not someone who merely provided the quote for observation and evaluation by others. Only the scientists who utter such condemnations of the theory of evolution can clarify their final position and I do not claim to know the fullness of the reservations regarding the myth of macroevolution that must haunt the minds of any of the scientists whose quotes are offered here. The main purpose of the quotes provided in these chapters is to, as the original heading implies, chum up the waters for the frenzied feeding of the neodarwinian sharks who insist on clinging to their precious childhood myth of macroevolution. Obviously, any one of these frenzied feeders is more than welcome to offer quotes from the same scientists that I present in these chapters, including quotes from these same scientists that will refute the quotes that I offer from them. Please, have at it. "I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."Colin Patterson "What is it based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseenbelief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."Arthur N. Field "We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.'"Errol White "From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."Pierre-Paul de Grasse
"Religion without science might be blind but science without religion is lame!"
Albert Einstein
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by Percy, posted 07-05-2004 12:12 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: 09-26-2002
|
|
|
Message 30 of 59 (121968)
07-05-2004 12:00 AM
|
|
|
Experiment - Message 29 w/ stardard formating
It would seem that the first two chapters have caused a bit of consternation among those who yet cling to the myth of macroevolution. Apparently, some have even been lax in their reading of the first two chapters, showing a bit of shock, and even some astonishment at certain quotes from evolutionists of the past while assuming, falsely I might add, that the first two chapters somehow did not touch upon the relevance, if any, of evolutionist quotes on the fallibility of the macroevolution myth as opposed to those same evolutionists entire view of the theory of evolution. While it must be said that the myth of macroevolution is an enticing and intriguing idea, it does not negate the fact that thousands of evolutionists, both past and present, have issued statements outlining countless failures within the theory of evolution. Though it has been stated already, I shall reiterate the fact that even though there are an innumerable amount of quotes from evolutionists in which they themselves present a less than desirable picture concerning the true scientific nature of the theory of evolution, no single quote can be used as a source of proof that any individual scientist has subsequently abandoned their belief in the myth of macroevolution. That being said, it does make one question why any scientist, if not only to assure their self preservation within the ranks of the scientific community, would utter such quotable statements revealing the utter failure in their mind, at least on some points, of the theory of evolution to show itself to be a scientifically viable explanation of the origin of species, and then continue to cling to the myth of macroevolution. As referred to earlier, one must always take into account the entire position of any scientist when attempting to pidgeon hole their final stance on the theory of evolution, regardless of any quotes they make in regards to the total failure of the theory of evolution to answer some necessary questions. While one always has the right to be in disagreement with what the intended conveyance may be of any quote by any scientist, that disagreement must, for all practical purposes, be taken up with the individual who actually uttered the quote and not someone who merely provided the quote for observation and evaluation by others. Only the scientists who utter such condemnations of the theory of evolution can clarify their final position and I do not claim to know the fullness of the reservations regarding the myth of macroevolution that must haunt the minds of any of the scientists whose quotes are offered here. The main purpose of the quotes provided in these chapters is to, as the original heading implies, chum up the waters for the frenzied feeding of the neodarwinian sharks who insist on clinging to their precious childhood myth of macroevolution. Obviously, any one of these frenzied feeders is more than welcome to offer quotes from the same scientists that I present in these chapters, including quotes from these same scientists that will refute the quotes that I offer from them. Please, have at it.
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."Colin Patterson "What is it based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseenbelief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."Arthur N. Field "We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.'"Errol White "From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."Pierre-Paul de Grasse
|
™ Version 4.2