Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mankind and dinosaur side by side ? ?
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 60 of 100 (8567)
04-15-2002 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by techristian
04-15-2002 10:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
Ok here is your answer Mark.
First of all I won't accept one type of GULL and another type of GULL. THEY ARE BOTH GULLS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD !
Secondly I won't accept one type of SALAMANDER and another type of salamander. THEY ARE BOTH SALAMANDERS !
Third I would like to ask if breeding was even ATTEMPTED (in a labratory) between both creatures at both ends of the "ring".
Why would anyone attempt to breed these species in a lab? What would that prove? Their ranges overlap at both ends. The critters don't interbreed. That by definition makes them distinct species. You can shout about them still be the same "kind" or whatever all you want, but that still doesn't change the fact that they are distinct species. Over time, the same mechanisms that created the two species in the first place can eventually cause these two populations to diverge even further. Shouting about it won't change the fact.
quote:
I won't accept "Lucy". After watching that program I noticed many things that weren't quite right about the "skeleton" such as different color bones. (which would lead me to think that "Lucy" was actually a combination of the bones of more than one individual.) I wrote an entire paper on the "Lucy" program.
Wow. I'm impressed! You were able to see through that evil hoax via a made-for-TV documentary from the comfort of your own living room. I wish I had that ability. Do you have any idea how ludicrous that statement is? You, techchristian, were able to discover that the scientists who study human evolution all their lives were completely wrong. Based on a TV program. Amazing.
quote:
To answer you honestly, there have been so many SCAMS with "Pilt Down Man" and others that I would almost need a missing link to walk up to me and say "I am a missing link. Try to disprove it!" Even "carbon dating" has been disproved when a pig bone (buried only a few years earlier) was said to be "MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD"
Piltdown Man was a hoax perpetrated on scientists. It was debunked relatively immediately by scientists (once they had the chance to examine it). By your standards, given all of the spurious "holy relics", false prophets, and fake "visions" Christianity has been plagued with over the centuries, you should automatically reject that, as well. As to the mis-dated pig bone - your assertion doesn't make it so. Care to give a reference? Any other "scams" you'd like to discuss?
quote:
Scientists already tried to make their own "missing link" when they transplanted a baboon heart into a baby.............................. and FAILED MISERABLY.
I assume you were referring to the "Baby Fae" heart transplant that was an attempt to save the life of a new-born baby when no other appropriately-sized heart was available? I'd say it was a brave, if desperate (and probably foredoomed) effort to save a human life. Isn't that what you Christians are supposedly on about all the time? Saving babies? How you can say the doctors (not evolutionary biologists, btw) were trying "to create a missing link", rather than state what it was - a last-ditch attempt to save a child's life? Your comment is utterly indefensible. You need to seriously re-examine your sources of information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by techristian, posted 04-15-2002 10:37 AM techristian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by edge, posted 04-15-2002 11:55 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 74 of 100 (8624)
04-16-2002 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Joe Meert
04-16-2002 12:16 AM


Joe - could you provide a link to your forum, or is it "by invitation only"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Joe Meert, posted 04-16-2002 12:16 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by wj, posted 04-19-2002 8:31 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 97 of 100 (8767)
04-22-2002 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by wj
04-19-2002 8:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wj:
Quetzal, the board is at http://communities.msn.ca/talkorigins/messageboard.msnw
The "offending" comments are in the thread titled "The Ocean Depth Pangea Problem".
It would be interesting to have comment from an uninvolved otsider.

WJ: Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I finally got a chance to look over that board. I have to say I didn't see anything terribly offensive in Joe's comments. The only thing I can see that could be even slightly construed as offensive were the capitalization/emphasis of HOLY BIBLE and characterizing creationism as pseudoscience. Which, of course, it is.
I guess if you're the board owner, you can set your own rules. Seemed pretty arbitrary to me. BTW: I thought your response was beautiful. Terry really didn't seem to get the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by wj, posted 04-19-2002 8:31 PM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by wj, posted 04-22-2002 7:38 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024