| Subject: Paul needs to back up his assertions |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/ 3/02 4:20pm
In reply to:
PAUL.
's message, "Well I didnt put them there,it mustve been a problem with my isp." on 02/ 3/02 9:34am
Paul,
It really isn't fair for you to continue to assert how "stupid" the evolutionary theory is without backing it up. To be honest, it makes _you_ look like one of those people who just likes to parrot what he has heard, but who doesn't have any real working knowledge of the issues at hand.
Therefore, I suggest you follow one of these two courses of action:
1) stop making assertions that you cannot back up, or
2) start providing support to your assertions.
Typically, when someone uses loaded words like "stupid," I assume he really doesn't know much about the issues. If you would like to discuss evolutionary theory, please do. But if all you want to do is make fun of something you obviously don't understand, then please stop.
>evolution on the other handin just a lot of
>unproven theories.
In what sense is evolution "unproven"? Please explain in detail why the evolutionary theory does not conform to the same standards that other scientific theories do.
>Like I said the similarities between
>ape and men just doesnt constitute scientific
>proof.
Of course not. You are fighting a straw man. While I do agree with ozboy that it is difficult to look at apes and humans and not see the obvious similarities, there are strong, scientific reasons why we believe we are related to apes. Do you understand how DNA is compared? Basically, they heat it up until its strands break apart, and then they put it back together with other DNA and see how much of it fuses. Strangely enough, our DNA fuses with about 99% of chimpanzees' DNA. If you compare our DNA with something like reptillian DNA, you will get a much smaller percentage, so we assume that we are not as related to reptiles as we are to apes. Please refute this argument rather than the "apes look like humans" one, which, as you say, could easily be flawed.
>And WADE got it right on the virus antibodies
>they dont evolve at all they adapt,
Maybe you are not aware that adaptation is a form of evolution. Evolution just means change (not "progress", to be sure), and this type of adaptation represents a type of evolution. It doesn't represent an evolution from one "species" to another (I put that word in quotes because the whole idea of "species" is just a man-made one... it's more like a continuum than a bunch of set "species" that are objectively determinable). Nevertheless, there are many examples of such evolution. The horse is one animal that we have the richest history of.
Paul, I'm going to be honest with you. You seem like a sincere, devout person. But you are delving into issues that you apparently know nothing about. Whenever someone does that, he only makes his side of the argument look worse. So please... for your own good, go study these issues in detail before calling something as comprehensive as the evolutionary theory "stupid". And ask yourself if you have any real interest in studying something if there is a chance you will be proven wrong.
I had to ask myself this question at one point: If I were wrong, would I want to know? I suggest you pose that question to yourself before delving into these issues any further.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 