Re: History of "Evolution Science"
- From: "Ross Langerak" <rlangerak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 08:15:28 GMT
<brianrookard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1143321404.397314.14140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It seems that there are some evolutionists here who are just as
dogmatic as their creationist counterparts.
Who? What statements lead you to say that? Be specific please.
"And since science has corrected all of these mistakes, it would seem
that evolution is error free at the moment." - Ross Langerak, in the
post I responded to.
Evolution is "error free at the moment."
What do you actually think of that statement?
It meant that the errors listed by the original poster have already been
corrected. So if creationists want to find fault with evolution, they need
deal with the current, legitimate evidence. Until they do that, the have no
valid criticism of evolution. Thus the qualifier, "at the moment."
I'm an engineer and (soon to be) lawyer by training. That kind of
statement makes me cringe. I'm skeptical enough in my own beliefs to
recognize that statement can come across as coming from someone who can
pretty much not be convinced of anything which might contradict his
viewpoint.
Okay, lets suppose that you are an engineer who has designed a bridge, and
you have submitted that design for review. Several errors are discovered
and the plan is kicked back to you for correction. You correct the errors
and resubmit the design. Would you consider it to be a valid criticism of
your current design if someone pointed to the original errors as proof that
your design will not work?
The errors listed in the original post have already been discovered and
corrected by scientists. Evolution in no way relies upon that discredited
evidence for support. In fact, if the Piltdown fossils were not a fraud,
that would actually be a problem for evolutionists, as those fossils do not
fit with the rest of the evidence supporting human evolution. If
creationists want me to change my mind, they have to address the legitimate
evidence supporting evolution.
.
- References:
- History of "Evolution Science"
- From: mccoy
- Re: History of "Evolution Science"
- From: Ross Langerak
- Re: History of "Evolution Science"
- From: brianrookard
- Re: History of "Evolution Science"
- From: chris.linthompson@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: History of "Evolution Science"
- From: brianrookard
- History of "Evolution Science"
- Prev by Date: Re: California: Board OKs Darwin challenge - Alex Branning Responds
- Next by Date: Re: California: Board OKs Darwin challenge - Alex Branning Responds
- Previous by thread: Re: History of "Evolution Science"
- Next by thread: Re: History of "Evolution Science"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
