doubledown
Full Member
Posts: 146
|
 |
Re: Creationist Reply…challenging!
« Reply #2 on: Sep 22nd, 2004, 11:18am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
If you read the guy's conclusion it's clear that this is just is straight creationism which by definition means no engagement with rational debate. Lots of impressive sounding references quoted but reading the sweeping conclusions its just your typical standard pseudoscience, at best. It's a waste of time arguing with fanatics because their minds are closed, let's use the time to look at the natural world with enquiring minds (like Darwin, although of course he didn't have all the answers) and actually gain useful knowledge in the process as opposed to insisting that all useful knowledge was written in some ancient tracts and can never be superseded. That's not to say of course that there isn't a great deal of wisdom and beauty in ancient tracts. 
Of course evolutionists don't have all the answers, but then neither do quantum theory and relativity explain everything in physics. Science is a process of enquiry, not a final answer, and scientific knowledge evolves  (unlike blind faith)
On a specific note, I have no expertise whatsoever in paleontology but two points I was thinking about -
1) There clearly are examples of transitional forms in the fossil record - just take us lot hom sap. - plenty of hominid fossils already discovered closely resembling us and extremely plausibly on an evolutionary pathway to hom sap - do you hear anyone (apart from creationists) shouting from the rooftops that the hominid fossil record blows evolution out of the water? I don't.
2) We've only been investigating the fossil record systematically for about 200 years - who's to say how much more will be discovered after perhaps another 2000 years of rigorous painstaking enquiry with ever improving techniques?
Just my 2 cents of course
|
Mischel Internet Security Forum
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
Author
Remove
IP Logged
Search
Members
Login
Register