alt.fan.uncle-daveyPrev. Next
Re: Hello T.O. Church Of Last Thursday
Matt Silberstein (matts.2nopam@ix.netcom.nospamcom) 2003/12/21 14:22
Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Matt Silberstein <matts.2nopam@ix.netcom.nospamcom>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Hello T.O.
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:22:58 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Church Of Last Thursday
Lines: 36
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <adtbuvon7ur52uh44qrnthmr0cnt10clqd@4ax.com>
References: <abdf273b.0312141025.4f5f2638@posting.google.com> <ILdDb.6301$Oh1.248@twister.socal.rr.com> <brk149$n9e$5@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu> <brkkbn$6uj$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <brmtke$1cc$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu> <brnqra$2r2$1@news.onet.pl> <qja2uv40d899aedd7tnalqohckrgpulg7h@4ax.com> <brsc64$bfv$1@news.onet.pl> <3FE1A633.1020201@pacbell.net> <brt1in$3n6$1@news.onet.pl> <t234uvong8rkf2872cseoc0sn3iam080ij@4ax.com> <FYoEb.2258$Vs3.2012@twister.socal.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1072041778 55324 128.100.83.246 (21 Dec 2003 21:22:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:22:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.31.84.97
X-Spamscanner: mailbox2.ucsd.edu (v1.4 Oct 30 2003 22:20:52, 0.0/5.0 2.60)
X-Spam-Level: Level
X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 26636 hBLLMuvu036786 mailbox2.ucsd.edu)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:1238

In free.christians  I read this message from "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
<news@jcsm.org>:

>Mujin wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:04:57 +0000 (UTC), "Piorokrat"
>> <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Fossils are a point which can be discussed. They are much rarer than
>>> they should be bearing in mind what evolutionists say about the age
>>> of the earth. I tend to believe that they are flood victims.
>>
>> OK, you're right.  This does bear discussion.  Exactly how many
>> fossils are to be expected, and by how much does the number of
>> existing fossils fall short?
>
>If punctualism is true, then we don't need many fossils at all.  Right?

Wrong.

>Punctualism disagrees with Darwinism on this.  IMHO, punctualism was the
>theory that evolutionists put forth after the fossils weren't found.

Do you know where you read this? I strongly suspect you have not
read the original Eldredge and Gould's original paper. Punk Eek
does *not* conflict with evolution (what is this Darwinism?
Science is not a cult of personality) at all. Nor does it depend
on the non-existence of fossils (good thing since we do have
fossils). Nor does it explain the absence of transitional
sequences. A good thing again since we have transitional
sequences. They even mention some in the original paper. I
recommend you read that paper and then we can talk. I think that
Gould did not always do a good job at explaining his position,
but he sure was good at understanding the data.

Follow-ups:1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829
303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859
606162636465666768697071727374757677787980818283848586878889
90919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119
120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149
150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179
180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209
210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224
Next Prev. Article List         Favorite