richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0402251141.16896912@posting.google.com>...
> "Jason Gastrich" <newsgroups@jcsm.org> wrote in message news:<8k__b.2508$Bb5.116@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> > >> Even if all of those quotes were fabrications or exaggerations,
> > >
> > > This is not the issue. It has been clearly demonstrated to you that
> > > the quote is deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of the authors'
> > > words. The issue is your honesty.
> > >
> > >> it still
> > >> wouldn't help the theory of evolutionism any.
> > >
> > > What is the theory of evolutionism?
> > >
> > >> On its own merits, it
> > >> requires tons of faith.
> > >
> > > Not as far as I'm concerned.
> >
> > You either have so much faith in evolutionism that it has blinded you . . .
> > or you are lying. You can't call things facts if they are assumptions. In
> > other words, calling non-life turning into life and reptiles turning into
> > birds "FACTS" is a lie. So, which is it?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Jason
>
> So where did I say that those statements are facts?
> There is a vast amount of evidence, which you choose to ignore or
> deny, to support the theory of evolution. You have not been able to
> muster a single coherent alternative explanation for the facts of the
> geological record.
> Archaeopteryx is very good evidence of the ancestry of birds as a
> branch of the dinosaur lineage. It shared features with both modern
> birds and dinosaurs. I won't go into technical detail: there's no
> point. You will simply refuse to accept it and retreat into your 'I'm
> right, you're wrong' mode of argument.
> A fact is that we find remains of animals that show features of both
> birds and reptiles. A fact is that they are found fossilised as
> permineralised skeletons in limestone deposits in southern Germany. A
> fact is that these deposits can be dated by a variety of methods as
> around 1500 million years old. An assumption, based on these facts, is
> that the animal we found is close to the ancestral lineage of modern
> birds. It seems to me to be a pretty good assumption, especilly as I
> have left out a load of other facts which also support that
> contention.
>
>
> What facts can you offer me to refute it?
>
> RF
It's jolly funny that we can find eight toothed hoatzins from 150
million years ago and not find eight Australopithecines from 1.5
million years ago.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 |
| 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 |
| 180 | 181 |
|