On Sat, 03 May 2008 06:41:19 +0200, ~saba*gracile~ wrote:
> "Cory Albrecht" <coryalbrecht@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i melding
> news:qbvme5xdr6.ln2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ~saba*gracile~ wrote:
>>> "Mike Johannson" <invalid@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i melding
>>> news:fv35qo$h0h$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> "~saba*gracile~" <veronisc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:uPOdnarxVY2pV4_VnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> --->lol lol, that's the argument of the year ain't it? Evolution is
>>>>> so slow it just didn't happen. Let's just say that, and be over with
>>>>> this mess.
>>>>>
>>>> Then how do you explain the fossil record?
>>>
>>> What, the few ones that don't show anything really? those?
>>
>> The Palaeobiology Database <http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl>
>> references over 80 thousand different fossil collections. Not
>> individual fossils but fossil *collections*. If each collection
>> contains just 10 fossils on average, that's over 800 000 individual
>> fossils found.
>>
>> Once againm you prove that yu don't know squat about what you're
>> babbling upon.
>>
>> <sarcasm>Oh, yeah, we've hardly found any fossils. Those few we have
>> found couldn't possibly mean anything.</sarcasm>
>
> Great. They have found many bones and creatures with their features
> imbedded in stone. And you say - Oh, yeah, all of these, or the ones we
> choose, are connected as to meaning our theory is correct. Of course. I
> doubt a fraction of these fossiles can be positively PROVEN to show
> evolution.
Exactly *when* do you plan to learn that science does not _do_ proof, and
therefore stop making asinine comments about whether aspects of science
are proven or not?
Do you, in fact, possess enough intellectual capacity to get the *most
basic, simplest, fundamental* aspects of science right, after being
informed of your errors repeatedly?
Apparently not.
|
