Archaeologica.org

There was programme on UK TV called 'the wolf on you hearth' and according to the research most nothern hemisphere dogs came from two ancestors. One was the Wolf, and the other was the parent of those modern animals with their tail curled over their back. What you say about the dogs in India is correct of course. The Wolves in Spain are German Shepherd in all but name but feral dogs all seem to end up sandy coloured, rather un Wolf like.

you havent read a single link ive posted so far have you

Steve, what the Hell are you on about? I'm beginning to think I'm not writing English. Check again what I said.
In a nutshell I said that I accept Darwinism in principle. Got that?
But there is no proof. The minute there is proof his theory will become a law.
As for reading as you suggest I have recently got rid of a number of books showing that Pteradactyls couldn't fly, that long necked Dinos were aquatic because they were too heavy to walk, and that Dinos were slow lumbering cold blooded lizards.
Like I also said, no generation has a patent on being wrong.
Bring on the open mind!

But there is no proof. The minute there is proof his theory will become a law.

theres no doubt youre writing English Roy
but you clearly arent reading it
Darwins theories were incomplete
they will never be proven
his theories laid the ground work for the modern theory of evolution which has been proven
had you read the links I had posted you would see that
and as it is
claiming that neither would win a case in court implies that you think each are equally valid
you need to be aware at this point that the creationism theory means that the world was created in 4004bce in seven days
you can't pick what pieces you like and reject the rest
you have to accept all the parts of each theory as they are presented

I have read your posts. I also know about Usher. The difference is I don't just believe because it is written, if I did I would have to accept Usher, wouldn't I?
Follow this.
Live Science post states that Chimps and man evolved from comman ancestor 6 million yrs ago. Okay?
These calculations are based on the idea that mutations take place at regular intervals, count the changes, multiply by the agreed time = how far back the split occurred. Okay?
From that, Chimps should show the same number of markers as we do.
Okay?
Question. Do they?
If they do okay. If not one or other idea just died on its feet.
As I pointed out earlier, all sorts of nonsense gets written, so the written word cannot be absolute.
PS.
You say that I have to accept either in its entireity. Unfortunately I can accept neither in its entireity because I have an enquiring mind. I accept the outline of Darwinism but I suspect that it will be modified like Newton's law of gravity as we learn more.

The ID-ers claim that any weakness in the theory of evolution invalidates it and must mean that their bullshit is true.

They, of course, will admit to no weaknesses in their own "theory."

marduk wrote: you need to be aware at this point that the creationism theory means that the world was created in 4004bce in seven days

Actually, the Ussher reference is only ONE creationist theory. There have been many. If you like, I can post links but you may already seen some. Any way, not all proponents of creationism agree with 4004 and not everyone says 7 days. Just thought I'd mention that since you frequently use the 4004/7 citation.

True.

Even Arch didn't pay much attention to Ussher.

I don't think weaknesses in Darwinism invalidates it. I think that we simple have more to learn. What we really need is one, just one series of fossils showing a clear transition from one species to another and the argument is one.
Some of the biggest damage comes from supporters. If you're old enogh you will have been taught, the same as me, that Diplodicus walked on lake bottoms and lifted its head 20 ft to breathe. The Damn thing couldn't breathe under 20 ft of water.
The TV programme the other night that claimed Apatosaurus spent all day eating and dropped its eggs on the march leaves me asking where is the evidence it laid eggs, what was the nutritional value of its food? Continous eating seems to me to be pretty unlikely.
With people making wild claims like that leaves us all open arguments. These people should simply point out that we don't know.

Minimalist wrote:The ID-ers claim that any weakness in the theory of evolution invalidates it and must mean that their bullshit is true.

They, of course, will admit to no weaknesses in their own "theory."

In my opinion, a theory with weaknesses does not prove an alternate theory nor does it invalidate a theory. That's ridiculous. I think it true what you say, however, that some are definitely trying to exploit the weaknesses in evolution theory. But 2 of the 4 tenets of their own theory are weak or discredited. I would like to see them drop the political movement and do some work.

I don't think weaknesses in Darwinism invalidates it.

You guys never dealt with Arch.

When I first entered this discussion it was because of my dislike of entrenched opinions. Marduk's statement that I have accept Darwinism in its entireity is as dogmatic as Arch's. (Sorry Steve).
When proponents of Darwin tell me I have to accept ideas that defy physics then I must say No.
They do more harm than good.

A lot of progress has been made on Darwin's theories in the intervening 150 years.

There is the essential difference between Evolution and the Jesus Freaks.
They religiously resist any changes to their "theory."

Long, but still one of the best discussions of the issue.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... =1&catID=2

If you like, I can post links but you may already seen some

well seeing as i reviewed the latest one by Genesis Veracity then I dont think its neccesary.
but basically they all claim that Darwin was wrong because man was created in God image and God was not a "bouncing monkey man"
this is demonstrably a load of crap
as is creationism
as is ID
and I'm afraid to say it as is the arguments of everyone whos commented so far on Darwin thinking that is the current evolutionary model
It isnt
i have stated this several times now Darwin paved the way and modern genetics has taken over
I have posted links that proved the current model was true
in return I am hearing the same old same old shit
i.e. Ignorance of modern theory and a refusal to look facts in the face and a continuous claim that Darwin has gaps

Agggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
The gaps have been filled don't you get it I need to scream until i lose my voice with you bozos or something


if you people feel that there is still some mystery in our origins thats fine
but don't expect me to not label you ignorant for thinking so

see look one of my carbon rods has come loose