Archaeologica.org

There's a lot of discussion at the moment about the origins of life as I know you'll be aware of Min, and I've seen that used to 'disprove Darwin', problem there of course is that Darwin never theorised on that.
The 'nuts and bolts' are of course pretty well established, not because the club says so but because no one has yet mounted a serious disproof.

Roy.

From the beginning of Chapter 4.

If the history-deniers wh doubt the fact of evolution are ignorant of biology, those who think the world began less than ten thousand years ago are worse than ignorant, they are deluded to the point of perversity. They are denying not only the facts of biology but those of physics, geology, cosmology, archaeology, history and chemistry as well.


--Richard Dawkins

I've always been amused (when not actually annoyed) by the creationist mindset which seems to think that all they have to do is poke holes in the TofE and then their fairy tales become the default fall back position. Whenever one of them (and I post on 4 separate atheist boards) makes such a claim I always invite them to assume ( for the sake of argument ) that Darwin is completely wrong and they are now free to provide whatever scientific evidence they have that all life began 6,000 years ago in the Middle East.

Perhaps it is not surprising but I have never gotten any takers!

I basically made the same challenge elsewhere Min and was informed that offering any alternative was not necessary, I agreed, but pointed out that it would strengthen any case against.

Roy.

True believers never think their case needs strengthening. It's your fault for not seeing it!

It's your fault for not seeing it!

Oh bother!

Roy.

I've always been amused (when not actually annoyed) by the creationist mindset which seems to think that all they have to do is poke holes in the TofE and then their fairy tales become the default fall back position.

It doesn't, of course.

What it does is level the playing field, with neither side entitled to assume that it prevails by default.

uniface wrote:

I've always been amused (when not actually annoyed) by the creationist mindset which seems to think that all they have to do is poke holes in the TofE and then their fairy tales become the default fall back position.

It doesn't, of course.

What it does is level the playing field, with neither side entitled to assume that it prevails by default.

I wish somebody told 'm that.

What it does is level the playing field, with neither side entitled to assume that it prevails by default.

But the TofE has actual evidence. That counts for a lot in my book.

"Revealed: the inbreeding that ruined the Hapsburgs"


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 68857.html


I read an abstract, then the paper on this subject. It was a great deal more in depth, with citations. I'll see if I can locate it.
I seem to remember that they were specifically addressing the unusually high infant mortality rate within this familial group.

True, you start with weak stock and you will end up with weak progeny. If they had been fruit trees the weak ones would have discarded to maintain health.

Roy.