This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
But he hasn't proven anything and Patterson was a respected Darwinist - he was not a liar as you suggest and he didn't misrepresent Gould. Shame on you.
What part of 'I don't know' and the remainder of my post did you fail to understand, my friend?
Please show how it is wrong, how it is 'a statement of religion' and how it is 'based on unproven assumptions'.
X was mistaken/misrepresented does not mean the same as X is a liar.
Please show where you have responded appropriately to what you claim to have responded to. Please show, for example, where you have responded to requests for clarifications of your exclusions as evidential of Darwininan mythology, fallacious rhetoric, pseudoscience, etc, so that your request for evidence about the evolutionary relationship amongst primates can be presented in terms acceptable to you.
Are we friends now? There are only two choices - spontaneous generation or special creation. Which one is your choice?
Well, you have never proven your assumptions but you believe via faith.
Patterson was not mistaken and his words remain true.
Been there-done that. Try to keep up.
This would be more likely to be the case if you showed some willingness to engage positively with requests for clarifications and answers to reasonable questions arising from your posts.
Again, what parts of 'I don't know' and the remainder of my comments are you having trouble understanding?
This does not answer my request for clarifications of what you meant when you made the same assertion in a slightly different format.
Do you consider spontaneous generation an absurdity? Can you or can you not provide the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor - on this thread?
And yet Barbarian has demonstrated the contrary. How do you explain this?
But clearly not to the request for clarifications offered as an example of this failure.
Please tell me what part of 'I don't know' and the rest of my comments you are having trouble with.
Please provide the requested clarifications and I will do my best to answer you in terms acceptable to yourself as evidential.
I don't try to explain Barbarian - but you are welcome to take on that job. Do you think Patterson misrepresented Gould and the American Museum? If you do please explain why.
Free, for your understanding, I hope you can see what I meant in my reply to you.
Surely you have an opinion - give it a shot. Do you consider spontaneous generation an absurdity?
Please explain what part of 'I don't know' and the remainder of my post in which I told you 'I don't know' you are having difficulty understanding.
Why is it 'an absurdity'? For example, can you distinguish for us what the significant differences are between life and non- life at the microscopic level?
No more of an absurdity than life arising due to the direct intervention of a supernatural agent', which is why I replied 'I don't know' when you asked about the OOL in the first place.
The only definition I am aware of is the one best exemplified by Aristotle, which supposed that life could emerge from things other than seeds, eggs or parents, e g from putrefying earth or vegetable matter, the insides of other animals, or even secretions from various organs. This idea was effectively falsified by Louis Pasteur and has nothing to do with modern theories of abiogenesis and the origin of self-replicating molecules.
What does this have to do with the theory of evolution, which explains the diversity of life from an unspecified origin?
Thanks again, Sparrow. I'm glad you appreciate an honest answer given with the best of intentions.
