|
***Come on Mario, you're smarter than that***
Appealing to my intellectual vanity will get you nowhere! Nowhere!!!!!!!!!!!
*** "Evidence of human bones in precambrian rock" won't kill any theory, it will simply prompt evolutionary scientists to revise it.***
Okay, you give me a way to justify evolutionary theory if we find evidence that humans have been around since the inception of life. You give me a 'revision.' (Assuming of course that 'revision' does not mean completely overhauling a theory) You provide an answer that better accomodates the data.
***Sleep, celibacy, homossexuality, suicidal behaviour, hereditary diseases, any of that could be a "deathblow" to evolution theory***
Why? Who says we have to be genetically perfect to survive? As long as the population in general is passing on their genes, it doesn't matter if a few mutations/lifestyle choices affect others, in the long run.
***Facts which go against what is suggested by the theory are not considered proof that the theory is wrong, they are simply dismissed as anomalies***
I'll admit the theory is not complete. I'm not TOTALLY ignernt. :) However, I think there is no better explanation for the striated fossil record and similarities between species, etc. You think I'm trying to sell you the answers to life, the universe, and everything, but I'm not. I'm just supporting the best idea SO FAR. And you have yet to propose an alternative idea. What you seem to be doing is just throwing up your hands and saying "well, this is all to complex, I give up. And to those of you 'scientists' who try to explain how it all works, don't waste your time." While it is technically true that we'll never have it all figured out, that doesn't mean that science is worthless. It just means it's not ideal.
***Why?!!? Because of my stupidity, or because of my heresy?***
Because I think you're doing more sophistry than actual debate.
And, from Paul's post:
***Mario said "you really don't have any right to call it meaningless", and later, "evolution doesn't deal with meaning".***
Oops, sorry. Let me explain myself. I used 'meaning' in two different contexts. In the first sentence, I assumed by 'meaning' Aurino assumed that it had no bearing in the outside world. That is, it told us nothing about the universe. In the second sentence, I was using meaning more to explain the 'why' then the 'how.' |
