Re: SANDECES, MENTIRAS Y MANIPULACIONES (Era: Jesus y la biblia)

[Ricardo Aler Mur <aler@...>]

Antonio, 

Queria haberte echado una mano pero me temo que he llegado algo
tarde. Cualquiera que quiera discutir con creacionistas deberia
(!debe!) echarle un vistazo a:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Es muy completo. Que digo, !es buenisimo!. En particular, he
encontrado un par de cosas que conviene que sepas, por si la discusion
continua (que continuara, no lo dudes :) ).

Primera cosa que encontre en la Web:

{
In some places older fossils appear above young ones. 

Lewis Overthrust, Northern Montana, Glacier Nat'l Monument. Lewis Overthrust,
Northern Montana including Glacier Nat'l Park Here inorder to explain the problem
of much older fossils superimposed on much younger rocks we have a massive sheet
of rock 6000 ft+ thick and 100+ miles long moving some 65 (or more) miles with no
trace of friction or distortion... EVEN THOUGH THE ROCKS THEY REST ON ARE
CRETACEOUS SHALES AND MUDSTONES WHICH WOULD SHOW DISTORTION QUITE EASILY! 
...
}

No se trata de una anomalia del registro fosil sino de un fenomeno
geologico. Busca por "thrust" en talk.origins y lo encontraras.

Otro que te hubiera interesado:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html

{
Creationist Arguments: Anomalous Fossils

A common creationist claim is that humans existed alongside or predated all of
their presumed ancestors in the fossil record. Taylor (1992) contains a long list
of supposed examples, and Bowden (1981) discusses a number of them in more
detail. 
}

A continuacion pasan a desbaratar cada uno de los fosiles
suministrados por Bowden. Deberias recomendarselo al Pablo. Al menos,
eso desmiente eso de que Bowden es "ignorado".

Sobre fosiles de hominidos puedes encontrar informacion en:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html

Sobre cladogramas: (en http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html)

{
First of all, in a response to systematics, Denton cites the increasing
popularity of cladism and lists quotes by those who use it to the effect that we
can only determine sister relationships between organisms, not ancestral
relationships. The problem with this is that cladism obviously does not
contradict evolution, and in fact the data underlying the arrangement of
organisms on the cladogram supports evolution more than it does an underlying
typological process. It interprets classified species as being descendants of
unspecifiable common ancestors.

...
}

Sobre Zuckerman y sus australopitecos 
(en http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a%5Fpiths.html)

{
...
Solly Zuckerman attempted to prove with biometrical studies (based on
measurements) that the australopithecines were apes. Zuckerman lost this debate
in the 1950's, and his position was abandoned by everyone else (Johanson and
Edey, 1981). Creationists like to quote his opinions as if they were still a
scientifically acceptable viewpoint.
...
}

No he tenido tiempo de mirar mas, pero vienen cosas de Velikovsky, de las
situaciones en las que se ha mostrado que los creacionistas mentian (y
siguen mintiendo sin corregir sus mentiras), de como organizan debates con
mala fe (y luego les extran~a que no se quiera debatir con ellos), etc. 
Como ves, aunque estos sen~ores parecen saber mucho, se limitan a usar
argumentos tabulados y repetidos hasta la saciedad, a ver si alguien pica.

Ricardo Aler.










---------- End of message ----------