Posted on 10/30/2003 5:04:39 PM PST by Dales
Those are some of the worst kind.
Actually it is quite easy to tell you are an evolutionist from the posting of this thread.Very poor assumption, which is staggering to see you make after I pretty much told you it would be a mistake to do.
I went to google news. I typed in evolution. Got one. Posted it. I went back to google. I typed in creationism. Got one. Posted it. So unless google works like my Magic 8 Ball on my desk, and could sense what my views are when it returned those two stories, there was nothing to tell from the choice of stories.
(I left out a step. I checked for duplicates before posting).
On both, I gave the same warnings. No flame wars, no baiting. And on both, I said it would be wrong to figure out my views from posting it.
I think I am getting a feel for what the problem is on these threads though. People drag things from old threads over. People make assumptions of the motives and views of others. People add insults into responses, just to try to get the goat of someone else; they may not be big insults but just little digs.
And people are not taking the hint that they are skating on thin ice.
Well, they are.
:^)
I remember reading that the CO2 content in the deep ocean is so low that a shell dropped into the ocean will dissolve before it reaches the bottom. I don't know whether that's correct.
As for the calcium, I suppose it's just there in solution in sufficient quantity.
Just passin through, friend, and I mean friend. God bless you. :^)
That's the same method I use. But I suspect that your thread will last longer than some of mine ...
Care to comment on Glenn Morton's masterful examination of the Cambrian "explosion" claim, where he documents all the major phyla that are known to have developed before the Cambrian?
If one considers the Vendian/Cambrian animals as constituting the Cambrian Explosion, then we have 13 phyla appearing in the Cambrian Explosion and 20 AFTER the Cambrian Explosion. While one can assume that the 13 phyla which have no fossil record arose in the Cambrian, assumptions are NOT data. The plain fact is that the Cambrian Explosion doesn't even represent the majority of the phyla. Will these other phyla be found in the Cambrian? Maybe. But one can't rationally assume what the future holds in order to argue to his case.
And if one adds the plant phyla which appear after the Cambrian (why plant phyla should be excluded as Ray seems to imply is beyond me. They ARE phyla after all (Bohlin, 2001, p. 138)), one gets the following chart.
Period # total phyla which appear in period
Recent 13
Eocene 2
Cretaceous 2
Jurassic 1
Triassic 3
Carboniferous 5
Devonian 4
Silurian 1
Ordovician 1
Cambrian 9
Vendian 4
(same note as above concerning phyla in the Vendian)
This yields Cambrian Explosion 13, Post-Cambrian 32! Sounds like a football score! And given that 13 phyla first appear within the past 10,000 years (having no fossil record) one could, if one wanted, claim that we are in another explosion. I wouldn't make that claim but it would fit within the data. To claim that all or even the majority of animal phyla appear in the Cambrian is demonstrably FALSE yet the claim is blindly made being repeated endlessly by apologist to apologist with no one even questioning the validity of the statement.
PS- I just got told via Freepmail that I am an Objectivist. Think my preacher will mind?
Audio(meaning of life 1.83mb)
a little late; but what the heck,keeps them out of trouble.
Why is it not possible that human knowledge/consciousness/existence will evolve to the life that the Creator established?
Scientific American is really going off the deep end. In a world covered with ice there could never have been the numerous marine life we know existed long before the Cambrian.
What the creator established is called ... creation --- what's so hard about that ?
Well, that depends. Consider Barbara Walters' interview question to Katherine Hepburn: "If you were a tree, what kind would you be?"
So, please forgive my ignorance - when the writers talk about "buffering", does this mean that they are talking about pH?
Hard to tell from the brief article above. pH buffering is one of the most common kinds of buffering, but any process (chemical or otherwise) which limits or softens the effects of something is properly called a buffer, so the paper may have been talking about something other than pH buffering.
Even in computers, message or data storage areas which temporarily store information as it's being passed from one place to another are called buffers, because they prevent data overruns from occurring if the incoming data momentarily arrives faster than it can be accepted by the destination. The memory buffer gives the data a safe place to pile up in a "traffic jam" until the "road" ahead opens up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.