Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists find evolution of life
EurekAlert ^ | 10/30/03

Posted on 10/30/2003 5:04:39 PM PST by Dales

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 601-639 next last
To: MissAmericanPie
I don't believe in miracles, I believe in a command of physics, or something beyond physics, beyond quantum mechanics, that we have not attained to yet, but can and will.

This pretty much describes the history of science. What's missing from your scenerio is the necessity of doing the dirty work, digging in the trenches, coming up with verifiable hypotheses, having ideas checked by others for self-consistency and consistency with other known facts. In short, science speculates, but does not try to inhabit the castles it builds in the air. Having said this, I have to admit that scientists, as individuals, can have looney political ideas and write looney tracts for the public. But every family has a crazy aunt in the closet.

251 posted on 10/31/2003 11:52:52 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I'm not saying the dirty work in the trenches is not neccessary. I'm just saying as long as they are in the business of speculating and then following that speculation with an accumulation of impherical evidence, why not consider aiming their speculations in the direction I suggest? It will save time.
252 posted on 10/31/2003 12:23:45 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
...why not consider aiming their speculations in the direction I suggest? It will save time.

That's what socialists say about the economy. If we know in advance what direction we need to go, why not just let the best and the brightest just plan it and eliminate all this wasteful competition.

I'm not sure how to convince you that unplanned economies are better than planned economies, or that free competition in the realm of ideas is better than just taking a shortcut to the truth.

253 posted on 10/31/2003 12:29:14 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; f.Christian; All
'And now you know the REST of the story!

(>/paulharveyvoice) ;^)
254 posted on 10/31/2003 12:30:55 PM PST by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
AAAUUUGGGHHH!!!

The Blue Man, again!
255 posted on 10/31/2003 12:35:53 PM PST by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Dales
Not a single abuse report. Not a single 'ping' to the moderators about abuse.

So the tricks are as follows:


256 posted on 10/31/2003 12:55:35 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: js1138
That's comparing apples and oranges. Here's the thing, not only was there a sudden explosion of species, the earth was a sudden event also. That fact slaughters the sacred cow known as carbon dating, because the fact that the earth sprang into being fully formed and mature makes that dating method a dead issue.

I read where there is a certain kind of radiation that has a half life of something like .034 of a second found trapped inside granite, and there was speculation that granite had to have just come into being in an instant to trap that radiation. They may have found other explinations for that now like gas, etc, I haven't followed it.

But wouldn't it save time if scientist speculated in the direction of an instantaneous earth? If scientist had began with the theory that some species developed suddenly and in the same time frame, wouldn't the evidence to support that have been found much sooner and wouldn't that have saved time? If they look into when this event happened and find that it coincides with the time period that the earth was watered from a mist rising from the ground they could then tie man's appearance on earth as his being a part of that sudden species eruption and therefore existed at the time that the earth was watered by a mist rising from the earth.

Likewise if they begin with the speculation that the earth was also an instantaneous event and then gather their evidence based on that theory, it could save decades of time at the least. I feel confident some young bright turk will come along and slaughter alot of sacred cows, it's just a shame he will have to endure the wrath and loss of prestige that organized science will heap on him.

257 posted on 10/31/2003 1:07:55 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
But wouldn't it save time if scientist speculated in the direction of an instantaneous earth?

That was the original assumption of science several hundred years ago. The evidence has led elsewhere.

258 posted on 10/31/2003 1:13:45 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Don't feel like starting an argument today, sorry.
259 posted on 10/31/2003 2:17:06 PM PST by vpintheak (Our Liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dales

Not a single abuse report. Not a single 'ping' to the moderators about abuse. Not a single email about abuse.

You know what that tells me?

It tells me that there was never a reason for all the crap that usually goes on in these threads. Good. Let's keep it this way.

I dunno. It tells me "when the cat's away the mice will play"!
260 posted on 10/31/2003 2:52:57 PM PST by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Else where and back to verifying scripture again eh? Well, all my pumkins are carved and lit, after that workout I think the muscle in my right arm has evolved bigger than my left. The candy is piled high to give out, I'll just go recline in my lawn chair and watch for little goblins. It's been a nice, civil chat, thanks.
261 posted on 10/31/2003 3:47:45 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: jennyp; Dales
Not a single email about abuse. You know what that tells me? It tells me that there was never a reason for all the crap that usually goes on in these threads.
It tells me "when the cat's away the mice will play"!

It tells me that a watched pot never boils.

262 posted on 10/31/2003 4:21:43 PM PST by PatrickHenry (A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Or try "Virtual Ignore.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; jennyp
It tells me that a watched pot never boils.

It tells me that the sun never sets on the British Empire.

263 posted on 10/31/2003 7:19:17 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Except when it's night over Suez, India and Hong Kong.
264 posted on 10/31/2003 7:27:23 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Except when it's night over Suez, India and Hong Kong.

But everything is still OK,
On the road to Mandalay.

265 posted on 10/31/2003 7:34:58 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Shryke
I promised myself I wouldn't post to you again, gore,

Methinks I wish you had kept to your resolution. Somehow I had not missed your posts.

f.christian has not stopped, ever, calling everyone he disagrees with a nazi, socialist, athiest, liberal, etc.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps he is correct? Has it occurred to you that perhaps those he calls nazis are nazis, that those he calls socialists are socialists, that those he calls atheists are atheists, and that those he calls liberals are liberals?

The truth should always be told and if it is to be silenced just because those who are being called on the carpet do not like it, then you are trying to silence the truth. OJ is a murderer, whether he was convicted of it or not and calling him a murder is not an insult but a statement of fact. When you can provide proof that his accusations are false, I may entertain listening to them.

However, since all I see from you is a Clintonite type tactic of accusing someone of being politically incorrect in calling a spade a spade, it makes me think more highly of f.christians posts than before you made these remarks.

266 posted on 10/31/2003 7:41:06 PM PST by gore3000 ("To say dogs, mice, and humans are all products of slime plus time is a mystery religion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

Trouble-free P L A C E M A R K E R
267 posted on 10/31/2003 7:51:00 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Sweetness, light, and honest exchange of ideas placemarker.
268 posted on 10/31/2003 7:52:02 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Yes, photosynthetic bacteria. Light goes through ice.

Nope. The oceans are one. Life could not exist for hundreds of millions of years without light. We are not talking of a piece (a large piece, but nevertheless a piece) of the ocean being covered with ice, we are speaking of the whole earth being covered with ice. So yes it is impossible. And no, there is no light under the deep antartic ice.

269 posted on 10/31/2003 8:01:15 PM PST by gore3000 ("To say dogs, mice, and humans are all products of slime plus time is a mystery religion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
So you support the establishment of a global socialist bureaucratic order to "prevent global warming"?? That is what it is really all about, you know.

Yes, that is what the global warming crowd is about. It should also be noted that some 30 years ago the threat was global cooling.

As to your statements about the cooling, they are true. We know there was a fairly large population in Greenland that was farming and living as in warmer climes. The evidence is undeniable.

270 posted on 10/31/2003 8:06:52 PM PST by gore3000 ("To say dogs, mice, and humans are all products of slime plus time is a mystery religion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Has it occurred to you that perhaps he is correct? Has it occurred to you that perhaps those he calls nazis are nazis, that those he calls socialists are socialists, that those he calls atheists are atheists, and that those he calls liberals are liberals?*

Has it ever occurred to you (or him) that they aren't?

Or have you ever really cared about the truth?

*It's just too bad there isn't a font color called "ignorant, puerile, and outright disgusting", so I was forced to just use "blue".

271 posted on 10/31/2003 8:07:00 PM PST by balrog666 (Humor is a universal language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Nice to see you. By the way, one of the words for "a stranger passing through" is "quidam".

Thank you very much and God bless. I will now become, once again, a "quidam".

272 posted on 10/31/2003 8:12:07 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Melanocyrillium, 850-million year old "testate amoeba."

You really have to learn to read. I said:

And do not talk to me about chemosynthesis, because the life that existed before the Cambrian was photosynthetic bacteria.

There was photosynthetic bacteria before the Cambrian - as I said. Your posting does not refute that, and indeed it cannot be refuted because it is true. Such bacteria could not have survived for hundreds of millions of years in an ice covered world. So stop misrepresenting my statements and stop evading the point. SciAm has turned to nothing more than a joke under its evolutionist editor and the article you refer to is total nonsense - and totally dishonest since any scientist should have seen the problem with it.

273 posted on 10/31/2003 8:14:36 PM PST by gore3000 ("To say dogs, mice, and humans are all products of slime plus time is a mystery religion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Has it ever occurred to you (or him) that they aren't?

Actually, the worst thing about us evos is not only are we nazis, socialists, atheists, and liberals, but we don't discuss the science but rather just slime people who disagree with us.

274 posted on 10/31/2003 8:15:48 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Amoebas are animals.
275 posted on 10/31/2003 8:16:44 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Eukaryotic animals. The testate amoeba shown apparently reproduced sexually.
276 posted on 10/31/2003 8:19:02 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The current (November) issue of SciAm has an article that favors gore's position on introns.

The link says nothing substantial, it does not even mention introns. One would have to read the whole article to see what it says. Your claimed evidence is therefore just not there - as is usual with evolutionist links - they do not say what the poster claims they say.

277 posted on 10/31/2003 8:21:11 PM PST by gore3000 ("To say dogs, mice, and humans are all products of slime plus time is a mystery religion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
If God created life the evolutionist assumption that all change is due solely to materialistic forces cannot be sustained.-me-

That is not an assumption of evolution.

Totally false and you know it. The 'force' of evolution is so called natural selection. That is the mechanistic replacement for God which is central to evolutionary theory. Nowhere does evolution claim that God did anything. It claims that the creation of species was accomplished gradually by natural selection. That the Cambrian creatures were created directly refutes evolution since the claim of evolution is universal. In addition to which as I said, if God created life there is no way that evolutionists can deny that God created man in His own image instead of in the image of an ape as Darwin and evolutionists claim. The Creator cannot be said to be a force that does not exist and could not have accomplished changes in His creation. So yes, evolution is both materialistic and atheistic.

278 posted on 10/31/2003 8:29:30 PM PST by gore3000 ("To say dogs, mice, and humans are all products of slime plus time is a mystery religion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
. Nowhere does evolution claim that God did anything. It claims that the creation of species was accomplished gradually by natural selection.

God no more figures in the theory of evolution than he figures in the theory of relativity. So, if the theory of relativity is a 'Godless' theory, then by your idiotic 'logic' modern physics is atheistic.

279 posted on 10/31/2003 8:34:38 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: js1138
(En bleu) The link says nothing substantial, it does not even mention introns.

Oh well, you led the horse to water...

280 posted on 10/31/2003 8:36:56 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Scientist seldom speculate in the direction of supernatural causes because the fundamental hypothesis of science is that the laws of nature are constant over time.

If science is about truth, then it cannot say that God is out of the question. If science is not about truth, then science is irrelevant.

The atheists/materialists/evolutionists have been trying to push science into this precipice of dishonesty which makes science worthless. It is trying to politicize science and thus make it a matter of opinion instead of a matter of facts and evidence.

One must ask why evolutionists, atheists and materialists are trying to do that if they supposedly have evidence for their position? The answer is that they have no evidence, that their position is completely rhetorical and that the only way they can support their viewpoint is by destroying the search for truth in science.

281 posted on 10/31/2003 8:43:41 PM PST by gore3000 ("To say dogs, mice, and humans are all products of slime plus time is a mystery religion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: js1138
What's missing from your scenerio is the necessity of doing the dirty work, digging in the trenches, coming up with verifiable hypotheses, having ideas checked by others for self-consistency and consistency with other known facts.

And evolution does not do any of that. Look at the present article - kids writing a video game is all that this is. It is not digging facts and doing dirty work. Look at the works of Gould and Dawkins - neither of them a scientist, neither of them involved in experimentation, or research. I doubt that either even owned a microscope. Darwin did not either. These people are rhetoricians, not scientists. Darwin spent 20 years writing and zero doing science. His followers do the same.

282 posted on 10/31/2003 8:48:14 PM PST by gore3000 ("To say dogs, mice, and humans are all products of slime plus time is a mystery religion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
If science is about truth, then it cannot say that God is out of the question.

Laplace didn't say God was ruled out when he wrote a book on celestial mechanics which omitted mention of Him. He merely had "no need of that hypothesis." Archimedes didn't use Zeus in his law of the lever, but he didn't get any grief over it.

283 posted on 10/31/2003 8:53:46 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The evidence has led elsewhere.

Totally false. There is absolutely no evidence of any species transforming itself into a more complex species. NONE, ZERO, NADA.

All the evidence is that such transformations are impossible:

1. genetics shows how utterly impossible it is for a new trait to spread.
2. DNA shows how utterly impossible it is for a new gene, a new functio, a new ability to arise.
3. the interconnectedness of life shows how impossible it is for anything new to become an integral part of the rest.
4. the regulation of functions shows that new abilities cannot arise gradually because unless regulated they will be not just harmful but deadly.

So your statement is completely false scientifically.

284 posted on 10/31/2003 8:54:10 PM PST by gore3000 ("To say dogs, mice, and humans are all products of slime plus time is a mystery religion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Darwin spent 20 years writing and zero doing science.

Against ignorance the Gods themselves labor in vain.

285 posted on 10/31/2003 8:56:25 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Amoebas are animals.

Who cares. Your statement above only shows that your post was knowingly dishonest and irrelevant. I showed it was irrelevant for other reasons so there was no need to delve further into your verbiage.

286 posted on 10/31/2003 8:58:04 PM PST by gore3000 ("To say dogs, mice, and humans are all products of slime plus time is a mystery religion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Who cares.

Not you, right?

287 posted on 10/31/2003 9:00:43 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
1. genetics shows how utterly impossible it is for a new trait to spread.

Poetic justice, me lad, will have you dying from an antibiotic resistant Staph. aureus infection.

DNA shows how utterly impossible it is for a new gene, a new functio, a new ability to arise.

Nonsense. DNA sequencing in fact shows us exactly how: genes duplicate and then one evolves in a new direction.

the interconnectedness of life shows how impossible it is for anything new to become an integral part of the rest.

You mean, like the way house sparrows and starlings died out in the United States after they were introduced? Or kudzu? Or zebra mussels? Or nutria? Or the mongoose in Hawaii?

288 posted on 10/31/2003 9:04:16 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Darwin spent 20 years writing and zero doing science. Against ignorance the Gods themselves labor in vain.

Don't call yourself names. Your link - as usual with evo links - does not address my statement, let alone refute it. Darwin did absolutely no scientific work during the 20 years he was writing that garbage. In fact, he never did an honest day's work in his life. The Beagle voyage was long before he started writing the Origins. And his work there was nothing we would call science nowadays. He was employed as a naturalist merely cataloguing what was seen not experimenting or examining anything scientifically in any way. In short he was little more than a bird watcher.

289 posted on 10/31/2003 9:05:04 PM PST by gore3000 ("To say dogs, mice, and humans are all products of slime plus time is a mystery religion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: gore3000

The tree of life. Get a clue about it.

There were sexually reproducing animals 850 million years ago. They had nuclei, mitochondria, ribosomes, the whole bit.

Nobody knows the total variety of life before the presumed big freeze hit 700 mya. The fossil record is very scant and ambiguous. Your statements on the subject have been ill-informed--very ill-informed--ranting and no more.

290 posted on 10/31/2003 9:07:28 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Poetic justice, me lad, will have you dying from an antibiotic resistant Staph. aureus infection.

That is not a new trait. For evolution to be true it has to have added new genes, functions, and abilities to a species. The DNA of a bacteria is about a million base pairs, of humans some three billion. So no, the change of one bit pair (if true) does not constitute evolution or proof of it.

DNA sequencing in fact shows us exactly how: genes duplicate and then one evolves in a new direction.

Gene duplication has never been observed. Sequencing can only tell us that genes are similar, it cannot tell us how it happened.

the interconnectedness of life shows how impossible it is for anything new to become an integral part of the rest.-me-

You mean, like the way house sparrows and starlings died out in the United States after they were introduced? Or kudzu? Or zebra mussels? Or nutria? Or the mongoose in Hawaii?

Totally irrelevant to my point. We are talking about the organisms themselves. There is no hint that those things evolved. Put a penguin in a tropical forest and let's see how long it lasts or if it evolves enough to survive. In fact the introduction of new species into new habitats shows quite well that new predators in an environment result in the destruction of the old species, not in their evolution - something which evolutionists claim is one of the prime movers of species transforming themselves into new species.

291 posted on 10/31/2003 9:16:05 PM PST by gore3000 ("To say dogs, mice, and humans are all products of slime plus time is a mystery religion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Gore3000 wrote Darwin spent 20 years writing and zero doing science.

And then he wrote Darwin did absolutely no scientific work during the 20 years he was writing that garbage.

You said he did zero years doing science. Learn to write what you mean.

And his work there was nothing we would call science nowadays.

Who's 'we'?

He was employed as a naturalist merely cataloguing what was seen not experimenting or examining anything scientifically in any way.

Well, I guess every biologist and zoologist in human history can conclude their life was in vain, because a FR poster with no scientific qualifications and a demonstrable history of posting ludicrous scientific howlers has decided they're not scientists.

292 posted on 10/31/2003 9:17:47 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
The tree of life.

A drawing is proof of nothing. Five year olds can draw. There is no tree of life. In fact, science shows us it looks more like a bush with many origins. That is what the Cambrian shows us and you and evolutionists can draw all the pretty pictures you like and it will not be any evidence against that incontrovertible fact.

And yes, we do know that there were photosynthetic bacteria long before the Cambrian and that if the world had been covered with ice as the dishonest SciAm article you linked to claims, they would have never survived as we know they did.

BTW - continuing to throw irrelevancies in the hope that one of them will stick shows very well your utter desperation and inability to refute my statement made some 160 posts ago.

293 posted on 10/31/2003 9:22:54 PM PST by gore3000 ("To say dogs, mice, and humans are all products of slime plus time is a mystery religion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
That is not a new trait

Of course it's a new trait. Antibiotic resistance is a trait, and it wasn't present previously, so it's new. I think you think you can simply make unfortunate facts disappear by denying them. T

Gene duplication has never been observed.

Really?

Dev Biol 2002 Sep 1;249(1):96-107

Duplication of the Hoxd11 gene causes alterations in the axial and appendicular skeleton of the mouse.

Boulet AM, Capecchi MR.

Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah, School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-5331, USA.

The Hox genes encode a group of transcription factors essential for proper development of the mouse. Targeted mutation of the Hoxd11 gene causes reduced male fertility, vertebral transformation, carpal bone fusions, and reductions in digit length. A duplication of the Hoxd11 gene was created with the expectation that the consequences of restricted overexpression in the appropriate cells would provide further insight into the function of the Hoxd11 gene product. Genetic assays demonstrated that two tandem copies of Hoxd11 were functionally indistinguishable from the normal two copies of the gene on separate chromosomes with respect to formation of the axial and appendicular skeleton. Extra copies of Hoxd11 caused an increase in the lengths of some bones of the forelimb autopod and a decrease in the number of lumbar vertebrae.

Totally irrelevant to my point.

You said "the interconnectedness of life shows how impossible it is for anything new to become an integral part of the rest". That's utter nonsense. The United States is full of introduced organisms that became integrated into ecosystems. You posted, for about the eighth time tonight, something that was almost comically wrong, and you don't have the cojones or the intellectual honesty to own up to it.

294 posted on 10/31/2003 9:29:32 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
And yes, we do know that there were photosynthetic bacteria long before the Cambrian and that if the world had been covered with ice as the dishonest SciAm article you linked to claims, they would have never survived as we know they did.

Ah! You appeared for a long time to be trying to claim that the bacteria were all there was. Your claim above makes a certain amount of sense. And, as totally usual, you recklessly fling charges of dishonesty.

In fact, the logic looks nice but there are too many maybes. The evidence points to both the most extreme glaciation ever on the planet and to some variety of life, plants and animals included, having survived. There's nothing dishonest about it--that's what the evidence says. We don't know the details of what survived and how, but that's not to be expected at this point. You have to start with what you have and go from there.

295 posted on 10/31/2003 9:36:18 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: gore3000; f.Christian

f.christian has not stopped, ever, calling everyone he disagrees with a nazi, socialist, athiest, liberal, etc.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps he is correct? Has it occurred to you that perhaps those he calls nazis are nazis, that those he calls socialists are socialists, that those he calls atheists are atheists, and that those he calls liberals are liberals?

I have three direct questions for the both of you:
  1. What have I, JennyP, ever said here that makes you think it's accurate to call me a Nazi?
  2. What have I, JennyP, ever said here that makes you think it's accurate to call me a socialist?
  3. What have I, JennyP, ever said here that makes you think it's accurate to call me a liberal?
(I freely admit to being an atheist.)
296 posted on 10/31/2003 11:36:00 PM PST by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
[From the Scientific American article you dismissed out of hand apparently without reading:]

I read that garbage

Then how did you manage to miss the *six* different times they mentioned that the evidence had led people, "decades ago", to consider worldwide glaciation in the late preCambrian?

If you had actually read the article, why did you go on to say "If it was correct there would be tremendous amounts of evidence for it and such a claim would have been made decades ago", as if you were totally unaware that such a claim *had* been made decades ago?

and my objection to it has not been refuted

Yes it has, several times. The fact that you refuse to accept those refutations does not change the fact that refutations have indeed been made.

- life could not exist in the oceans for hundreds of millions of years if they were covered with ice.

You keep forgetting to provide your evidence for your claim.

In any case, if you knew anything about climatology, you'd have realized that the oceans would be unlikely to be *totally* frozen over for any length of time -- there would likely be small patches of unfrozen ocean surface even at the temperature ranges mentioned in the article.

But finally, the article itself explains why your claim is unfounded. Are you *sure* you read it?

The article is therefore nonsense.

Or perhaps you're overlooking a number of things.

As to models, they cannot prove what we do not know because they cannot be tested and cannot take account of influencess which are unknown. Models are only useful as shortcuts for what we already know.

You are extremely mistaken. Models allow us to make predictions, which can be tested against known and yet-to-be-discovered evidence (often the models can even tell us what to look for or where to look for it), which then verifies the model and gives us confidence in its results.

297 posted on 11/01/2003 12:27:30 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
[Gore3000:] Gould contradicted himself as much as Clinton.
[Ich:]Not that I've seen. But feel free to provide actually support for your claim. Be sure to actually quote him instead of "paraphrase" him, and provide a citation to the original source(s).
[Gore3000:] As I said, Gould contradicted himself all the time and like all evolutionists spoke about both sides of his mouth.

Simply repeating your original claim after being asked to provide actual support for it does nothing to bolster its credibility. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Now, would you like to actually support your accusation, with quotes from Gould, or shall we just add this to the Gore3000-FABNAQ (Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions)? Your choice.

He and Eldredge made up punk-eek because the fossil record - specifically the Cambrian fossil record - totally disproved gradual evolution.

You didn't even bother reading post #197, did you?

298 posted on 11/01/2003 12:33:43 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
[Gore3000:] If God created life the evolutionist assumption that all change is due solely to materialistic forces cannot be sustained.
[RWP:] That is not an assumption of evolution.
Totally false and you know it. The 'force' of evolution is so called natural selection. That is the mechanistic replacement for God which is central to evolutionary theory. Nowhere does evolution claim that God did anything.

But nowhere does it claim that he didn't, contrary to your incorrect (and unsupported) assertion above.

It claims that the creation of species was accomplished gradually by natural selection.

...among other mechanisms...

That the Cambrian creatures were created directly refutes evolution since the claim of evolution is universal.

Please provide your evidence for this amazing claim.

In addition to which as I said, if God created life there is no way that evolutionists can deny that God created man in His own image instead of in the image of an ape as Darwin and evolutionists claim.

How do you figure that? What if he created primitive proto-replicators and then sat back to see what happened from there (including man eventually descending from apes)?

The Creator cannot be said to be a force that does not exist and could not have accomplished changes in His creation. So yes, evolution is both materialistic and atheistic.

Your conclusion does not follow from your argument.

299 posted on 11/01/2003 1:53:15 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
If science is about truth, then it cannot say that God is out of the question.

Then you can relax, because it doesn't say that.

If science is not about truth, then science is irrelevant.

It is about truth.

The atheists/materialists/evolutionists have been trying to push science into this precipice of dishonesty which makes science worthless. It is trying to politicize science and thus make it a matter of opinion instead of a matter of facts and evidence.

Both of your claims are false, but feel free to try to support them with evidence if you think you can.

One must ask why evolutionists, atheists and materialists are trying to do that if they supposedly have evidence for their position?

They're *not* doing that. They're only doing it in your imagination.

The answer is that they have no evidence, that their position is completely rhetorical and that the only way they can support their viewpoint is by destroying the search for truth in science.

Uh huh... We've shown you reams of evidence through countless threads, don't keep falsely claiming that we don't have any.

300 posted on 11/01/2003 1:56:04 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 601-639 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson