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

Skip to comments.

Kibble for Thought: Dog diversity prompts new evolution theory
Science News ^ | 18 December 2004 | Christen Brownlee

Posted on 12/21/2004 8:45:42 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-265 next last
To: Red Badger
I have read that the DNA of a wolf and chihuahua are virtually identical

I knew there was a reason I didn't trust the little rats.

Shalom.

151 posted on 12/21/2004 11:49:46 AM PST by ArGee (After 517, the abolition of man is complete)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

> Nobody was there to observe the conditions...

Pre-biotic conditions on Earth cannot be known with certainty, but they can be known *generally* based on conditions foudn in the rest of the universe. Free oxygen, for example, is astonishingly rare. Somewhere around 95% of the visible mass of the universe is hydrogen; thus hydrogen dominates. Free oxygen very rapidly chemicaly bonds with hydrogen and forms water. Same with methane. And there are no known non-biological processes which will both produce and sustain an oxidizing atmosphere. If you were to kill off *all* life on Earth, Earth would have a carbon dioxide/nitrogen atmosphere relatively soon.

Looking at the rest of the universe, we can make a reasonable approximation of wha tthe pre-biotic atmosphere of the Earth was like. It it not "circular reasoning" to conclude that what holds true most places in the universe would also hold true on Earth. Consequently, a CO2/methane/nitrogen atmosphere on the early Earth is entirely reasonable and consistent with all available information.


152 posted on 12/21/2004 11:50:45 AM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
When you bring a dog into your household, you become family.

When you bring a cat into your household, you become staff.

Shalom.

153 posted on 12/21/2004 11:51:11 AM PST by ArGee (After 517, the abolition of man is complete)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

That's your best response?


154 posted on 12/21/2004 11:51:24 AM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy
It's the end times, I tell ya'. Can the lion lying down with the lamb be far behind?

Shalom.

155 posted on 12/21/2004 11:57:03 AM PST by ArGee (After 517, the abolition of man is complete)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ArGee

My Chihuahua thinks she is a wolf!.........


156 posted on 12/21/2004 11:59:27 AM PST by Red Badger (If the Red States are JESUSLAND, then the Blue States are SATANLAND......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Government workers know that they can go back and challenge the system, knowing that they won't be fired.(Well, duh.)
157 posted on 12/21/2004 12:05:54 PM PST by oyez (¡Qué viva la revolución de Reagan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Much better than yours on virii and infinitely better than the stock reply you gave.

If evidence points towards a creation event then that implies a Creator.

Your serve.

158 posted on 12/21/2004 12:08:17 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
"Proponents of evolution often attempt to discredit creation by pointing to occurrences of microevolution, such as speciation, adaptation, etc."

I thought creationists viewed speciation as an example of impossible "macro-evolution." If creationists are now calling speciation "mere micro-evolution," where are they drawing the macro-evolutionary boundry?

159 posted on 12/21/2004 12:12:44 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
I see no conflict in evolution and Creationism.

I do. The only scenario I can see where the two would be compatible is if the Creator set the mechanisms in motion and then walked away. However, neither Christians nor Jews, nor any religion that I know of, believe that God is no longer active in the affairs of men, in which case, evolution could not be relied upon as an explanation of current species.

Here's where it falls apart: let's say that God put some simple organisms on the Earth and established the rules by which they would develop (evolution). Given that He is all powerful, He could, at any time, simply bypass the normal evolutionary process. Now, though evolution may remain the main mechanism by which organisms develop on Earth, we would no longer be able to rely on it as a theory to explain all species because, at some point in the fossil and DNA records, a jump was made that didn't follow the rules. That would then put into question ALL of the conclusions we reach from the evidence we gather, because we would never know which species evolved purely from evolutionary mechanisms, and which were given a helping hand by the Creator. If evolution were ever to be a science by which we could determine origins and predict outcomes, there would have to be no external variables.

To sum up, from a logical standpoint, you cannot believe in both a Creator AND evolution (as a predictable set of rules - a science).
160 posted on 12/21/2004 12:14:28 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

> If evidence points towards a creation event ...

Sure. But there is no such evidence at this time. Find a message in "pi" or the natural log of 2, or find a human hand in the stomache of a velociraptor skeleton, or find a trilobite swalloped by a carp and pierced with a fish hook,or find a T-Rex skeleton on the Moon.... *then* you'll have some evidence. Right now... you don't. Right now the best you have is a mystery of "where did it all come from." That is a mystery... not evidence.


161 posted on 12/21/2004 12:16:44 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
If creationists are now calling speciation "mere micro-evolution," where are they drawing the macro-evolutionary boundry?

When the river is rising, you just keep heading for the hills.

162 posted on 12/21/2004 12:17:17 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: sticker

I'm contemplating sending you a bill for one laptop keyboard.


163 posted on 12/21/2004 12:21:38 PM PST by MissouriConservative ( Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
> The evidence for evolution is far from conclusive.

No, it's not. It's quite conclusive. The only real debates left are the details.


You'll forgive me if I don't believe that just because you say so.

Here's what I find fascinating, and I've mentioned it on evolution/creation threads before: modern evolutionary theory is extremely complicated. It goes far beyond the relatively simple Darwinian theories (in fact, Darwinism has pretty much been rejected). You would be hard put to find a single person, who is not a dedicated scientist, who understands all aspects of the theory. However, you find many, many laymen who swear by evolution and ridicule Creationism as superstition. My question is, if someone doesn't fully understand the theory, how can he be so certain of its veracity? The answer is that he can't. So, the supreme irony is that the average evolutionist is taking all of the arguments against faith, on faith.
164 posted on 12/21/2004 12:23:53 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

Comment #165 Removed by Moderator

To: PatrickHenry

LOL


166 posted on 12/21/2004 12:31:33 PM PST by cyborg (http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/flamelily.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

> I don't believe that just because you say so.

Good! Skepticism! Display similar skepticism in claims in ancient texts, and you'll be on your way.

> if someone doesn't fully understand the theory, how can he be so certain of its veracity?

Do you understand the tensor calculus required for a good understanding of the Theory of Relativity? No? Would you be willing to stand next to an H-Bomb, then? Do you understand the math behind quantum gravity? No? Then would you be comfortable standing under a suspended 16-ton weight?

Heck, I make rockets, and I don't have a deep understanding of the relevant combustion phenomena. I routinely cast urethane resin parts from silicone rubber molds built off of Bondo originals... all of which use chemical reactions I don't know squat about. Yet I am substantially certain that if you mix A and B together, you get a solid with reliable properties.

Similarly, one doesn't need to understand the complexities of mutations and continental drift and sediments turning into rocks to look at the fossil record and notice that critters change over time.


167 posted on 12/21/2004 12:34:16 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

If I may use an analogy. Darwin is to Evolution what Newton was to gravity. Now Newton was pretty smart and his theory and equations work for most every day life. However, they fall apart at relativistic speeds. Now along comes the gravity equivalent of a creationist, who says that because Newton’s work doesn’t work at speeds approaching c that therefore the whole theory of gravity is wrong, and proves the existence of God. That is what ID and creationist proponents are putting out there. Taken out of the context of evolution, does the above sound logical at all? Gravity is still gravity. Now what evolution needs is its equivalent of Einstein to come along and revise and true up the theory so that it works in almost all cases. However, Newton’s stuff being simpler, and easier to understand is still taught in the schools. Same thing here, Darwin’s theory may not work in all cases, but overall it does work for everyday use. Just because you don’t understand relativity, doesn’t mean you can’t discuss laws of motion.


168 posted on 12/21/2004 12:38:40 PM PST by Wisconsin155 (newbie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Actually, the more I look at your post 112, the stranger it gets. You have a link to a site that suggests speciation is a figment of evolutionary imagination, and a link to a site that says the following:

"[W]hen creationists say they believe microevolution occurs, what they really mean is that they believe variations within a kind of animal or plant occurs. Sometimes these variations can lead to a new species, and in some cases, even a new genus. But the variations have limitations. That limitation is within the genetic information of the organism. For instance, dogs can produce numerous varieties of dogs, but they will never produce a fundamentally different kind of animal, such as a cat (similar perhaps in shape and form, but an entirely different kind of animal). It’s just not within their genetic content. In my experience, evolutionists will quickly question exactly what a "kind" is. I’ll admit that it is partially true that creationists don’t have a definite definition of what a kind is, but this shouldn’t be cause for concern. Evolutionists don’t have a definite definition on what a species is either...."

To which of these postions do you adhere? And, as a matter of curiosity, if you the adhere to the notion that "kinds" represent the macro-evolutionary boundry, of what "kind" would you classify the spotted hyena?

169 posted on 12/21/2004 12:59:15 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

I respectfully disagree that compatiability requires a disinterested God.

Going back to the cake analogy, the study of how the cake solidifies is not incorrect because the baker takes the cake out and puts icing onto it --- you just have two forces at work.

It is like how scientist recently showed that the Red Sea can naturally part --- certain wind conditions, tides, and all that. "No miracle!" some cry. "Heresy!" cry others.

Well, the miracle was not the parting, the miracle was parting just as Moses showed up with Pharoah on his tail, and then closing back up.

I am quite sure God put the wind, tides, etc, in motion a million years ago to get that one just right.

Same with evolution. He created just the exactly right conditions for things to be as he wanted.

It's very similar to a baker putting the micrograms of whatnot to get a souffle to rise just so.

Yes, God could intervene and bypass His rules of nature. But why? He made the rules. He knows how they work. Why should he not follow His own rules?

So to answer your quandry: "we would never know which species evolved purely from evolutionary mechanisms, and which were given a helping hand by the Creator"

This assumes God made a mistake in putting the Universe in motion.

ALL were given the exact helping hand by God --- be it by a timely asteroid killing dinosaurs just as those mamals got going, or by parting the Red Sea at the right time.

I do not presume that God would make a mistake. I presume He did it right and it is exactly as He desinged it.


170 posted on 12/21/2004 1:00:00 PM PST by MeanWestTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence


171 posted on 12/21/2004 1:00:19 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Weimdog

I love weims. They are like skinny velvet Labs.


172 posted on 12/21/2004 1:09:07 PM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Boycott Boycotts Warrior. If you aint buying call me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: ArGee

I'm ready, but it is not the end times. I get grandchildren first. It's in the contract.


173 posted on 12/21/2004 1:10:46 PM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Boycott Boycotts Warrior. If you aint buying call me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Good summation of evidence for the Big Bang. No evidence whatsoever for a creator.


174 posted on 12/21/2004 1:19:09 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

Sorry, you already agreed that a creation event implies a Creator. Be more careful in the future.


175 posted on 12/21/2004 1:20:36 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

> you already agreed that a creation event implies a Creator

Yes, but there's no evidence of a "creation event." The fact that the universe is here is not evidence that it was created anymore than the fact that a rock may be aesthetically pleasing means that someone made it so.


176 posted on 12/21/2004 1:30:02 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

The Big Bang is a creation event. Now you don't have to subscribe to the Big Bang Theory any more than you have to marry a rock but if you do I'd expect you to be honest that the BBT is a creation event and that you'd support the pebbles that issue from your marriage to the rock.


177 posted on 12/21/2004 1:36:10 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
> if someone doesn't fully understand the theory, how can he be so certain of its veracity?

Do you understand the tensor calculus required for a good understanding of the Theory of Relativity? No? Would you be willing to stand next to an H-Bomb, then? Do you understand the math behind quantum gravity? No? Then would you be comfortable standing under a suspended 16-ton weight?


This is a false analogy. Laymen have seen H-bombs go off and 16-ton weights crush things. There is no need to understand their mechanics to know that they happen. We have not, however, seen evolution occur. It is a theory pieced together from various sources, but we have never actually seen it occur. To accept it as fact with the same certainty that one accepts things that have been demonstrated is to take a leap of faith.

Good! Skepticism! Display similar skepticism in claims in ancient texts, and you'll be on your way.

You're assuming a lot here. I simply recognize that the arguments used to prove evolution are not all that much more convincing than the arguments for Creationism.
178 posted on 12/21/2004 1:46:28 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Wisconsin155
Now along comes the gravity equivalent of a creationist, who says that because Newton’s work doesn’t work at speeds approaching c that therefore the whole theory of gravity is wrong, and proves the existence of God. That is what ID and creationist proponents are putting out there.

I see a big difference between the Newton example and evolution: Newton proved his laws of motion through reproduceable experimentation. That's why, in the field of science, his ideas of motion are called laws rather than theories. Evolutionary processes, however, have not been proven and, so far as I know, have not been reproduced.

I also see the argument from a different angle. Creationists begin with a faith in God, and so their reasoning derives from that belief. Along come evolutionists, who, from the religious point of view, are trying to disprove the hand of God in the creation of man. In a sense, evolutionists are trying to disprove God, and Creationists are simply countering those arguments. Now, there are plenty of proponents of evolution who don't see evolution as necessarily in conflict with belief in God, but, as you can see on this thread alone, more often than not, defenders of evolution use scientific arguments to "prove" how the Bible's account of creation is just a silly fairy tale.
179 posted on 12/21/2004 2:05:23 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

> Laymen have seen H-bombs go off and 16-ton weights crush things.

Just as laymen have seen the evidence of evolution.

> but we have never actually seen it occur

Incorrect. Do some research.

> the arguments for Creationism.

There are no valid arguements *for* Creationism. Creationism is the John Kerry of the "origin of species" world; nobody is "for" it, they are just against the GWB of evolution.


180 posted on 12/21/2004 2:06:33 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

> The Big Bang is a creation event.

And your evidence that the universe was created by an intelligence is.......

Waiting.....


181 posted on 12/21/2004 2:07:16 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

LOL, weak.


182 posted on 12/21/2004 2:11:22 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

So you're saying your evidence of a creator of the universe is weak? On that we can agree.

If you actually find some, though, let us all know.


183 posted on 12/21/2004 2:18:29 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
No, I'm saying your argument that an unintelligent something created time, matter, energy and the Laws of Physics ex nihilo laughable. Does that clarify?
184 posted on 12/21/2004 2:20:56 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
So to answer your quandry: "we would never know which species evolved purely from evolutionary mechanisms, and which were given a helping hand by the Creator"

This assumes God made a mistake in putting the Universe in motion.


No, this does not assume a mistake. Look at it this way: if you were the Creator of a pot of stew, you might put all the meat, vegetables, seasonings, and water into the pot, turn on the heat, and walk away, returning in an hour to see what happened. The ingredients would interact, then, according to the conditions in which you had set them. After an hour, you'll have a certain type of stew, with a particular look and flavor. If you did the same thing later, using all the same materials and the same amount of heat, for the same length of time, you would get exactly the same stew each time.

However, you probably wanted a particular result, not whichever result you get from letting the stew cook itself for an hour. So, rather than walk away and come back later, you watch the pot and make your adjustments: you stir it, you add seasonings at certain points, you adjust the level of heat. After an hour of that, you end up with a stew of different flavor and color than you would have if you had left it alone, but it is the stew you really wanted; it was not a mistake.

Now, thousands of years later, scientists discover remnants of your stew preserved in amber, and they want to determine how it was prepared. They have a good idea about the meat you used, and the vegetable, and the water. They also know about the stove and what its capabilities are. So, from that, they surmise that all of these elements were placed in a pot, the stove was turned on, and it cooked for an hour, and that if they do the same thing, they can reproduce your stew. But they never are able to reproduce it, because the rules they are following are not sufficient to explain the result, and they have no idea that you did not allow the stew to cook itself, but manipulated it along the way. In other words, their theory of the Evolution of Stew is flawed because it cannot possibly predict the manipulations of the stew creator that went on during the cooking.
185 posted on 12/21/2004 2:25:21 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

You're absolutely right- the only time I've been bitten by a dog- it was a little rugrat!!


186 posted on 12/21/2004 2:26:39 PM PST by midnightson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"I was stunned by what I found," says Fondon.

He can't be that educated...he misspelled "stuned".
187 posted on 12/21/2004 2:29:38 PM PST by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

I guess I just think God is a better cook than you and knew exactly what He was going to get when He set the whole thing in motion, from the Big Bang, to the asteroid, to Calvary.

Of course, He has the advantage of being omipotent, omnipresent, and existing outside of Time itself (alpha and omega), so I would expect no less.


188 posted on 12/21/2004 2:36:28 PM PST by MeanWestTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Wisconsin155
Actually wasn't there a study recently that said that some "dogs" aren't even really dogs. But are actually rodents or something breed to look like dogs. I think chihuahua was one of them.

It was an urban legend; a satire news story that a number of sites took as truth.
189 posted on 12/21/2004 2:43:21 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: forsnax5

It would appear that Shrek's maternal grandfather didn't have male pattern baldness....


190 posted on 12/21/2004 3:06:58 PM PST by Proud_texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
The Chinese did this, impregnating female chimps with human sperm.

Saruman did it first...
"We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep."

191 posted on 12/21/2004 4:29:39 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy

There are two errors in this picture:
1) No pancake on the Bunny's head.
2) No Viking helmet on the Kitten!

192 posted on 12/21/2004 4:31:51 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
He will take on any dog that offers a challenge, even taking out an adult Rottweiler several years ago – when he was much younger and it better shape.

I just gotta ask, you piqued my curiosity.
Did he chomp the Rott's balls from underneath, or what?

193 posted on 12/21/2004 4:33:57 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Asimov once had a nice animal limerick, it went something like this:

"The Bustard is an exquisite fowl/
With minimal reason to growl/
It escapes what would be
illegitimacy/
By the grace of a fortunate vowel."

That wasn't quite how he rendered it, I just googled the above on "Bustard" and "illegitimacy" together. But I remember him saying he was particularly impressed by the single-word fourth line...

194 posted on 12/21/2004 4:37:31 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
If only I could toss in the Civil War, we'd have a real winner here.

During the Civil War, most breeds of dogs that are common today didn't exist. Most were developed in the late 19th century or in the 20th century.

195 posted on 12/21/2004 4:41:13 PM PST by Wolfstar (Where are you, Miss Beazley?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
I respectfully disagree that compatiability requires a disinterested God.[...]

It is like how scientist recently showed that the Red Sea can naturally part --- certain wind conditions, tides, and all that. "No miracle!" some cry. "Heresy!" cry others. Well, the miracle was not the parting, the miracle was parting just as Moses showed up with Pharoah on his tail, and then closing back up. I am quite sure God put the wind, tides, etc, in motion a million years ago to get that one just right.

Same with evolution. He created just the exactly right conditions for things to be as he wanted.[...]

Yes, God could intervene and bypass His rules of nature. But why? He made the rules. He knows how they work. Why should he not follow His own rules? So to answer your quandry: "we would never know which species evolved purely from evolutionary mechanisms, and which were given a helping hand by the Creator" This assumes God made a mistake in putting the Universe in motion. ALL were given the exact helping hand by God --- be it by a timely asteroid killing dinosaurs just as those mamals got going, or by parting the Red Sea at the right time. I do not presume that God would make a mistake. I presume He did it right and it is exactly as He designed it.

Very well said. Or, in the words of the Talmud, kol hanissim b'derech hateva, "all miracles happen in a natural way."

196 posted on 12/21/2004 4:41:58 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: oyez
ROFLMAO!

Now if it were an IRS-worker's dog, he'd have had intercourse with the other three mutts, just for swank!

Full Disclosure: Insert your own "screwing the pooch" joke here.

197 posted on 12/21/2004 4:43:21 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
Dogs have Masters
Cats have Staff

LOL!

198 posted on 12/21/2004 4:43:56 PM PST by Wolfstar (Where are you, Miss Beazley?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Free oxygen very rapidly chemicaly bonds with hydrogen and forms water.

Under what temperature, pressure, and concentration?
Oxygen molecules, atoms, or ions?

Hydrogen molecules, atoms, or ions?

Double-check your rate constants, not just equilibrium constants...

199 posted on 12/21/2004 4:45:41 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
I guess I just think God is a better cook than you and knew exactly what He was going to get when He set the whole thing in motion, from the Big Bang, to the asteroid, to Calvary.

I don't think you understood my analogy. God is a perfect cook - that is the whole point. We are the ones trying to figure out how He did it. What you're suggesting is exactly the point I brought up earlier - that the only way evolution could be a viable theory alongside belief in God is if God began the process and walked away (a "disinterested" God). Otherwise, if God were active in the process (adding spices) then human beings would have no way to chart evolution on any scientific basis, because God could have changed the conditions at any time.
200 posted on 12/21/2004 4:48:30 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-265 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