Posted on 08/17/2006 11:04:51 AM PDT by publius1
BTW, let's do it at your place just in case.
In your world maybe. IN the real world, you are wrong. If all we have is applied science eventually we run up against a wall. We need a theoretical foundation for the applied sciences. That is how we expand knowledge.
Had darwin never been born, we'd still have developed cell phones and nukes, and traveled to the moon. We'd still have explored the microscopic world and discovered DNA, because we'd still be asking questions about how God designed and constructed us. We'd still catalogie species based on similiarities and eventually DNA.
I posit that without TToE we would NEVER have mapped the genome. We would just have said "it is God's work." Understanding evolution is how viral and bacterial agents are identified and dispatched.
About the only difference is that more people would still have their tonsils, those unfortunate few who had their tailbones removed by medical doctors believing in evolution would never know the hell that they missed, and research into DNA would probably be more complete becaused the "junk DNA" wouldn't have been so easily dismissed.
It doesn't follow. The early DNA exploration was feeling in the dark. The fact they got some things wrong (maybe) is because they were in uncharted territory.
I am willing to bet serious money that the early explorers in DNA understood TToE. Your specious argument (I use the term because it fits) falls pretty flat on this one.
TToE meets all scientific standards (as I pointed out earlier). CR/ID hits one (fewest explanations).
Dumbing down of America serves no one.
Contrary to the cries of the evolutionary faithful, Creationists wouldn't turn back the clock to the dark ages, in fact, Creationists fathered many of the scientific fields.
They are already doing it.
Hey VladRetro- do you have an international subscribership? If so- please give us the addy or a broadcast'n simmer & we will contribute. Same goes for the puerile pullet friend of yours- what's his name?... oh, is it Patrick Henfry? Thanks!
Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over when you have been so thoroughly trounced?
It is clear you don't understand science, you don't understand TToE, you don't understand the Scientific Method, you don't understand much of anything.
Yet you pop off like a 12 year old.
I have promised I will no longer be snide -- but you try my patience.
Please -- provide proof for your assertions or remain silent as any good child should.
Go ahead, give it your best shot...
No. Stick to answering my questions.
Another swing and a miss.
¿qué? No entiendo.
The crime here is not that evolutionists are trying to find a transitional fossil, it is that they are declaring finds “definitive” without doing even the most basic of research. The Tiktaalik was quickly shot down, ironically, by an animal that had previously been declared the definitive transitional fossil between sea dwellers and land species.
It wasn’t so long ago that the Coelacanth was the transitional fossil de jour. When the fossils were first discovered, the fin structure (similar to that of the Tiktaalik) was declared a “walking fin” and heralded as the transition between fins and feet. This came crashing down when a Coelacanth was discovered in a Japanese fish market on its way to making the transition between a fish and a really good bowl of soup. Since that time, the Coelacanth has been found alive, well, and not walking anywhere. It uses its unique fins to swim better, not walk to the local 7-11.
Another blow to the Tiktaalik is the fact that the fins evolutionists claim allow it to crawl on land are not attached to the skeletal structure with bone; the connection is made with muscle. In short, the fin cannot support weight. If I, as a human, were built like this, my bench press would max out at something about the size of a dandelion instead of the manly 85 lbs I currently work with. Once again, the Coelacanth is our model. It has a similar structure and, once again, is a pure swimmer.
The scientists in their verve to find a transitional fossil, ignored evidence from the natural world and basic physics when making their interpretations. Had they performed science in the proper way, they would not have thrown out the possibility of an evolutionary link, but they would have also considered other questions. As it stands, they found a fossil and immediately tried to reverse engineer the human condition to fit the evidence, despite the presence of other factors.
Anybody familiar with evolution knows this is not the first time this has happened. For years evolutionists have declared that dinosaurs evolved into birds. This is based on Chinese fossil imprints in rock that show feather like structures surrounding the bodies of dead dinosaurs.
This theory took a serious hit when paleobiologist Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill challenged the conclusion. He brought to light the idea that what was being misinterpreted as feather were actually the fossilized remains of "collagenous fiber meshworks" lying under the dinosaur's skin. To support this idea his colleague Dr. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar, buried a dolphin for one year, then exhumed it and looked at the patterns of decay. According to Lingham-Soliar’s experiment "The fiber-collagen meshwork looked virtually identical to these so-called 'proto-feathers' found in the Chinese dinosaurs," Feduccia said.
So keep throwing those phony transitional species and we will keep shooting them down. I do admire your faith though.
Pray for W and Our Troops Shalom Israel
LoL... yeah many act like they don't know they are dealing with a well trained lawyer.. and that there is a method to everything she says..
The bromide that a good lawyer never asks or posits a question they don't already know the answer to.. would work with Ann Coulter..
By the way did you know that;
Coul·ter: a cutting tool (as a knife or sharp disc) that is attached to the beam of a plow, makes a vertical cut in the surface, and permits clean separation and effective covering of the soil and materials being turned under...
Note: I think she is a credit to her name..
No it wouldn't. It wasn't that long ago that we found a dinosaur with a mammal in it's mouth that wasn't previously believed to have existed during the dinosaur age. Did it falsify evolution? No. Evolution did what it does best, it just shifted it's conclusions and it's timeframes.
If you found a modern horse, human or dog, from millions of years ago, you'd do the same thing. You'd just claim there must be a common ancestor even older than that, that you haven't found yet.
"The picture changes and is emerging all the time. In the last few months some amazing changes to TToE have emerged. Again, CR/ID don't change, since THEY CAN'T. "
The basic premise of all three don't change. Evolution still says life descended from a common ancestor. Just like Creation still says God created. But the gaps in the underlying information are constantly analyzed and filled in.
ID and Creation proponents are still looking at the designs and noting similarities and differences. We are still curious in the variety of life on the earth and how ecosystems work. And the effects of changes on ecosystems. We want to understand extinctions as much as the evo's. We want to understand if possible, how God constructed the first DNA. To say Creation theory doesn't change based on observations is just false. God did it, but there are many questions yet to be answered about what exactly God did, how God did it, why God did it certain ways, the techniques God used, etc.
Why does that sound familiar...oh yeah...sounds like Hizbullah declaring victory over Israel.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
There is no way that this writer actually read Ann's latest book.
Not a chance.
Do you have an international syndicated column also? Please provide the addy or broadcast info- or are you a sylph also?Thanks!
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.