Skip to comments.
Finding an answer to Darwin’s Dilemma
Press Relief Queen's University ^
| 7 December 2006
| Staff
Posted on 12/10/2006 5:29:49 PM PST by shrinkermd
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-148 next last
To: docbnj
For a fuller study of fluctuating oxygen levels through geologic time, and it's possible effects on the development of life, try Peter D. Ward's OUT OF THIN AIR (Joseph Henry Press, 2006).
21
posted on
12/10/2006 7:10:52 PM PST
by
Reverend Bob
(That which does not kill us makes us bitter.)
To: Strategerist
To geologists and paleontologists that work in the Precambrian, "sudden" means "over several million years."My understanding is that "sudden" to the above mentioned fellows means appearing in the strata with insufficent precursors in the lower strata to explain them.
But what do I know, I'm a blue collar guy.
22
posted on
12/10/2006 7:32:40 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: Strategerist
It's impossible to summarize these things and the work done by the scientists in these brief press releases, but there's a lot of people who have never read an actual scientific paper in their lives and get the impression that this is all there is.Sadly the hoi polloi have not been blessed with the superior intellect of the technocrats.
You want to discuss science with folks who read papers, go to a science forum.
Here you get opinions from the downtrodden and stricken.
Such is life!
23
posted on
12/10/2006 7:36:00 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: shrinkermd
Interesting. Thanks.
24
posted on
12/10/2006 7:48:13 PM PST
by
onedoug
To: shrinkermd
Darwins Dilemma = The more educated a human gets, the more he/she is drawn to fables..
25
posted on
12/10/2006 7:48:21 PM PST
by
hosepipe
(CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole)
To: sine_nomine
How could we have a 90 foot seam of coal when it takes 10 feet of leafy matter to make a 1 foot seam?The fact that the seam is not explained by the deposition of biological matter is not evidence that the world was created by God 10,000 years ago. The better explanation is that coal and oil are not biological in origin. But if you would rather believe that people riding around on camels in the desert 9,900 years ago had a better source of information, that is your right.
I find it hard to believe that God chose to talk to a handful of people 9,900 years ago, yet has not talked to anyone else since, except Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. I also don't believe that God is going to lie to us all by creating fossils that look like they are older than 10,000 years old, and stars that are over 10,000 light years distant, just to fool us.
26
posted on
12/10/2006 7:50:03 PM PST
by
webheart
To: webheart
I just don't understand how the theory of evolution calls into question the existence of God. One can believe in both. Perhaps God has left us all the clues to understand who were are and where we came from as part of the path that we are to follow. That he wants us to realize that we are only part of the story, not the end. Remember He created the universe, no? The laws that govern it are his, no? So how does the theory of us evolving from a single cell organism into a human diminish God, or his "gifts"? It doesn't.
27
posted on
12/10/2006 8:26:29 PM PST
by
Tarnsman
To: TraditionalistMommy
I wish I could be a fly on the wall when they figure out nothing in this universe is older than 10,000 years. I have personally collected and obtained radiocarbon dates older than that.
How do you explain those?
28
posted on
12/10/2006 8:37:08 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: TraditionalistMommy
I wish I could be a fly on the wall when they figure out nothing in this universe is older than 10,000 years. Parking at church is going to be much harder! Herein lies the rub: Scientists have already proven that the universe is much much older than your simplistic statement, but, if somehow, it can be absolutely proven that the universe is 10,000 years old, and its a testable fact, then scientists would accept the data. Creationists will never accept any data that is in conflict with their beliefs. So, you have your unflinching dogma, which does not allow you to think in a rational way, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. If you want to live a live of pure ignorance, go ahead, I hope you enjoy it.
29
posted on
12/10/2006 8:45:07 PM PST
by
Central Scrutiniser
(Pro Evolution, Pro Stem Cell Research, Pro Science, Pro Free Thought, and Conservative)
To: Strategerist
It's even more confusing when you have the scientifically illiterate reading very short press releases about something that possibly took a decade of work and likely resulted in a 20 page detailed article in a scientific journal. It's impossible to summarize these things and the work done by the scientists in these brief press releases, but there's a lot of people who have never read an actual scientific paper in their lives and get the impression that this is all there is.
But yet you feel comfortable summarizing a persons entire life, and their accumulated knowledge therein, by one or two posts on this thread.
I've read plenty of scientific papers, and if in this case, all you can squeeze out of those years or decades of intensive research are mere speculations, then there can't be much substance to the work itself.
Could be that is exactly what these so called illiterates are opining about.
But where are my manners. I've injected myself in a conversation that is clearly outside of my class. My apologies, and please do carry on...
30
posted on
12/10/2006 8:48:41 PM PST
by
csense
To: Central Scrutiniser
If you want to live a live of pure ignorance, go ahead, I hope you enjoy it.
So now the believers of the Words of The Creator are ignorant. I believe God over man ALL THE TIME and that is a wise decision. However, it seems ignorant only to those filled with pride.
When you meet your Creator and He asks why didn't you believe Him but choose to believe Darwin, et al. YOU can't plead ignorance. If you don't believe Him, you couldn't possibly want to live with Him for eternity. So I hope you enjoy it. Life here is very very short - eternity is forever. One doesn't have to be a rock scientist to know which one holds more value.
Comment #32 Removed by Moderator
Comment #33 Removed by Moderator
To: Strategerist
My word, have the unwashed masses dared to voice their uneducated opinions? Dear me, these peasants have no business stepping out of their place. They really should leave the deep thinking to their betters. Pass the grey poupon, would you?
34
posted on
12/10/2006 10:26:39 PM PST
by
jim35
("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
To: Central Scrutiniser
Typical CS b.s. You are the most self-absorbed snob I have ever encountered on this forum. You always insist that anyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant neanderthal, who is so blind to science that they still believe the world is flat. To you, anyone who believes that in order for something to be, it must have been created, is nothing more than a blind fool, who ignores all science. You are beyond arrogant. Evolution is your religion, and it is YOU who is blind to evidence to the contrary. You can accept any fantastic tale, if it's part of your particular dogma, and you quickly revile any poster, who submits any evidence to the contrary, as an idiot. Scrutinize that.
35
posted on
12/10/2006 10:34:55 PM PST
by
jim35
("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
To: M-cubed
542 MILLION yrs ago....and my friend questions God because he didn't get instant results....
Heh...LOL I like that!
36
posted on
12/11/2006 2:58:29 AM PST
by
Vanders9
To: csense
I've watched you make your semantic argument about 'speculations' for some time. I will admit that, as far as semantic arguments go, it is a good one.
Yes, you are correct that since it is not possible (yet) to actually travel back in time and observe and test ancient phenomenon occurring, any conclusions about those phenomenon can only ultimately be 'speculations' as to the exact nature of said events.
However, this word which you cling to: 'speculation', has a huge range of meaning into which you semantically insert yourself, implying through your wording that any and all speculations are the same and have the same potential to be correct or incorrect.
Science uses two methods to determine if a given hypotheses is correct. One involves repeated testing and variable manipulation. This is good for small to medium sized hypotheses; eg, The Earth is Round. When dealing with very large and complex hypotheses a different approach is in order. In cases such as the Theory of Evolution, what happens is that the theory makes predictions which can be observed and tested. These predictions would include things like the presence of uncountable millions of species which no longer exist, evidence of extensive time in which evolution can happen, and the observable processes of natural selection.
That not all of the predictions of the Theory of Evolution have been observed, such as the presence of intermediate forms, DOES NOT INVALIDATE the theory. If someone were to make a discovery, or design an experiment which showed that it is impossible for evolution to occur, or better yet, to show that it has not occurred, that would invalidate the theory.
As more and more evidence, observations, and experiments are performed, the probable accuracy of the 'speculations' you are so derisive of becomes more and more precise. Professional scientists are not in the business of making wild guesses.
I have to respect the semantic skill you display when you make your argument against 'speculation'. Just remember, since we can't travel back in time to prove they occurred, God's responsibility for life, the Fall of Man, and the Resurrection, are all (according to your argument) speculations as well, with no better chance of being correct.
37
posted on
12/11/2006 3:22:40 AM PST
by
49th
(Freedom is the distance between Church and State)
To: webheart
38
posted on
12/11/2006 3:52:01 AM PST
by
sine_nomine
(Don't let another Bush lose another Iraq war.)
To: shrinkermd
"Life appeared due to, due to.... oxygen - yeah, that's the ticket."
To: Popocatapetl
And when the iron was finally fixed, the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere multiplied. And once there was enough oxygen in the atmosphere, oxygen levels in the oceans increased so much that bacteria had to evolve to live around it.A couple questions. How could there be free iron in the atmsphere? What form would/could it have existed in? Where did the oxygen come from to bind with the iron?
My understanding is that the majority of the oxygen that exists in the atmosphere today has it's source in the oceans. Were the bacteria in the anaerobic conditions of the oceans of the time capable of producing it; were they capable of photosynthesis? If that was the case, the oceans would have been oxygenated before the atmosphere. How could the atmosphere been oxygenated first?
40
posted on
12/11/2006 5:30:54 AM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-148 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson