Posted on 06/17/2007 6:54:37 PM PDT by Rodney King
Yes, it’s kind of an in joke in my family to be at the beach and say, “There goes a pterodactyl.”
While pelicans are thought to be descended from a group of birdlike dinosaurs, the pterosaurs were not themselves dinosaurs. The similar bodyplan is due to convergent evolution—that’s just a good bodyplan for flying and catching fish.
Well then, what happened to all the dinosaur pee?
Fact is nobody uses the TOE or cares except historians and social scientists. A half a dozen high profile science writers are making a career out of it, too, but nobody should care about them.
Look what you have started.I hope the cops beat you up again.
The bible is very clear on this subject. There is a distinct timeline of the events of creation. It is a shame that so many Christians believe “scientists” rather than the bible. So it’s Christians that are not consistant but the bible is very clear on the subject.
Coors Light
Don’t you just love how some of these ‘true believer’ types totaly reject science. You can show them charts, articles, and scientific data all day and they wil still reject science- they are not rational thinkers.
They’re not. Crocodiles. Alligators...some of the larger snakes possibly. T-REX? Not likely.
Quibble--alligators and crocodiles descended from the Archosaurs, which also produced the dinosaurs. Snakes are way the heck out on a different branch of reptiles. The sole remaining dinosaurs are thought to be the birds!
He must have tap-danced around that part when he did his doctoral dissertation,huh?
And you seem to have no answers at all. You say there was a world wide flood, just as the Bible says, in spite of the sheer impossibility of it all, and offer nothing to support it. But offer no answers to the legitimate questions asking how it was possible.
Wrong. Most evolutionists are theists. Indeed most evolutionists, being theists, are creationists (just not, of course, in the antievolution/antigeology/etc sense of the term).
You talk about "validating the polarization of thought process". Well, you just did it.
Granted we all use the shorthand "creationist" here when we actually mean "antievolutionary creationist". But here you're extending this usage beyond the point where that limited and specific meaning is understood from context, and instead implying a universal and unexceptioned dichotomy between "creationists" and "evolutionists".
Properly speaking a "creationist" is anyone who accepts a (usually theological) doctrine of creation. Such a person may or may not reject evolution, an ancient earth, and such, and may hold any of a number of differing views regarding the relationship between science and religion.
I can't imagine the alternatives they can offer to the Theory of Flight. Airplanes fly because groups of angels carry them aloft?
Sure, however this weekend is out, because I'm taking my grandkids to the seashore to go dig up some trilobites. Ever had yourself trilobite chowder?
Thank you for that. Rejection of Genesis is in fact rejection of God and his word, case in point Christ’s references to the creation story). If Christ is God as he claims to be, he was there, and in fact initiated creation. To deny his deity is to deny his death burial and ressurection, the very foundations of Christianity. They can sugar coat it all they want and say that He allowed the evolutionary process, but that is a dichotomy if examined in light of the scriptures, and an opinion adopted by those that have no confidence in their own salvation as provided through Christ. I don’t know how someone who professes to be a Christian can swallow that. It is the height of heresy.
I doubt there would be any need to take amphibians on the Ark.
==Is your understanding of evolution really so deficient as to believe that that's even remotely possible?
My understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution is that it is false. There is variation within the created kinds, and as many experiments have already shown genetic mutation can take place extremely fast. Indeed, more and more evidence is starting to suggest that at least some mutations are not random. If this evidence continues to pile up, neo-Darwinism will be out the window on genetic grounds alone.
==You do know, for example, that the most-favored creationists du jour, the Intelligent Designers, fully accept common descent?
Not all IDers accept common descent, but most do. At this stage of the game, it doesn't make much difference to me. For instance, most of the IDers I have read make no attempt to prove common descent, they just assume it. But IDers are still useful allies in bringing down the Church of Darwin. The debate amongst ourselves can begin in earnest once Darwinism becomes passe.
==Have you actually read any books by Stephen Jay Gould? Because I have -- and not the thin, popular ones, but his 1500 page magnum opus The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Nowhere do I recall any doubts about common descent.
Yes, I have. And no, I have not read his 1500 page "magnum opus." Is it your contention that he comes to different conclusions in his "popular" books? And you are correct to note that he had no doubts about common descent...as already noted, he clung to his faith in the natural selection god despite his own admission that the fossil evidence does not support darwinian gradualism:
---------------------------
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.
Gould, S.J. (1977) "Evolution's Erratic Pace" Natural History, vol. 86, May
You rang?
Are you familiar with osmosis? Amphibians don't tend to do so well in saltwater.
Are you aware that you are making an assumption or series of assumptions yourself and this is the foundation upon which you are basing your accusation of dishonesty toward God?
Have you thought your assumption through enough to justify your brash charge of dishonesty?
Some things are impossible to know using the finite tools of science. For many things science works wonderfully and has made our lives better and more comfortable, but, like it or not, it does have definite limitations when it comes to certain areas of reality.
Areas such as one time historical events that cannot be directly tested.
Areas like the Virgin Birth of Christ, that is areas where God intervenes in any manner.
If you are denying the Virgin Birth or the supernatural then that is your choice, but I doubt you would go so far as to claim the Bible does not teach these things as fact.
Damn, you're just full of one hard question after another, aren't you?
Answer to your question: they held it. That's why they all died off.
==Are you familiar with osmosis? Amphibians don’t tend to do so well in saltwater.
Can you spot your own assumptions? The Bible makes no reference to a salt water ocean before the flood.
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.