Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Read it?
Why? What did they change this time??
Darwin said his fossils were there but we didn't find them yet. Stephen Jay Gould says the fossils aren't there, that's why there are gaps in the fossil record. If I told you I did my homework, but the dog ate it, would you believe me? Once again, the proof, is that there is no proof. Evolution is such a fun theory, you can think up any zany idea from microbes on meteors to aliens with a mission to populate the universe and 'science' will back you up; but what happens if you say, " In the beginning, God......
Correct. We still do not know how gravity causes bodies to attract, how electrical charges repel, how mass is converted into energy as the candle burns ...
Now, show me the baby.
Interesting, but you still haven't explained the origins of Ted Kennedy. He's just not natural.
Boy, is he ever missing!!
I would not be surprised if you hadn't even clicked the link I provided. That site does not address the theory of evolution. It addresses cosmology.
The order of creation was told in the Bible thousands of years before science confirmed it.
Thought you would never ask.
The problems with interbreeding are well documented except in Genesis.
...and dogs are still man's best friend.
Weird ain't it?
Are you endowed by your Creator will certain unalienable rights?
You never met my dog. lol
The Kennedy clan is originally from West Virginia???
Nor can we explain why the moon does not spin with relation to the Earth. That one always gets me.
Gravity. Actually it does spin in relation to the earth. It's spin rate exactly matches it's rate of revolution around the earth.
A closed mind gathers no thought.
You sought to persuade through overkill?
No, I was showing a pattern in the evidence.
I know that species are related--but your underlying assertion--"they arose from them"--is just not borne out as "proof" by any such list.
Not all by itself, no. In interlocking relation to dozens of other lines of evidence, yes.
Interesting, indicative, but hardly doctrine.
See above.
I then pointed out what many people do to evo-shamans--
Oh boy, more petulant, pointless namecalling. How typical.
that life dwindles rather than proliferates.
That's not what the evidence clearly indicates, but if you want to cling to your fantasies, go for it.
Species decrease rather than increase.
Please do not present your fantasies as if they were fact, or were supported by the evidence. They are not.
That there were more "then" and less "now" points to a speciation theory that lacks generative potency.
It would if that were the case, but since you're just MAKING IT UP, I'd say that it actually rather indicates the paucity of your own position.
Hint: How many, say, bird species were there ~200 million years ago? Zero. How many are there now? Over 10,000.
Bigger hints:
Extinction, diversity and survivorship of taxa in the fossil recordBiodiversity *increases* over time.
Each new day brings a story of a new "Eve" of our genetic ancestry, and the evos go into High Ritual Mode to worship their new goddess. A few months later, a new Eve and, with no spraining of cognitive dissonance, seems to be as welcome as the previous, abandoned, Eve was.
What are you babbling about here? Give a *specific* example, with links or citations, of an alleged "new story" which you feel should require "spraining of cognitive dissonance", and/or similar documentation for what you mumble is a "previous, abandoned, Eve". In other words, please demonstrate that you even know what in the hell you're talking about.
That the programming of life swaps around could be some very useful information for applied science--
Huh? Again, *try* to be coherent, and give *specific* examples for a change, don't just ramble in a vague fashion and then spew empty platitudes like:
I'd just prefer that the scientists keep their religion to themselves.
Well in that regard, you have nothing to worry about. Evolutionary biology is not a religion. If it *seems* like it to you, then you quite simply don't actually understand it.
I meant nervous in the same way as a sheep is nervous around a drunk Scotsman.
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.