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

Skip to comments.

Fish fossil fills evolutionary gap
Al-Jazeera ^ | Thursday 19 October 2006 | NA

Posted on 10/21/2006 8:10:12 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon

A 380 million-year-old fossil found in Australia has filled a gap in the understanding of how fish evolved into the first land animals.

John Long, lead researcher at Museum Victoria, said the perfectly preserved skeleton has revealed that fish developed features characteristic of land animals much earlier than once thought.

Long said: "We've got a fish from the Devonian period about 380 million years ago and preserved in three-dimensional stunning perfection.

"It has revealed a whole suite of characters that link it to the higher land animals or tetrapods, so it's filling in a blank in evolution we didn't know about before."

Head holes

The fossil of the Gogonasus fish, found in the remote Kimberley region of Western Australia, at a site of a former major coral reef, shows the skull had large holes for breathing through the top of the head.

The researchers said it also had muscular front fins with a well-formed humerus, ulna and radius, the same bones found in the human arm.

Long said: "The degree to which these features resemble the earliest four-legged land animals makes Gogonasus a new model in the picture of how fishes evolved into land animals.

"Gogonasus is the missing clue in vertebrate evolution, the world's first complete perfect skeleton of the kinds of fishes that gave rise to the first land animals.

"The transition from a fish living in water to an air-breathing land animal with arms and legs was one of the most dramatic transitions in the history of evolution and many unsolved questions remained."

Earlier this year, scientists reported the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae, a 375 million-year-old species of fish seen as the missing link in the shift from water to land animals.

While Tiktaalik had a skull that was identical to an amphibian, Long said Gogonasus looks much more like a fish.

He said: "I like to say it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's showing that evolution isn't as straightforward as we'd like to think."

The fossil was unveiled at the Melbourne Museum on Thursday and will remain on display for a month.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creationbullshit; crevolist; evobullshit; evolution; evolutionisafarce; evolutioniscorrect; evolutionlies; junk; moreevolutionfacts; moreproof; mythinglinks; nicetry; olderthangenesis; speculation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101 next last
To: Jeff Gordon

Al-Jazeera published this?


51 posted on 10/21/2006 10:54:22 PM PDT by Right in Wisconsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Wow, you actually know of a fossil that PROVES evolution? Would you like to share with us. Or is it just a "faith" in evolution like some have "faith" in a Creator. If you have the proof, there are thousands of hopeful scientists that would like to look at it as there aren't any to date.


52 posted on 10/21/2006 11:05:50 PM PDT by fish hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Seriously, I was once a dedicated evolutionists

Seriously, and not wanting to embarrass you, but how long have you had a problem keeping singulars & plurals in sync when you write? Also, does the same pattern ever come up when you speak?

53 posted on 10/21/2006 11:23:59 PM PDT by jennyp (There's ALWAYS time for jibber jabber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
... fish developed features characteristic of land animals much earlier than once thought.

Creationist interpretation: those stupid scientists were wrong again.

54 posted on 10/21/2006 11:29:34 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

mindreader...


55 posted on 10/21/2006 11:34:49 PM PDT by rusureitflies?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; Jorge
Belief gets in the way of learning.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love


I don't think you understand just how ironic you are there with that quote of Heinlein.

Heinlein was okay. I liked some of the novels from A. Clarke and Asimov better.

I think the point he is making is that these supposed transitional fossils held out as 'evidence that fills the gap' really strains the credulity. These fossil are about as much as a transitional as the Coelacanth was once touted to be. In other words the Gogonasus fish.., yes it is still a fish, and a vast vast distance from what it was supposedly evolving towards in areas physiology and skeletal structures, not to mention all other areas of comparison.

Coelacanth
Coelacanth


Frog
frog

Salamander
Salamander

W.
56 posted on 10/22/2006 12:42:25 AM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jennyp; Jorge
The answer is typo.

After you catch your breath, you can check 'typo' in your small victory column.

But hey, take it where you can get it I guess. Its the evo way.

W.
57 posted on 10/22/2006 12:46:08 AM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Seriously, I was once a dedicated evolutionists...

What peer-reviewed research changed your mind?

58 posted on 10/22/2006 2:08:10 AM PDT by Quark2005 (Religion is the key to knowing the spiritual world; Science is the key to knowing the physical world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
In other words the Gogonasus fish.., yes it is still a fish, and a vast vast distance from what it was supposedly evolving towards in areas physiology and skeletal structures, not to mention all other areas of comparison.

Haven't you learned anything from these threads, yet? Evolution doesn't move 'towards' specific goals. Do you even know where Coelecanths fit it the evolutionary tree? Are you aware that lobe-finned fishes are still considered a likely early offshoot of the evolution between fishes and this first land amphibian?

Hint: before you can be considered competent to criticize the conclusions of PhD's, you should first learn as much as someone with a GED should know on the subject. Believe me, I'm not saying this in any sort of defensive posture; I genuinely feel embarrassed for you (and others like you).

You (and many others here) might want to read the definition of crank very carefully, and then take a long, hard introspective look at yourself before deciding what to say the next time you post on a science thread.

59 posted on 10/22/2006 2:21:19 AM PDT by Quark2005 (Religion is the key to knowing the spiritual world; Science is the key to knowing the physical world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: the-ironically-named-proverbs2
"It has revealed a whole suite of characters that link it to the higher land animals or tetrapods, so it's filling in a blank in evolution we didn't know about before."

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

60 posted on 10/22/2006 2:28:33 AM PDT by Thinkin' Gal (As it was in the days of NO...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thinkin' Gal

I have been looking for a post on which to vent my newest insight about environmentalism, endangered species and global warming.
It strikes me as significant that the enviro crowd bases its principles on opposition to science and nature. Allow me to explain.
Evolution teaches the extermination of species. A full 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. Presumably they have been replaced by species better adapted to a constantly changing environment.
Species become extinct based on their inability to exist in an environment that fluctuates beyond the edges of their tolerance.
So, this is too easy. How is it, then, that we should seek to stop environmental change and preserve species from extinction? Does not that effort conflict with nature?
This leads me to the inescapable conclusion that eco fanatics fear nature, fear animals, and fear change. They seek an environment in which nothing ever changes. Why, the very notion of evolution is in direct conflict with the goals of the species, climate and eco crowd.
Blaming humans for natural processes of change is particularly specious. Nature has produced humans, according to the evolutionists, as the most advanced form of complex life. Are we to believe that nature has created its own destroyer?
The endangered species act is, without question, the single most important piece of nature legistlation ever written. Its implementation, however, is governed by the belief that humans despoil nature. It is left to bureaucrats, then, to protect species from the rampages of the deranged human crowd.
As a consequence picking up an empty turtle egg casing on the beach is punishable by near death experience. The sea turtle is a sacred and holy creature, not to be touched by the undesignated. This stupid policy, of course, is slowly exterminating sea turtles.
Their hatchlings are completely consumed every year by marauding gulls, fish and their ilk. There is no replacement population. The same is true of every so-called endangered species. Nature, of course, wishes for nothing more than the continued extermination of species no longer able to get along with the red-in-tooth-and-claw-crowd.
The only hope for the continuation of countless species is the husbandry of interested humans. This solution, according to the wisdom of those charged with enforcing endangered species legislation, is strictly forbidden.
Every animal introduced into the pet industry is now flourishing beyond simple replacement numbers. Whether it is corals, reptiles, fish, small mammals, birds, hoof stock, all captive bred populations are flourishing. It is only those designated threatened and endangered that are systematically required to die off.
If species are to be protected it will be because the enormous resources of the private husbandry sector are encouraged to do what they do best, preserve and propogate.
Chew on this, nutbars.


61 posted on 10/22/2006 6:22:15 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (Here come I, gravitas in tow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
Wow, you actually know of a fossil that PROVES evolution? Would you like to share with us. Or is it just a "faith" in evolution like some have "faith" in a Creator. If you have the proof, there are thousands of hopeful scientists that would like to look at it as there aren't any to date.

Perhaps you should reread my post. It says nothing about proof.

By the way, scientists are aware that nothing in science can be proved; non-scientists are often unaware of this.

In science, a theory is the goal. When a theory has been supported by all available facts, and makes verifiable predictions, it is a very useful tool. But no theory in science is ever proved.

Take a look at the following definitions:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.


62 posted on 10/22/2006 7:46:02 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
How many times I've talked to "you people". You guys can never defend evolution with proof and facts so you switch over to trying to prove "theory". Trouble is theory is a guess, maybe a good one and maybe not, but a guess. Bottom line is , like it or not, you have "faith" in your religion of evolution just as I have "faith" in a creator. Nothing else to talk about, really. Time and death will settle it.
63 posted on 10/22/2006 9:48:38 AM PDT by fish hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
How many times I've talked to "you people". You guys can never defend evolution with proof and facts so you switch over to trying to prove "theory". Trouble is theory is a guess, maybe a good one and maybe not, but a guess. Bottom line is , like it or not, you have "faith" in your religion of evolution just as I have "faith" in a creator.

There are millions of facts out there. But facts alone have limited use and lack meaning. The theory of evolution organizes those facts into a coherent whole with far greater usefulness.

You really should read some of the scientific definitions I post (repeated here for your convenience and for the lurkers). Evolution is not defended with "proof and facts" because the theory of evolution is made up of facts and an organizing theory.

As I explained in a previous post, but which you seem to have ignored, science does not deal with proof. Your insistence on using this term says a lot about your lack of a scientific background. You will be a lot more effective in your arguments if you can get the basic terms correct.

Secondly, in science a theory is not a "guess." That is the layman's use of the term. (See the definitions.) A scientific theory has to organize all relevant facts, it has to have withstood many challenges, and it has to make testable predictions. A guess does not have to do any of these things.

Scientists do not have "faith" in what they do. They have confidence in the reliability of the methods based on hundreds of years of experience. Faith is the belief in something for which there is no material evidence. That certainly is not the case for science and the scientific method. Again, see the definitions.

Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.

Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

Observation: any information collected with the senses.

Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.

Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.

Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.

Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

[Last revised 9/26/06]

64 posted on 10/22/2006 12:02:14 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet
Every animal introduced into the pet industry is now flourishing beyond simple replacement numbers. Whether it is corals, reptiles, fish, small mammals, birds, hoof stock, all captive bred populations are flourishing. It is only those designated threatened and endangered that are systematically required to die off.

If species are to be protected it will be because the enormous resources of the private husbandry sector are encouraged to do what they do best, preserve and propogate.

Very true! That's why I want to see more chimpanzees as pets. Extinction problem solved. But it won't happen, for the reasons you state.

I think this is further evidence that leftism is a belief system that poisons the well for every other topic or societal concern it touches, even if those other topics are themselves perfectly valid.

What's frustrating to me is, so many conservatives have let themselves get suckered into the trap of assuming that it's these other topics or concerns that are inherently wrong-headed, when in fact it's the silly arguments & approaches that the leftists have used whenever they jump onto the bandwagon to fix some particular problem, that have poisoned the well & made the concern itself look silly.

65 posted on 10/22/2006 1:02:41 PM PDT by jennyp (There's ALWAYS time for jibber jabber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: p[adre29
Evolution doesn't predict a "fish dog," although it does predict such intermediates as fish-amphibians, amphibian-reptiles, and mammal-like reptiles. Thing is, we find that kind of thing. The main article of this thread is about another instance of first category.

A fish-dog or amphibian-bird, or whatever, a thing far off the predicted tree of common descent, would be evidence against evolution. ID, a much looser hypothesis, would still be "fulfilled," since no find ever can falsify the idea that "God could have done THAT." However, that theory doesn't really tell you anything about what to expect. Thus, it's useless. There is a strong form of literal-Genesis creation which makes very strong predictions which were falsified before the end of the 19th century. That's useless, too, because it's wrong.

66 posted on 10/22/2006 1:16:10 PM PDT by VadeRetro (A systematic investigation of nature does not negotiate with crackpots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf; Jorge
The answer is typo.

But it's a very common typo that only creationists seem to make. I'm serious about this: I suspect it reveals a type of brain organization that's different from that of other people.

Now, if creationism really is the more valid conclusion to be gotten from the facts that we all have access to, then this cognitive quirk would be a marker for a superior mind, and not a cognitive deficit as you think I'm assuming it is. I think you can agree with me that keeping singulars & plurals in agreement is the correct way to build a noun/verb phrase, and so if someone has problems keeping them in agreement we'd normally say that they have a cognitive deficiency that they have to work on overcoming. But there are other examples of cognitive deficits being correlated with superior cognitive skills in other areas.

For example: Asperger's syndrome is a "problem" that isn't necessarily a problem overall. "Suffers" of this syndrome may have a hard time interacting with other people, but they are great at focusing their attention on intricate tasks that can require much thought to carry out.

So, since creationism is clearly the superior inference from the facts, and creationists seem to have a higher tendency to exhibit this particular grammatical quirk, it follows that the cognitive "deficit" that causes singular-plural disagreement when they write sentences must be a side-effect of a superior mind. I'm just wondering if those creationists who have this quirk have ever noticed it in their day-to-day lives.

67 posted on 10/22/2006 2:44:39 PM PDT by jennyp (There's ALWAYS time for jibber jabber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; .30Carbine; cornelis; Whosoever
There must be a scale how much of.....
New DATA PROVING evolution linkage is fact and how much is tale..
because there is ALWAYS a tale.. a story.. that goes along with alleged facts..

The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense - Tom Clancy

68 posted on 10/22/2006 2:54:33 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
There must be a scale how much of.....
New DATA PROVING evolution linkage is fact and how much is tale..
because there is ALWAYS a tale.. a story.. that goes along with alleged facts..

If you want to know the data, you have to read the literature. Here are the contents of the current issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Vol. 131, No. 3), just one of many journals dealing with the subject:

A lot of this information is available online. Dig in and have fun!

69 posted on 10/22/2006 3:12:47 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; betty boop
[ A lot of this information is available online. Dig in and have fun! ]

But I'm more suspicious of the tale than of the alleged fact..
I must be not qualified since I presently am wondering who was the parents of the third human on this planet..

70 posted on 10/22/2006 4:35:05 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
I must be not qualified since I presently am wondering who was the parents of the third human on this planet..

You're thinking there was some "poof" event and there was a "first human." What are the odds of that?

71 posted on 10/22/2006 4:40:33 PM PDT by VadeRetro (A systematic investigation of nature does not negotiate with crackpots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
But I'm more suspicious of the tale than of the alleged fact..

That is why you need to take a look at the actual evidence. The millions of facts, in these journals and elsewhere, lay the foundation for the theory of evolution. The theory must account for the facts. Once you are able to understand the facts underlying the theory, you will have an appreciation of the degree to which the theory either does, or does not, flow from those facts.

Folks are not just making this up out of thin air. There really is a huge amount of data out there. Ichny posts some of it occasionally, but there is so much that it is hard to grasp sometimes. And what he posts is only the tip of the iceberg.


I must be not qualified since I presently am wondering who was the parents of the third human on this planet..

Sorry, not my department.

72 posted on 10/22/2006 4:55:04 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

Jennyp,
It is absolutely critical to point the finger at policies that destroy species. Current political thinking about nature is precisely the opposite of what is needed.
The very idea that government policies can protect nature from the private sector is pure fascist fanaticism. Such policies must be opposed. Talking with elected officials is the only way to achieve this. Bureaucrats are deaf to any change in their dominant attitudes.
Our representatives must be made to understand that legal opposition to human interaction with animals is not the business of government. It is obscene. It is bad for animals. It is bad for humans. It is bad policy.
I vigorously oppose the torture and abuse of animals. I also vigorously oppose government restricting access to animals.


73 posted on 10/22/2006 5:50:06 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (Here come I, gravitas in tow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Reposted endlessly on FR. How many times, O Darwin! How many times!


74 posted on 10/22/2006 5:52:56 PM PDT by Mamzelle (Nobody likes spam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Reposted endlessly on FR. How many times, O Darwin! How many times!

Until creationists learn how scientists use terms.

It may be standard practice in apologetics to make up new definitions to suit one's argument, but that is not the case in science.

If you have disagreements with the definitions, there is a thread linked in the post which is dedicated to refining those definitions. Feel free to post your suggested revisions and ping me.

75 posted on 10/22/2006 6:00:08 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
re: Until creationists learn how scientists use terms.))

My, goodness, you strike the martinet pose so well! Shame there's nothing behind it but a threat to repeat yet more of the same, and more of the same again tomorrow.

But people can be reminded that your list is nothing more than a recurring billboard asserting your personal agenda.

We all own dictionaries. Nobody has to sign on to a list coming from the evo's obsessive little nest.

76 posted on 10/22/2006 6:08:20 PM PDT by Mamzelle (Nobody likes spam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
My, goodness, you strike the martinet pose so well! Shame there's nothing behind it but a threat to repeat yet more of the same, and more of the same again tomorrow.

But people can be reminded that your list is nothing more than a recurring billboard asserting your personal agenda.

We all own dictionaries. Nobody has to sign on to a list coming from the evo's obsessive little nest.

Let me repeat my offer: If you have disagreements with the definitions, this thread linked in the post is dedicated to refining those definitions. Feel free to post your suggested revisions and ping me.

77 posted on 10/22/2006 6:12:34 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
"And now it frantically pounds out messages on FR with women's underwear on it head."

We're learning a bit too much about what sort of thoughts fill your head, Jorge

78 posted on 10/22/2006 6:20:41 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
And I repeat, we all own reliable dictionaries and can ignore your list . Who cares what little dictionary the DC wants to crank out?
79 posted on 10/22/2006 6:23:57 PM PDT by Mamzelle (Nobody likes spam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk

Remember, Newtons Laws of motion were corrected by Einstein's theory of relativity. The tested theory is the peak of scientific knowledge.


80 posted on 10/22/2006 6:58:53 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
[ You're thinking there was some "poof" event and there was a "first human." What are the odds of that? ]

The same odds your name is not VaderRetro but something else.. You just appear to be VadeRetro..

81 posted on 10/22/2006 7:31:38 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

In the beginning man created God to help him understand and control the world around him. Then as mans true understanding and power grew his need for God diminished. The ancient Gods have served their purpose, let them die.

The purpose of life is the search for understanding and truth. Don't let a crutch stop you from walking.


82 posted on 10/22/2006 8:04:53 PM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Reposted endlessly on FR.

Much like your vapid vitriol.

83 posted on 10/22/2006 8:15:53 PM PDT by Quark2005 (Religion is the key to knowing the spiritual world; Science is the key to knowing the physical world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Love that quote! Thanks for the ping!


84 posted on 10/22/2006 10:17:15 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Seriously as an ex-evolutionist I have a hard time not laughing at these feeble attempts to explain away God and Creation.

You must not have been a very good evolutionist. At least I've got a lifetime of church attendance, almost ten years of education in Christian schools (grade school->junior high and college with Bible minor), and hundreds of hours in various ministries to point to as my qualifications as a good borderline-fundamentalist ex-Christian. As an evolutionist you have--what was it you said, "I got an A in biology"?

85 posted on 10/23/2006 5:50:46 AM PDT by ahayes (On the internet no one can hear you scream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
The same odds your name is not VaderRetro but something else.. You just appear to be VadeRetro..

It's a certainty that my real name isn't my screenie. If creationist calculations of individual molecules jumping together to make even a simple cell mean anything--and my use of them here might be the only legitimate use of them--it's that nothing is likely to make a man out of dust in one afternoon. The creationist "Were you there?" argument also reduces confidence in this one. Then there's the creationist "Why don't we see this happening now?" argument.

I'd have to say the odds must be about zero.

86 posted on 10/23/2006 9:29:48 AM PDT by VadeRetro (A systematic investigation of nature does not negotiate with crackpots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle; Coyoteman
And I repeat, we all own reliable dictionaries and can ignore your list . Who cares what little dictionary the DC wants to crank out?

People of integrity who want to commumnicate clearly and avoid the fallacy/sin of equivocation.

87 posted on 10/23/2006 12:53:08 PM PDT by Virginia-American (Don't bring a comic book to an encyclopedia fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Why should anyone accept your list, just because it's posted on FR hundreds (maybe thousands?) of times?

It's your list. It carries no weight, no authority. The spam is posted and reposted, when the evos are called on it, they say, "dispute the list."

Well, why should anyone bother?

We have dictionaries that say "Websters" and "American Heritage" and "Oxford English"--what do we need with a dictionary written by DC?

88 posted on 10/23/2006 1:55:02 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American; Coyoteman

Apparently there's no point in trying to agree on a definition of terms. When you define the terms you are using as they are used in scientific discussions, so everyone knows what you are saying, it's called spam. Conversely, the anti-evolution anti-science crowd just use whatever definitions they want without telling anyone what they are, or make up their own definitions.


89 posted on 10/23/2006 3:12:37 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
[ and my use of them here might be the only legitimate use of them--it's that nothing is likely to make a man out of dust in one afternoon. ]

"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."-G.K. Chesterton

90 posted on 10/23/2006 3:49:07 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle; ml1954; Coyoteman
Mamzelle: Why should anyone accept your list, just because it's posted on FR hundreds (maybe thousands?) of times?

If we agree about what sense words are being used in, we may avoid the fallacy/sin of equivocation.

Mamzelle: It's your list. It carries no weight, no authority. The spam is posted and reposted, when the evos are called on it, they say, "dispute the list."

What definitions do you think are incorrect? Why?

Mamzelle: Well, why should anyone bother?

To avoid the fallacy/sin of equivocation.

Mamzelle: We have dictionaries that say "Websters" and "American Heritage" and "Oxford English"--what do we need with a dictionary written by DC?

Because the dictionaries give every attested use of a word, whereas a specialized area like biology may use only one of them.

We aren't discussing theology, we're trying to discuss science. It is important that the terms be explicitly defined and agreed upon.

That is, if we're people of integrity who want to commumnicate clearly and avoid the fallacy/sin of equivocation.

91 posted on 10/23/2006 11:41:46 PM PDT by Virginia-American (Don't bring a comic book to an encyclopedia fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American; Coyoteman
You seek no "agreement"--this list is an attempt to set the terms of debate to your liking. Spam shouldn't be disputed, or even read. It should be ignored.

The first thing you do with a a control freak is to refuse to let him control anything. This relentless spamming is the behavior of a controlling personality--post something thousands of times, maybe someone will even care? The Voice Spamming in the Wilderness. Isn't that what you have your own forum for?

Not only would it be foolish to accept The List From Nowhere, it's foolish to even take it seriously enough to read, much less dispute. It's just endless spam from obsessives from another forum.

92 posted on 10/24/2006 5:17:33 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

"Spam shouldn't be disputed, or even read. It should be ignored."

A wonderful idea. I propose that we start ignoring Mamzelle immediately. In the meantime, here's a joke:

What's that difference between the New York Times and Mamzelle's posts?

Answer: At least I can wipe my ass with the New York Times.
93 posted on 10/24/2006 7:19:28 AM PDT by Boxen (Branigan's law is like Branigan's love--Hard and fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
Naaaahhhh, fossil finds never fill gaps, they just create two new gaps on either side...
94 posted on 10/24/2006 7:23:32 AM PDT by null and void (Age and experience -- It makes no sense to get one without the other. - Sundog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
That's why I want to see more chimpanzees as pets. Extinction problem solved. But it won't happen, for the reasons you state.

That and the fact that a cute baby chimp grows up to be a very strong and destructive adult chimp. (They're kinda like people in that regard)...

95 posted on 10/24/2006 7:31:15 AM PDT by null and void (Age and experience -- It makes no sense to get one without the other. - Sundog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle; Virginia-American
Not only would it be foolish to accept The List From Nowhere, it's foolish to even take it seriously enough to read, much less dispute.

Its not a "List from Nowhere:" it was developed in large part from this thread.

You can go back and read the thread and see how the terms were discussed and improved. You can even contribute your preferred definitions on that thread for discussion and possible inclusion in the definitions list.

Or you can just be a scold.

96 posted on 10/24/2006 8:12:03 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
I believe the evos don't like being referenced in posts that do not "courtesy ping"--but to tell the truth, Boxen, I don't really mind. Go right ahead.

I'm just taking the opportunity to point out the way evos behave, and the way they say others should behave. And posting the same linked list hundreds of times on FR is an abuse of the forum.

97 posted on 10/24/2006 8:26:40 AM PDT by Mamzelle (There is no cure for the common scold. And, nobody likes spam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: null and void
That and the fact that a cute baby chimp grows up to be a very strong and destructive adult chimp.

Almost all the chimps shown in movies and TV are just babies. The grownups are too big to be really cute. They're also stronger than Samson and don't feel like they have to do just what they're told just when.

98 posted on 10/24/2006 8:35:32 AM PDT by VadeRetro (A systematic investigation of nature does not negotiate with crackpots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon

Looks more like a turtle.

They cross between swimming and land travel, except for the ones caught on the roads.


99 posted on 10/24/2006 8:44:09 AM PDT by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: null and void
That and the fact that a cute baby chimp grows up to be a very strong and destructive adult chimp. (They're kinda like people in that regard)...

Well, yeah, that too. :-)

100 posted on 10/24/2006 1:20:40 PM PDT by jennyp (There's ALWAYS time for jibber jabber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101 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