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

Skip to comments.

Rare fossil find on roadside (Extraordinarily preserved pterosaur)
News.com.au ^ | November 2, 2006 | Laine Clark

Posted on 11/03/2006 10:10:40 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger

DISCOVERING a rare, 100 million-year-old fossil is amazing enough.

But not as surprising as the way Queensland Museum palaeontologist Alex Cook found it.

Keen for a break after more than three hours of driving, Dr Cook thought he would stretch his legs at the northwest Queensland town of Hughenden - and literally stumbled over the fossil.

"I found it literally on the side of the road. It's serendipity, a happy accident," Dr Cook said today.

It is the third jaw fragment of a pterosaur - a winged, fish-eating reptile that lived in the time of the dinosaurs - found in Australia.

It also is one of the "most exquisitely preserved" pterosaur specimens found in the world.

Dr Cook said pterosaur bones were "rare worldwide".

Only 50 pterosaur bones have been found in Australia in 140 years of collecting.

No wonder Dr Cook couldn't believe his luck.

"We were getting a little tired ... so we stopped at Hughenden, had some lunch, had a bit of a look around and I literally kicked it over," he said.

"It is a little bit like finding an extraordinarily endangered species that you have been looking for - they are that rare."

Dr Cook was on a fossil-finding trip in northwest Queensland with fellow palaeontologists - Colin McHenry, from the University of Newcastle and Adam Morell of the Richmond Marine Fossil Museum, near Hughenden about 500km from Mt Isa - when he made the surprise find in 2004.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; dinosaur; dinosaurs; evolution; fossil; godsgravesglyphs; junksciorgasm; paleontology; pterosaur
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-492 next last
To: DaveLoneRanger

Science is a good thing, it was created by God.


51 posted on 11/04/2006 1:31:28 PM PST by fish hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: csense

You are another voice for freedom of speech ain't ya?

Don't fear science and progress.


52 posted on 11/04/2006 1:41:59 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser (Pro Evolution, Pro Stem Cell Research, Pro Science, Pro Free Thought, and Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
If that is the case, why do archeologists still have to "dig" to find ancient relics? Your explanation holds zero water.

You don't read very well, do you? Try again.
53 posted on 11/04/2006 1:55:39 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long; Dog Gone
"Surely you don't believe those are real photographs."

You're surely right --I don't believe they are real. I was interested in sending them to my daughter as a means to open some dialogue with her about her Creationist beliefs. And you're right --she is a very smart young lady and has worked as a Research Biologist for the Arizona Game & Fish Dept (Birds & Herpetology both).

My wife and I home schooled her for all 13-years (K-12). She was always the one kid, who, after a rain storm would run outside to scoop up some water to put under a microscope to check out what was living in it. I can't tell you how many years we suffered through "Shark Week", Jim Corwin Experience and the rest of the "outdoor/nature" stuff. Neither my wife nor I were blessed with the "scientist gene" so we have no idea how Biology (especially Herpetology), became her focus and life's passion. (we had 23 Tarantulas living with us when she was at home, but drew the line at poisonous snakes).

Now that she's grown, married and in her profession, I realize just how far behind I am in understanding anything she does or likes. I was going to pass along the pic as a way to spur her to discuss more of her Evolution vs. Creation views. I'm just not in a position to evaluate either set of theories...hope that helps give you some background as to why I asked you the question.
54 posted on 11/04/2006 3:38:34 PM PST by Towed_Jumper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: jim35
Evolution can't answer some pretty simple questions: for instance, what did these creatures do to get by before they evolved?

How can you say that? It's all quite simple. It started out when fish had some retarded babies that found other retared babies, who had butt-sex with retarded fish-frogs, ...

Simple!

Mark

55 posted on 11/04/2006 4:16:49 PM PST by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
You are another voice for freedom of speech ain't ya?

Don't you guys ever get tired of playing the victim...

Don't fear science and progress.

If you equate criticism with fear, then you're the one living in the dark ages. It never ceases to amaze me how some people act with the very behavior that they're trying to discourage.

Only from a deep personal sense of superiority, and the delusion that they alone are messengers of ultimate truth, can such bizarre propositions, as commonly put forward on this forum by people such as yourself, manifest.

That said, let's put this superior knowledge of yours to the test. I'll ask you the same question I've proposed here many times in the last few years, and to which, though I've received responses, have never received an answer for.

What physical event does natural selection explain, that isn't already explained by drift, recombination, heredity, and mutation.

None of which, in and of themselves, infer evolution.

If natural selection can not account for any physical event, then it has no business being in a scientific theory. Period.

56 posted on 11/04/2006 4:36:43 PM PST by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: csense

Baloney, you only want your views here, how free is that?

Perhaps you should destroy all the things that evil science has given you, start with your computer.


57 posted on 11/04/2006 4:50:19 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser (Pro Evolution, Pro Stem Cell Research, Pro Science, Pro Free Thought, and Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Baloney, you only want your views here, how free is that?

And yet I've given you the opportunity, with my query, to present the views you claim I am trying to oppress.

Why am I not surprised not only that you failed to answer my question, but that your response is in stark contrast to reality.

58 posted on 11/04/2006 5:25:30 PM PST by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Towed_Jumper
Well the statement "but inspite of four years worth of evolutionary biology she remains a creationist" didn't lead me to believe you wanted to open up dialogue as much as make her reject creationism. She seems to have a scientific enough background to make an informed conclusion, seeing as how evolutionists are always saying that Darwinism is the foundation of biology.
59 posted on 11/04/2006 5:54:37 PM PST by Tim Long (Mountjoy for Sen. Noonan for Gov. McClintock for Lt. Gov. Poochigian for Attorney Gen. Yes on 85.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: jim35
So, shouldn't there be many, many forms of the same exact animal, with only one teeny tiny change, every millenia or so?

Dude, you pose one fundamental question that these evomoonies won't answer, engaging instead in insults.Why aren't there fossils of partially, almost evolved somethingdactyls? Oh, and how clever: some species didn't need to evolve. Adjusting reality to a dogmatic 19th century theory. And where is the competing theory like in many scientific fields?

60 posted on 11/04/2006 6:25:45 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Who invented rock and roll hiccups?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Baloney, you only want your views here, how free is that?

Not very free, if your premise were true. What is deemed unwanted(it seems to me) is the patronizing attitude that comes with the discussion.

61 posted on 11/04/2006 7:12:15 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA

"pting"

:'D


62 posted on 11/04/2006 7:37:59 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Dhimmicrati delenda est! https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Perhaps you should destroy all the things that evil science has given you, start with your computer.

There you go again not only equating criticism of one particular theory with all of science, but of equating that criticism with fear of science. Who's' trying to shut down the conversation now.

If this is your way of avoiding a legitimate question by walking away from the ignorant Christian who fears the evil scientist and his magical knowledge then you have my sympathies...but you certainly don't have my respect.

63 posted on 11/04/2006 7:40:14 PM PST by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: csense

Well put.


64 posted on 11/04/2006 7:43:19 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Dhimmicrati delenda est! https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Thank you


65 posted on 11/04/2006 7:56:25 PM PST by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: jws3sticks; UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

LOL to you two FReepers with a crazy sense of humor.


66 posted on 11/04/2006 9:53:54 PM PST by NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: NotJustAnotherPrettyFace

Thanks. Hope you had a chuckle or two.


67 posted on 11/04/2006 10:13:22 PM PST by jws3sticks (Hillary can take a very long walk on a very short pier, anytime, and the sooner the better!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

What are you, 10 years old? You argue like a spoiled child, all personal animus, very little substance. While the whole time, you're decrying all of the ignoramuses that you have to put up with. You are the most condescending snob I've ever encountered, outside of DU. I can't believe you've hung around FR this long, and learned nothing of how to argue a point. Oh, wait. I've just criticized you. I must be a troglodyte who fears the scary ju-ju of science.


68 posted on 11/04/2006 11:19:31 PM PST by jim35 (Holding my nose to vote all R's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
If gold miners can pan for gold

HA HA HA. Show me a study where archeologists state that gold is millions of years old. I guess in your logic if you can see the moon and someone says it is millions of years old you would except that just like finding a chicken bone on a sidewalk and someone says it is millions of years old you buy into it. You certainly do humor me.

69 posted on 11/04/2006 11:59:01 PM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

I read very well thank you. It's your logic that I try to comprehend but can't. Maybe it has to do with the escape clause that evos seem to always be dreaming up.


70 posted on 11/05/2006 12:01:11 AM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

What escape clause are you referring to? I'm not sure I understand. And, as for having trouble w/ the logic of the evolutionist evangelist, it's hard to understand what is never postulated. All I seem to get from him is a long litany of personal animosity and an insulting tone.


71 posted on 11/05/2006 2:41:02 AM PST by jim35 (Holding my nose to vote all R's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long

Bet it tasted like chicken...


72 posted on 11/05/2006 6:33:24 AM PST by Chasaway (Anything not worth doing is not worth doing well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Funny how fossils are dated by the level of earth that they are imbedded in, but in this case a 100 million year old fossil laying right on the top of the ground.

I noticed that, too.

73 posted on 11/05/2006 2:45:35 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
The age of the earth bandied about, derived by Archbishop Usher, iirc, is not written in the Bible. That was the Archbishop's interpretation of the geneologies presented.

That's correct as far as I know. If you google *Ussher* there's a plethora of information about what he did.

74 posted on 11/05/2006 2:50:33 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
I don't speak for Darwin Central, that is your problem.
Well then, I plead the same "defense" and say to you, I don't speak for Free Republic. But I note you don't speak AGAINST Darwin Central either, and for the same things that are complained about here on FR.
Creationism exists solely to fit data to the preconcieved [sic] beliefs of the bible. No actual research or scientific method is involved, its purely belief based, and completly [sic] flawed.
You may want to tell that to the boys at The Creation Research Society.
As for Noah, it was a fable, its 2006, if you can't understand that by now, there is no hope for you.
Then there's no hope for me. But perhaps you can answer that annoying little question that no one else has, about why there are hundreds of accounts of a worldwide flood that exist independent of each other in cultures that have had no exposure to the Bible.
As for it being a free forum, how come Patrick Henry got his homepage edited? Is science and free thought not allowed?
Did I not say "It's not a completely free forum"? PH's list was chock-full of troublemakers. I didn't want to deny them the right to stay, but I'm glad that many of them were faced with the decision: make peace or make tracks.
Do you believe the earth is 5000 years old? And what proof do you have?
No. About six thousand. The proof is the same as yours. Interpreted differently.
I operate on the basis of data, empirical, proof based data.
Right. Interpreted according to preexisting evolutionary framework.
Not some scripture, which as important as it may be to you, is not proof, and doesn't pass objective scientific tests.
Scripture is the framework which creationists enter the arena having already agreed upon. Evolution is the framework which evolutionists enter the arena having already agreed upon. And the two are left to kick it out regarding the evidence and subsequent inference.
Just don't mandate that my kids be forced to learn your religous [sic] based fables.
Hey, same here. Except, evolution is taught by judicial mandate, thanks in part to left-wing groups like the ACLU.
75 posted on 11/05/2006 3:48:15 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (I'm not paranoid. But everyone thinks I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jim35
What escape clause are you referring to? I'm not sure I understand.

That is not all you don't understand. You just may want to seek some "higher" level of intelligence in order to understand.

76 posted on 11/05/2006 5:23:53 PM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

free thought is not dead here. you are posting ain't ya ? Now got take a breath mint.


77 posted on 11/05/2006 5:28:35 PM PST by advertising guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"As for Noah, it was a fable, its 2006, if you can't understand that by now, there is no hope for you."

Coincidentally...

Adam 0 - 930
Seth 130 - 1042
Enos 235 - 1140
Cainan 325 - 1235
Mahalaleel 395 - 1290
Jared 460 - 1422
Enoch 622 - (987)
Methuselah - 687 - 1656
Lamech 874 - 1651
Noah 1056 - 2006
78 posted on 11/06/2006 5:21:01 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

In our current environment of atmospheric density and gravitational pull, how does a living thing this size fly?This is probably the biggest mystery about the large "flyers" of prehistoric times. They force evolutionists into rube goldberg "glider" explanations.

Their very existence implies we have a lot yet to learn about the environment in which thes creatures lived and reproduced.


79 posted on 11/06/2006 7:18:41 AM PST by RobRoy (The internet is doing to the ToE what it did to Dan Rather.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
The boys at DarwinCentral think we really believe that picture!
80 posted on 11/06/2006 8:24:09 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (I'm not paranoid. But everyone thinks I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Thanks for the spelling correction. (lost my 's' there somewhere..(8^D) )


81 posted on 11/06/2006 9:59:53 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
The boys at DarwinCentral think we really believe that picture!

Why wouldn't we believe it? Dave?... Dave?... : )

Seriously, though, the site I got it from seems to think that one of the pictures is real.

I feel really sorry for Kent Hovind. Say what you will about him, I think he is a very well-meaning individual.

82 posted on 11/06/2006 8:07:32 PM PST by Tim Long (Mountjoy for Sen. Noonan for Gov. McClintock for Lt. Gov. Poochigian for Attorney Gen. Yes on 85.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
In their defense Dave, there was someone that actually read the thread and corrected that view.

Reciprocation

83 posted on 11/06/2006 8:36:25 PM PST by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
"You have no evidence other than stating that its in the bible, well, I refuse to accept the bible as a scientific text."

And therein lies the rub. In order for you to prove the theory of evolution and to have it universally accepted by all people as true fact, you must first completely destroy the Holy Bible and all it teaches us.

There can be no Creator. No God. No miracles. God cannot possibly have created the Earth or the Heavens or Man and every Creature that walks swims or crawls. There was no Adam and Eve. No Garden of Eden. No original sin. There was no Noah. No Ark. No flood. No Moses. No burning bush. No Ten Commandments handed down from God. Jesus cannot possibly have been the Son of God, nor could he have died on the cross for our sins. The Resurrection could not possibly have happened. There is no Saviour and no Salvation. No life after death. No Heaven. No Hell. No God. No Satan. No good vs evil.

Therefore all of Christianity, in fact, all of all religions are simply mythical fairy tales based on lies and superstition.

The theory of evolution does not allow for the Holy Bible, or miracles including the miracle of Creation, the miracle of life, etc, or God our Creator, or Jesus Christ, or Christianity, Judaism, etc.

The Declaration of Independence is therefore also a lie. If there is no Creator, our rights cannot possibly have come from God. In other words, we have no unalienable rights. Our rights would only be what the government allows us.

The Declaration would be null and void and the founding would have been based on lies rather than "these truths we hold self-evident."

The first amendment would simply be a cruel joke. The Bill of Rights would have no foundation on truth or unalienable rights from God and that would also make the entire Constitution of the United States null and void. All laws based on the Ten Commandments would be null and void. There would be no God to guide our judges and no reason not to bear false witness.

Our entire American history, in fact all of civilization would be based on nothing but lies. Our ancestors passed down lies to our grand parents and parents and they lied to us and we have taught our children nothing but lies.

This is exactly what the Marxists (leftists) would have us believe.

If you destroy belief in the Creator, you destroy belief in God, Christianity, Judaism, etc. You destroy our entire civilized society and reason for being. We would be left with nothing but chaos and anarchy. A Marxist dream come true.

Believers in the theory of evolution may not be Marxists, but they are pushing exactly what the Marxists want pushed. And that makes it political.

And I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with science. Along with everything else, God created all knowledge and that includes the modern miracle of science.

84 posted on 11/10/2006 1:49:33 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Personally, I don't care if you are a creationist or not,

Respectfully, based on your comments, it is evident that you do care.

85 posted on 11/10/2006 1:58:53 AM PST by TN4Liberty (Sixty percent of all people understand statistics. The other half are clueless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Extending my remarks, besides having to deny God the Creator, my next problem with the theory of evolution is it is being used as a political tool. When government teaches the theory of evolution to our children, while at the same time disallowing any mention whatsoever of God or of the biblical version of Creation, then they are advancing the leftist (Marxist) political agenda of destroying our constitutional freedoms.
86 posted on 11/10/2006 2:12:36 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Public schools should not mention God, unless they then mention any other gods that any of the other kids may worship. I don't want any religious dogma in public school. If you want your kid to learn religion, send him to a religious school. My parents did, I went K-12 to Catholic school, and I'm glad I did so.

But, honestly, calling evolution Marxist? Hyperbole!


87 posted on 11/10/2006 6:01:55 AM PST by Central Scrutiniser (Pro Evolution, Pro Stem Cell Research, Pro Science, Pro Free Thought, and Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

I notice Conservative is the after-thought in your tagline. Tell me, exactly what God does "God" name?


88 posted on 11/10/2006 6:06:50 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I wouldn't know a pterosaurs if it jumped up and bit me. I think it helped that he was an expert.
89 posted on 11/10/2006 6:10:04 AM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

You don't define me, I define myself. Maybe Republicans lost because so many of us act like you and demand litmus test. Being a conservative is not an afterthought, and I am going to stand up for what I believe in, believe it or not, there is room in the Republican tent for the religious right and the non religious right. You better hope so, or the tent will fold.

What God does God name? Depends on your religion I guess. Maybe we will all find out after we die.


90 posted on 11/10/2006 6:20:18 AM PST by Central Scrutiniser (Pro Evolution, Pro Stem Cell Research, Pro Science, Pro Free Thought, and Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
You don't define me, I define myself.

I didn't define you. I emphasized the position of Conservative in your tagline, a tag line presented on a site which has the purpose of promoting Conservatism.

What God does God name? Depends on your religion I guess.

That seems to meet the criteria you required.

91 posted on 11/10/2006 6:30:00 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

The left could care less about evolution, their sole objective is to destroy our Judeo-Christian culture and replace it with Marxism by any mean necessary.


92 posted on 11/10/2006 8:34:19 AM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
And therein lies the rub. In order for you to prove the theory of evolution and to have it universally accepted by all people as true fact, you must first completely destroy the Holy Bible and all it teaches us.

I have to disagree. The theory of evolution does not address a deity in any way shape or form.

In fact, there is more evidence supporting evolution than there is gravitational theory.

93 posted on 11/10/2006 8:36:51 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
In order for you to prove the theory of evolution and to have it universally accepted by all people as true fact, you must first completely destroy the Holy Bible and all it teaches us.

There can be no Creator. No God. No miracles.


The frequency of this level of irrationality and dishonesty is exactly why I do not post here anymore. The theory of evolution makes no such implications, and only someone fundamentally ignorant of the theory or someone who is dishonestly promoting another agenda would claim that it does.

There is no further purpose in posting on these discussions. When so many engage in repeated acts of shameless, fundamental dishonesty in lying about what the theory of evolution states or implies and falsely claiming that all who accept the theory of evolution are atheists, Marxists, fascists, racists and/or socialists, it is obvious that their motives are not about honest debate. It is clear to me that the false claims -- clams that the theory of evolution has direct political, social or racial implications; claims, debunked every time that they are made, purporting to show physical evidence "disproves" evolution; claims that evolution addresses the formation of the cosmos, planets, stars, solar systems, the first life forms, political parties, ice crystals, sitcoms, etc; claims that the theory of evolution is supported by frauds and fakes without any evidence, or with bogus "evidence", of any acts of fraud; claims that extensive references to evidence for the theory are inadequate or 'bogus' without any actual explanation or justification of the claims of inadaquecy; claims that those who accept evolution are liberals, communists, socialists, etc -- from most of the vocal creationists are not the result of ignorance, they are the result of those creationists willfully repeating the same lies over and over again, without shame and without concern for how many times their falsehoods have been exposed.

The theory of evolution neither states no implies that there is no God nor that there can be no God. If someone claims othewise either they are fundamentally ignorant of the theory or they are lying. This applies whether they accept that the theory is sound or reject it. There are no exceptions.
94 posted on 11/10/2006 8:40:30 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Jim,
The theory of evolution simply states two things.
First, that (a) individuals within a population bear offspring, (b) every individual born is different from all others and (c) The differences in individuals affects the number of offspring each individual bears in a changing environment thus slowly changing the environmentally adapted population.
Second, that whenever a population splits into two geographically separated groups, different environmental factors leads to different adaptations in the two groups.

It's the foundation on which all modern study of biology is based and there's really no reason to stretch your imagination to read more into it than that.
95 posted on 11/10/2006 8:54:45 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Your logic is akin to saying since Zeus and Apollo don't exist, Euclidian geometery, Greek philosophy and all the contributions of the ancient Hellenistic world to western civilization is invalid.


96 posted on 11/10/2006 8:55:17 AM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; Jim Robinson
The supreme irony in all this is that you are unlikely to find a group so feverently anti-Marxist as the pro-evolution posters here.

We accept evolution because it is currently the best way to describe reality.

Conversely, we deny Marxism not simply from a religious perspective, but because it bears no resemblence to the real world. It has failed every reality test. It is completely untenable and is anti-reason.

97 posted on 11/10/2006 9:01:24 AM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever; Axlrose; metmom
Funny how fossils are dated by the level of earth that they are imbedded in, but in this case a 100 million year old fossil laying right on the top of the ground.

The phenomenon is called "erosion".

The land around this mesa was deposited long before the land at the top of the mesa was deposited. Erosion has created the mesa by washing away or blowing away the soil around the mesa thereby exposing much older layers.

98 posted on 11/10/2006 9:10:58 AM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
in a 1979 interview with *Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland, asked him: "How do you date fossils?" His reply: "By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found." Sunderland then asked him if this were not circular reasoning, and *Fisher replied, "Of course, how else are you going to do it?" (Bible Science Newsletter, December 1986, p. 6.)

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of science, January 1976.

"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."—*David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, March 1983, p. 21.

"It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology [theory of rock strata] is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology."—*Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (1973), p. 62.

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

99 posted on 11/10/2006 9:12:06 AM PST by TChris (We scoff at honor and are shocked to find traitors among us. - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; Jim Robinson
Dimensio what the theory of evolution says it not nearly as important as what its adherents do with the theory (either consciously or unconsciously) and the ideologies and agendas they use it to promote. Where you fall in these groups must be done by looking the the weight of your post history, and not by any declarations or claims you make because you avoid that like the plague.

Your heated language and blanket charges of 'shameless liar' reveal what a deep personal emotional religious issue it is for you & the warped distorted world view & level of arrogance that you bring with you to the threads.

In reality the theory and its history has had so many adjustments, permutations, alterations, retracted evidence, retracted hypothesis, false leads, and out right fraud and hoax that it is very hard to 'lie about it'.

Your idea of 'debunking' seems to be of declaring that a person is telling falsehoods and is a shameless lair, then backing that weakly with a link to a propaganda site such as talk-origins, while the rest (of those who share your world view) all nodding in mocking derisive agreement.

W.
100 posted on 11/10/2006 10:42:08 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-492 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