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

Skip to comments.

Fossil finds shake up dinosaur theories
The Mercury News ^ | July 19, 2007 | Betsy Mason

Posted on 07/22/2007 8:19:41 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

Dinosaur fossils found in New Mexico are challenging the idea that when dinosaurs appeared on the scene some 235 million years ago, they quickly rose to dominate the landscape.

Buried among the dinosaur bones, a team led by UC Berkeley paleontologists discovered the remnants of the dinosaurs' predecessors, dinosauromorphs, that lived 15-20 million years after the first dinosaur showed up.

"It was very exciting because we knew this was a type of animal that no one thought you'd find anywhere at any time in North America," said paleontologist Randall Irmis, a graduate student at UC Berkeley and lead author of the study which appears today in Science.

The discovery means that dinosaurs didn't simply replace their ancestors. Instead, the two types of animals lived side-by-side and competed for resources for millions of years.

"It has shaken up the old theory," said Bill Parker, a paleontologist at Petrified Forest National Park who also studies dinosaurs. "Everything was nice and neat before."

Scientists thought dinosaurs evolved from the dinosauromorphs in South America. Then, they may have driven their predecessors to extinction by outcompeting them with their bigger, faster and stronger bodies. Or, their ancestors and other animals suddenly went extinct for another reason, and the dinosaurs took advantage of the newly empty ecological niches.

Either way, the belief was that by the time dinosaurs were roaming North America, the dinosauromorphs were long gone.

"Everybody thought those animals had gone extinct," Parker said. "I think people are going to be surprised."

(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevo; dinosaur; dinosaurs; evolution; fsmdidit; godsgravesglyphs; paleontology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-265 next last
To: editor-surveyor

HA!!

Simple denial - no facts or rational argument presented. the last resort of the truly deluded!

How - tell me HOW are these not contradictions?

God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.


War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.


Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.


Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.


Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

And if God is truly omnipotent - why would he have to rest on the 7th day? Isn’t that a contradiction?


141 posted on 07/23/2007 5:24:49 PM PDT by Locke_2007 (Liberals are non-sentient life forms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: js1138

[[”O that there were such a heart in them [the Israelites] that they would...keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them and with their children for ever! ...you shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you, that you may live and that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days... “

The suggestion ANd wisdom of not eating it never ‘ended’, But Christ did come and abolish people’s works as being the vehicle through which they thought that maintained tjheir salvation- the wisdom still stands to do whatever it takes to keep you healthy, however, As God pointed out to Peter, it wasn’t hte refraining from ‘unlcean animals’ that attained salvation but faith in Christ, and God pointed out to Peter that it should no longer be concidered a religious abstenece - not needed for being in presence of a Holy God who gave His common sense laws that we should maintain healthy bodies in His sight as far as possible.
Genesis 9:3 “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”

Genesis 9:3 “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” (As did the pagans who drank blood as ritual worship to their false gods)

[[Just tell us what date eating pork ceased to be a health issue, and while you are at it cite your scriptural authority that dietary laws were just a health issue.]]

Golly Gee Wiz Paw... do I gots tro spend rest of night searchign out passages that should be common sense to folks? I was so looking forward ot playing ‘Red Rover Red Rover, send the evolved amino acid right over’ instead

[[Would you care to speculate on the percentage of freepers who have had sex before marriage. How about their psychological problems?]]

Gosh, and here I thought your questions couldn’t get any sillier- Wow- was I wrong! Apparently you think the only ones invovled are the two who commit the act- it should be apparent to those with common sense though that marriage breakups over extramarital effects does indeed affect people psychologically, that premarital sex leads to higher incidents of infidelity after marriage and which affect the children, the parents of the offenders, the brothers, sisters uncles aunts etc


142 posted on 07/23/2007 5:42:25 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
A foolish question, illustrating your complete lack of understanding of GR. All frames of reference are equal.

It's not a question about gravity or frames of reference. It's a simple question about light and shadow on a sphere.

143 posted on 07/23/2007 5:47:31 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

So when did the eating of pork cease to be a health issue? or any of the other unclean foods, for that matter?

Perhaps we should have a poll among freepers to determine how many are psychologically disturbed or have committed adultery as a result of having sexual experience before marriage.


144 posted on 07/23/2007 5:52:37 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
do I gots tro spend rest of night searchign out passages that should be common sense to folks?

You don't have to do anything. I was merely interested in your assertion that morality was based on utility rather than obedience to God's law.

145 posted on 07/23/2007 5:58:41 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
Since you're hot and heavy ot reject God at any cost- even unto misinterpretting His word, what I'm about ot say won't of course amount to a piss-hole in the snow, but: [[God good to all, or just a few? PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.]] He IS good to all- He gave His own life for EVERYONE, and offers EVERYONE free will. The fact is however that there are many people and cultures that totally reject Him and must be righteously judged- He gave fair enough warning- any more questions? [[EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.]] He is the God of peace to all who believe and obey Him. His word is very clear on that throughout and should, had you bothered to actually study His word reverently, instead of scouring His word for supposed contradictions taken out of context with which to cement your hatred against Him and His people, you'd have udnerstood that. [[Who is the father of Joseph? MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.]] Again, in your lust to malign God, you overlook soem very important points- but alas- anythign will do with wich to demean, eh? "Which was the son of Eli; meaning, not that Joseph was the son of Eli; for he was the son of Jacob, according to Mat_1:16, but Jesus was the son of Eli; and which must be understood, and carried through the whole genealogy, as thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi, &c. till you come to Jesus the son of Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell (b) us of one, "that saw, מרים בת עלי, "Mary the daughter of Eli" in the shades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere (c), the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear.'' By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant: however, this we gain by it, that by their own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews (d), that "the family of the mother is not called a family.'' [[Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it: MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.]] Eeeeek- John neglected to mention the others that were with Mary? Stop the presses!!! [[Is Jesus equal to or lesser than? JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one. JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.]] A simple understanding of the Triune God would clear this up for you, but I'm sure you're much too busy finding other suppsoed contradictions with which to skewer God's peopel with- well done thou good and faithful servant of the depths
146 posted on 07/23/2007 6:04:02 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Since you’re hot and heavy ot reject God at any cost- even unto misinterpretting His word, what I’m about ot say won’t of course amount to a piss-hole in the snow, but:

[[God good to all, or just a few? PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.]]

He IS good to all- He gave His own life for EVERYONE, and offers EVERYONE free will. The fact is however that there are many people and cultures that totally reject Him and must be righteously judged- He gave fair enough warning- any more questions?

[[EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.]]

He is the God of peace to all who believe and obey Him. His word is very clear on that throughout and should, had you bothered to actually study His word reverently, instead of scouring His word for supposed contradictions taken out of context with which to cement your hatred against Him and His people, you’d have udnerstood that.

[[Who is the father of Joseph? MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.]]

Again, in your lust to malign God, you overlook soem very important points- but alas- anythign will do with wich to demean, eh?

“Which was the son of Eli; meaning, not that Joseph was the son of Eli; for he was the son of Jacob, according to Mat_1:16, but Jesus was the son of Eli; and which must be understood, and carried through the whole genealogy, as thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi, till you come to Jesus the son of Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell (b) us of one, “that saw, “Mary the daughter of Eli” in the shades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere (c), the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear.’’ By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant: however, this we gain by it, that by their own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews (d), that “the family of the mother is not called a family.’’

[[Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it: MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.]]

Eeeeek- John neglected to mention the others that were with Mary? Stop the presses!!!

[[Is Jesus equal to or lesser than? JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one. JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.]]

A simple understanding of the Triune God would clear this up for you, but I’m sure you’re much too busy finding other suppsoed contradictions with which to skewer God’s peopel with- well done thou good and faithful servant of the depths


147 posted on 07/23/2007 6:07:33 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Golly Gee Wiz Paw... do I gots tro spend rest of night searchign out passages that should be common sense to folks

You have an odd concept of common sense. Common sense dictates to me that the previous posts I logged that present some of the many contradictions in the Bible would give any rational person cause to examine the assertion of it being divinely-inspired very carefully. With an obvious conclusion...as a truly onmiscient and omnipotent God would certainly have worded it in a way that would not contradict itself.


148 posted on 07/23/2007 6:08:36 PM PDT by Locke_2007 (Liberals are non-sentient life forms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: js1138

[[You don’t have to do anything.]]

Actrually yeah I do have better things to do than to answer some of the incredulous silly questions of others- (yours wasn’tr that bad a question- but soem of hte others are) So Adue


149 posted on 07/23/2007 6:09:18 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Quoting contradictory scripture at me is not a rational answer. And I did not misquote anything. You are using the old argument that we cannot judge God’s intentions because we are not intelligent enough to understand him. This leads us into another logical contradiction - why would God create a flawed creation with the full foreknowledge that we woudl fail to understand him? And create a Hell to punish us with an eternity of torment for only a lifetime of sin? How cruel is that? (Not to mention incompetent)


150 posted on 07/23/2007 6:14:55 PM PDT by Locke_2007 (Liberals are non-sentient life forms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007

Actrually yeah I do have better things to do than to answer some of the incredulous silly questions of others- (yours wasn’tr that bad a question- but soem of hte others are) So Adue

I guess he gave up. I’m still waiting to hear why they aren’t contradictions. Guess I’ve got a long wait...


151 posted on 07/23/2007 6:16:45 PM PDT by Locke_2007 (Liberals are non-sentient life forms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
Send me the information regarding your comment please. Also, I have never heard any reputable scholar saying they know the exact datesof any Biblical event.

The date of the global flood:

2252 BC -- layevangelism.com

2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).

2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.

2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com

2500 BC -- http://www.nwcreation.net/biblechrono.html

2522 BC -- Dr. Gerhard Hasel

2978-3128 BC -- http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199605/0162.html

3300 BC -- http://www.biblediscoveries.com/flood1.html

3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999)

The data concerning the lack of a global flood at this date comes from archaeology, sedimentology, and a host of other disciplines. As far as I am aware, no scientific discipline has found any significant evidence for a flood at this time.

I do archaeology, and I have studied many archaeological sites which cross-cut this time with a continuity of culture, mtDNA, fauna and flora, stratigraphy, etc. None of these would be possible with a global flood at this time.

152 posted on 07/23/2007 6:21:13 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

You do know that “continuity” was put there to test your faith.

;-)


153 posted on 07/23/2007 6:58:32 PM PDT by mgstarr (KZ-6090 Smith W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

It’s kind of fun to read about people trying to sort out a fallacy.


154 posted on 07/23/2007 7:02:36 PM PDT by GretchenM (What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Please meet my friend, Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coincheck
IF evolution is a FACT why is it still called a THEORY (not yelling:)) and why have NO “missing links” been found, why did Mr Darwin say that the eye gave him the most trouble about his theory?

Three questions:

1) Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is the change in genomes from generation to generation. Fact. Evolution is also the theory of evolution, a theoretic construct designed to explain the millions of facts involved in change in the genome from generation to generation over hundreds of millions of years.

2) "Missing link" is a newspaper term, not a scientific term. The nearest equivalent is "transitional." Lots of those have been found. Here is a link: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

3) Why did Darwin say the eye was a problem? That was 150 years ago. Don't you think we have learned anything since then? The eye is no longer a problem.


why have we not found in the fossle [sic] record evidence of the very beginnings of life? surely they would be there.

Maybe, maybe not. In either case, that's not my field.


why have we not found fossle [sic] evidence of animals, plants, and fish evolving into their current form? but we have found just the opposite, animals and plants in unalterable form

Not my field, but as I recall, the biologists have a pretty good record of evolution. It convinces scientists. Nothing will convince those who, for religious reasons, will not accept any scientific evidence.

I have studied human evolution, and there is a pretty good track on how humans got to their present form. There are still a lot of details to be worked out, but the overall picture is becoming pretty clear.


why are we not seeing the continuation of this evolution today, what has stopped this evoutionary cycle? and don’t say that is is a v-e-r-y slow cycle.

What makes you think it has stopped? Our culture may be altering the normal progression of things, but there are still a lot of opportunities for change in the genome. HIV is one. Malaria is another. How about the third molars--what are they doing? This is a very detailed question and I simply don't have much time right now.


why no archeological evidence of the “nutrient rich broth” that started the whole evolutionary cycle? again, we should have at least found some trace of this somewhere

The atmosphere has changed. We are now oxygen-rich. It was not always so. Could this make a difference?


why is it that when anyone challenges the theory of evolution they are automatically thought of as having the IQ of either their shoe size or a rock and not able to understand the scientific method, therefore they are not able to be trusted in anything they say?

Most folks who challenge the theory of evolution have no understanding of the theory. They have never actually studied it. They get their talking points from religious sources who are opposed to the theory on religious grounds.

They come to these threads with "its just a theory" and "evolution is impossible because of the second law of thermodynamics." One poster a couple of years back even referred to the "second law of thermal documents."

What do you think scientists should do when confronted with such gross ignorance? Award it a Nobel Prize? We laugh at it! Gross ignorance if this kind is not scientific data and deserves the laughter it gets.


I understand how science developes their theorys and how they test them, science is either directly or indirectly responsible for the advances we have made over the past years. Without science we would still be using wood to heat and light out homes and cook our food. we would also still be dieing of tooth infections or appendecitis.

I am not stupid, I do understand how science works, what I do not understand is that when NO evidence has been found to support this theory and when a theory leaves many many more questions(simple and complex) than it is able to answer since its inception and yet it is still is clung to as “truth” this is where I have a problem.

You are absolutely incorrect when you say "NO evidence has been found to support this theory." I have actually studied evolution (six years in grad school), so I have an informed opinion on this topic. What is the source of your information? A creationist website?

And as for evolution, or any other scientific theory claiming to be "truth" or TRVTH" -- that is simply false. On my FR homepage I have a lot of definitions of terms as used by scientists. Here is the definition of "truth":

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.

That is all I have time for at the moment.
155 posted on 07/23/2007 7:20:50 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: mgstarr

Landru...

156 posted on 07/23/2007 7:37:50 PM PDT by mgstarr (KZ-6090 Smith W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007

Your complete misrepresentation of religious people, Christians in particular is a complete sham and degrading. No one I know looks at the clouds and see’s angels. Give me a break, do you think we are all so foolish and infantile? I have had many people talk to me patronizingly, but your continued comments take the cake. I know so many people with so many different degrees, not from Christian Schools, who believe in Christ; your attempt to paint us as ignorant fools is almost laughable, if it wasn’t sad. Please spend some time redirecting your life, you won’t be sorry.


157 posted on 07/23/2007 9:07:11 PM PDT by vpintheak (Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked. Prov. 25:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007

it’s all illogical locke- you’re much much smarter than God and Christians- there’s simply no logic to be had- everythign can be explained away- and nothign makes sense- Run away- Run as far far away from the illogic as you can- don’t stop until you hit the county line, and don’t look back- Run like the devil Himself is after you. fter all, 1 billion people who are christians must all be morons- don’t take any of hteir words for the fact that God has a personal relationship with His Children and that He enlightens us through the Holy Spirit, and teaches us in a personal way- it’s all just baloney Locke- Run Run Run- We’re all lying ot you- It’s a giant conspiracy to ‘trick the masses’ into somthing absolutely horrible- peace- and by golly we’re all out to git ya. And while you’re running, keep chanting to yourself so’s as to drown out that still small voice that you try to stifle by arguing so vehemently against Christians- that still small voice that tells you that there might actually be somethign to this ‘Christian thing’- yup- just ignore it- it’s all one giant honkin big conspiracy muahahahaha!!!


158 posted on 07/23/2007 10:12:40 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; coincheck

[[What is the source of your information? A creationist website?]]

What wqas your source of info? DogmaTIC bias? Why yes, I do believe it was- but thanks for being snide about ‘creationist websites’. Apparently, in your mind, when creatiuonist websites point out hte PROBLEMS with eovlution- of which there are many, and they are serious problems, not some obscure moot points, you feel the info can be safely dismissed because they ainty gots the degree you do, and when they do have degrees, and better degrees at that, another wave of the gigantic dismissal hand is all it takes apparently to dismiss the evidence

Coincheck- whe3n you’re doen reading the garbage that Coyote posted on the suppsoed ‘29 evidneces for Macroevolution’ Take a wander over to this ... gasp ... ‘creationist website’ that rips the talkorigin’s points to shreds and tells you the actual truth instead

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

and

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp


159 posted on 07/23/2007 10:23:11 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

[[Most folks who challenge the theory of evolution have no understanding of the theory.]]

Yes, no understanding at all. You see, in order to understand it, you must assume, and must assume big time- You must assume that all life came from a single source, that everythign is related and that the biologically impossible is possible. You must also assume that the lack of evidences aren’t really a big deal, and that any copunter-evidences can be explained away ‘sometime in the future’

[[I have studied human evolution, and there is a pretty good track on how humans got to their present form. There are still a lot of details to be worked out, but the overall picture is becoming pretty clear.]]

‘A lot of details’ Like hte fact that there is no evidence for macroevolution, liek the fact that there are billions of gentic differences between apes and man, liek the fact that if life didn’;t get it’s start from God, then it began an absolutely impossible journey from non life- but by golly, we’re getting closer to overcoming those impossibilities.

[[Evolution is also the theory of evolution, a theoretic construct designed to explain the millions of facts involved in change in the genome from generation to generation over hundreds of millions of years.]]

When do ya suppose they’re goign to start on that explaining bit?

[[Not my field, but as I recall, the biologists have a pretty good record of evolution. It convinces scientists]]

Yup- they crossed that impossible chasm of biological barriers way ba... oh wait- no they didn’t- The evidence convinces them? Which evidence? the missing evidence for macroevolution?

[[What do you think scientists should do when confronted with such gross ignorance?]]

They expound on it and call it a ‘well documented theory of evolution’ when infact it isn’t- I thought you knew that?


160 posted on 07/23/2007 10:32:31 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-265 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