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

Skip to comments.

A bone to pick: Missing link is evolutionists' weakest
Houston Chronical via WorldNetDaily ^ | July 26 | Jeff Farmer

Posted on 07/29/2002 6:35:04 PM PDT by Tribune7

Printer-friendly format July 26, 2002, 6:11PM

A bone to pick: Missing link is evolutionists' weakest By JEFF FARMER

It has been said that if anyone wants to see something badly enough, they can see anything, in anything. Such was the case recently, but unlike some ghostly visage of the Madonna in a coffee stain, this was a vision of our ancestral past in the form of one recently discovered prehistoric skull, dubbed Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

Papers across the globe heralded the news with great fanfare. With words like "scientists hailed" and "startling find" sprinkled into the news coverage, who couldn't help but think evolutionists had finally found their holy grail of missing links?

For those of us with more than a passing interest in such topics as, "Where did we come from? And how did we get here?," this recent discovery and its subsequent coverage fall far short of its lofty claims. A healthy criticism is in order.

Practically before the fossil's discoverer, the French paleoanthropologist Michel Brunet, could come out of the heat of a Chadian desert, a number of his evolutionary colleagues had questioned his conclusions.

In spite of the obvious national pride, Brigitte Senut of the Natural History of Paris sees Brunet's skull as probably that of an ancient female gorilla and not the head of man's earliest ancestor. While looking at the same evidence, such as the skull's flattened face and shorter canine teeth, she draws a completely different conclusion.

Of course, one might be inclined to ask why such critiques never seem to get the same front-page coverage? It's also important to point out that throughout history, various species, such as cats, have had varying lengths of canine teeth. That does not make them any closer to evolving into another species.

A Washington Post article goes on to describe this latest fossil as having human-like traits, such as tooth enamel thicker than a chimpanzee's. This apparently indicates that it did not dine exclusively on the fruit diet common to apes. But apes don't dine exclusively on fruit; rather, their diet is supplemented with insects, birds, lizards and even the flesh of monkeys. The article attempted to further link this fossil to humans by stating that it probably walked upright. Never mind the fact that no bones were found below the head! For all we know, it could have had the body of a centaur, but that would hardly stop an overzealous scientist (or reporter) from trying to add a little meat to these skimpy bones. Could it not simply be a primate similar to today's Bonobo? For those not keeping track of their primates, Bonobos (sp. Pan paniscus) are chimpanzee-like creatures found only in the rain forests of Zaire. Their frame is slighter than that of a chimpanzee's and their face does not protrude as much. They also walked upright about 5 percent of the time. Sound familiar?

Whether it is tooth enamel, length of canines or the ability to walk upright, none of these factors makes this recent discovery any more our ancestral candidate than it does a modern-day Bonobo.

So why does every new fossil discovery seem to get crammed into some evolutionary scenario? Isn't it possible to simply find new, yet extinct, species? The answer, of course, is yes; but there is great pressure to prove evolution.

That leads us to perhaps the most troubling and perplexing aspect of this latest evolutionary hoopla. While on one hand sighting the evolutionary importance of this latest discovery, a preponderance of these articles leave the notion that somehow missing links are not all that important any more.

According to Harvard anthropologist Dan Lieberman, missing links are pretty much myths. That might be a convenient conclusion for those who have been unable to prove evolution via the fossil record. Unfortunately for them, links are absolutely essential to evolution. It is impossible for anything to evolve into another without a linear progression of these such links.

The prevailing evolutionary view of minute changes, over millions of years, is wholly inadequate for the explanation of such a critical piece of basic locomotion as the ball-and-socket joint. Until such questions can be resolved, superficial similarities between various species are not going to prove anything. No matter how bad someone wants to see it.

Farmer is a professional artist living in Houston. He can can be contacted via his Web site, www.theglobalzoo.com


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: bone; crevolist; darwinism; evolution; farmer; mediahype; sahelanthropus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 1,251-1,265 next last
To: AnnaZ
What you do, and post, is awesome. There are many, many people that want to know that their faith in Creation is not purely ethereal, that there is Reason to it.

Sweetie, medved is not a creationist as most people define the term. He believes that the Earth once orbited Saturn and that humanity is the result of some sort of genetic tinkering by a person or persons unknown. His "theories" have earned him quite a reputation throughout the world wide web -- there are entire websites devoted to him.

151 posted on 07/30/2002 6:03:24 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Rational discourse...more like a EVO fruit fly--flea circus/zoo you're running---around here!

Changing--morphing words-meaning-reality...

the TRUTH/science via your 'logic-reason' to your fantasy-bias world-bs/IDEOLOGY---LIBERALISM/EVOLUTION is called psychosis!

152 posted on 07/30/2002 6:07:14 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
That was an excellent link - I'll have to keep the term handy now.

These threads are casebook studies for "Morton's Demon Syndrome."

153 posted on 07/30/2002 6:07:48 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Junior
His "theories" have earned him quite a reputation throughout the world wide web -- there are entire websites devoted to him.

Here's the latest I've found: Debating Creationists: Ted Holden .

154 posted on 07/30/2002 6:09:06 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Gladwin
Due to walking upright, the attachment points for muscles on the skull are different for humans compared to chimpanzees.

I think it's the other way around. Unless you're a LaMarkian of course.

155 posted on 07/30/2002 6:10:06 PM PDT by gitmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Actually, there should be no assumption at all where we don't know the explanation. Nothing is lost by waiting while the answers are gleaned,and a naturalistic explanation is the likely outcome anyway.

Since I don't personally know of one good solid documented supernatural event, you'll excuse me if I assume until one comes along that whatever may be lacking in the explanation for a thing, it's probably not a violation of the laws of physics.

156 posted on 07/30/2002 6:12:52 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
These threads are casebook studies for "Morton's Demon Syndrome."

I believe you are correct. Most people find nothing to "debate" and the remainder are ill-equipped to discuss the matter at all. That tends to leave the Creationist side of the discussion to the invincibly ignorant (Gore3000), the fantasists (medved), or the deliberately uncommunicative (f.christian). The random post insertion by the remainder are mostly just to state that they are here and not going to be persuaded from their religious views - although why they insist in mixing their faith with science I couldn't say.

157 posted on 07/30/2002 6:18:07 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
To unerstand reality---you are so far removed...

You need a translator---designated thinker/guide(inner child)!

Go to the beach and toss stones in the ocean!

158 posted on 07/30/2002 6:23:28 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
. . . the invincibly ignorant (Gore3000), the fantasists (medved), or the deliberately uncommunicative (f.christian).

BWAHAHAHA!

159 posted on 07/30/2002 6:23:37 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

So, to continue, do you, because of your faith, reject out of hand the further idea that God could have created us through the mechanism of evolution? (Which appears to be the subject of this thread).

I believe micro-evolution to be scientific and rational. I believe macro-evolution to be a fraud as a science, and a danger as a belief. I don't reject that God could have created us through the mechanism of evolution, I think God could have done anything. I just don't see his NEED to. I.e. a hummingbird made "poof" by a word, or generated over time, is still a miraculous creation that requires SOMETHING INTELLIGENT at it's origin. (I feel the same way about mangoes and a host of other wonder-ful things.)

 

Or, tenatively going a step further, that God placed the fossils in the ground to play a joke on us?

But even in a mere 6000 years a lot of things have died. Why shouldn't there be fossils? There haven't been any non-embellished "missing links" found however, never mind the bazillions of fossils there should be were macro-evolution true.

 

That the light we see in our telescopes was created some 6000 years ago to fool us into believing in an old universe?

Besides the theory that the speed of light is slowing down, just because that's the speed of light, it doesn't mean they didn't just come on one day. I think our minds are relatively puny in the scope of the size of the Universe, and I honestly lose less than little sleep on these questions.

A lot of speculation is out there over even the exact nature of our Universe. There's the big ball theory, the mirror theory... personally it's as important to me as the circumference of a bowl. I'm more interested in how I fit into that Universe, how I obey all it's laws... especially the ones I can have control over, the "love your neighbor" one comes to mind.

Feel free to jump in and agree or disagree with anything you find particularly heartwarming or objectionable. Be warned that we often have to deal with the bizarre postings of medved, Gore3000, and f.Christian and so are not likely to be dissuaded from our views without strong evidence and extensive rational discourse. ;^)

EVOLUTION=DEATH---!---Evolution is a tool of THE ENEMY!!! Be his ADVERSARIES!---OR---be his VICTIMS---!!!

(But only because you suggested it.)

However, my preferred last words on the subject?

 

He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.
He wraps up the waters in his clouds,
yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.
He covers the face of the full moon,
spreading his clouds over it.
The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke.
And these are but the outer fringe of his works;
how faint the whisper we hear of him!
Who then can understand the thunder of his power?

Job 26:7-9,11,14

160 posted on 07/30/2002 6:36:01 PM PDT by AnnaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
The question was “Form molecules From Scratch?” - meaning matter from nothing.

When I used to sometimes make bread from scratch, I didn't start with nothing.

Darwin’s theory has given us some insight to natural selection (survival of the fittest), but the conclusion that he draws, I believe, is wrong.

The evidence is incredibly stronger now for his theory than when he published in 1859. Your "belief" on the subject is being steered by some sort of outside influence.

I see adaptation as a quality of a robust design.

Does something stop the adapations from accumulating forever? What is it? Why does it look over and over in so many different ways like amphibians came from fish and reptiles came from amphibians and mammals and birds came from reptiles over a lot of time?

I do not believe in common descent – “soup to man”. This does not mean that I am not open to the theory though (or any theory for that matter).

"Does not mean that you are not open?" This is getting silly. Maybe the sentence that precedes that one isn't conclusive proof, but you're not at all open to the idea of evolution.

What would make you think that I would want to move into a cave and throw out my computer? (not rhetorical)

It's made with mechanistic Godless materialist science. It works without prayer, unless you have certain Microsoft products installed.

161 posted on 07/30/2002 6:43:32 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
I think it's the other way around. Unless you're a LaMarkian of course.

How did you know that I cut off mouse tails? And then breed the tailless mice?

162 posted on 07/30/2002 6:56:48 PM PDT by Gladwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
From Hans Thewissen's site:

Now these diagrams explain the essence of the differences between the three competing hypotheses for cetacean relations. The new pakicetid data indicate that the third branching diagram, the artiodactyl hypothesis, describes the relationships of cetaceans best.
That's one line of evidence. The molecular line of evidence still points overall to hippos as being closer to cetaceans than any other artiodactyls. Unless, that is, gore3000 is right and the molecular evidence proves just the opposite. (That is, hippos are unrelated to cetaceans.) However, he seems to have lost his source for that one.
163 posted on 07/30/2002 6:58:16 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
”So, to continue, do you, because of your faith, reject out of hand the further idea that God could have created us through the mechanism of evolution? (Which appears to be the subject of this thread).”

If I could jump in – even though the question was not addressed to me: my faith does not cause me to reject out of hand the possibility that God used an evolutionary mechanism to create the creatures that now inhabit the world. I just find the claims of evolution as an explanation for the world that we know unpersuasive.

To use the skull as the initiation of this thread as an example, the assumptions that are made, based on the fragment that was found as the explanation for a whole new cosmology is patently ridiculous. We are dealing with the planes of the skull’s bones, the thickness of tooth enamel, and the length of canine teeth here. We have not come across an ancient erector set with assembly instructions. But on this slim “evidence” “evolutionists” are ready to completely revise their previous explanations of how we got here.

The difference between die-hard evolutionist and me is that I do not need evolution to explain my role in the universe. That allows me to look at fragments of bone without requiring them to have sacramental qualities and the answer to the riddle of my being.

”Or, tenatively going a step further, that God placed the fossils in the ground to play a joke on us? That the light we see in our telescopes was created some 6000 years ago to fool us into believing in an old universe?”

Well, I do not expect to have the answer to that in my lifetime, or yours. I suspect that man will be debating the creation of the universe until the end of time. But to me those are interesting but not ultimately critical questions. I am willing to accept a hypothesis that God created the universe by an exercise of will, and has a plan for that universe and everything in it. Meanwhile, others can theorize to their hearts content, each theory “destroying” the previous answer to everything.

”Feel free to jump in and agree or disagree with anything you find particularly heartwarming or objectionable. Be warned that we often have to deal with the bizarre postings of medved, Gore3000, and f.Christian and so are not likely to be dissuaded from our views without strong evidence and extensive rational discourse. ;^)”

I hope that rational discourse can persuade some. Others use this topic as an outlet for aggression or retribution for past hurts. Those, only the spirit of God can persuade.

Peace.

164 posted on 07/30/2002 6:58:17 PM PDT by moneyrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
http://users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/FAQ.html

New creationology link for you (I am assuming you haven't seen it before)
165 posted on 07/30/2002 6:59:21 PM PDT by Gladwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Gladwin
Not that I support anything in that link, mind you.
166 posted on 07/30/2002 7:01:46 PM PDT by Gladwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Gladwin
No, that's a new one. At least she's pretty.
167 posted on 07/30/2002 7:04:56 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Gladwin
LOL!
168 posted on 07/30/2002 7:05:37 PM PDT by gitmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ
But even in a mere 6000 years a lot of things have died. Why shouldn't there be fossils? There haven't been any non-embellished "missing links" found however, never mind the bazillions of fossils there should be were macro-evolution true.

No one has ever observed bones being fossilized into mineral formations even for bones buried thousands of years old. Trillions of living things have walked, slithered, and oozed across this world - clearly, the conditions for fossils to form are extremely rare and yet, we dig up more every year. Perhaps, someday we'll dig up the last one you require to recognize their age and importance.

me: That the light we see in our telescopes was created some 6000 years ago to fool us into believing in an old universe?

youu: Besides the theory that the speed of light is slowing down, just because that's the speed of light, it doesn't mean they didn't just come on one day.

Sorry, no such scientific theory exists - that's a Creationist myth to explain what they refuse to recognize.

I think our minds are relatively puny in the scope of the size of the Universe, and I honestly lose less than little sleep on these questions.

Then why come here and post your scripture to a scientific discussion?

169 posted on 07/30/2002 7:07:15 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Gladwin
Bad, bad, bad.

You Figure It Out!

170 posted on 07/30/2002 7:10:48 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
That tends to leave the Creationist side of the discussion to the invincibly ignorant (Gore3000),

Yup, you cannot avoid insulting me even when I have not posted a single word on this thread. Funny that a 'genius' such as yourself and your gang of evolutionists can never contradict the facts the 'idiots' who oppose you post. Here, for your intellectual nourishment and to show that the bones which you and your fellow evos proclaim is the strongest evidence for your stupid theory is just absolute bull duty, I dedicate the following example of the 'science' of paleontology to you:

THE DINOSAUR AND THE TURKEY SANDWICH

On the second day of the symposium, William Garstka reported that he and a team of molecular biologists from Alabama had extracted DNA from the fossil bones of a 65-million-year-old dinosaur. Although DNA from other studies suggests that DNA older than about a million years cannot yield any useful sequence information, Garstka and his colleagues amplified and sequenced the DNA. compared, it with known DNA from other animals, and found that it was most similar to bird DNA . They concluded that they had found "the first direct genetic evidence to indicate that birds represent the closest living relatives of the dinosaurs". Their conclusion was reported the following week by Constance Holden in Science.

The details of the discovery, however, are revealing. First the dinosaur from which Garstka and his colleagues allegedly recovered the DNA was Triceratops. According to paleontologists there are two main branches in the dinosaur family tree. One branch included the three-horned rhinoceros-like Triceratops which millions of people have seen in museum exhibits and movies. But birds are thought to have evolved from the other branch. So according to evolutionary biologists, Triceratops and modern birds are not closely related, their ancestors having gone thier separate ways almost 250 million years ago.

Even more revealing, however, was that the DNA Garstka and his colleagues found was 100 percent identical to the DNA of living turkeys.. Not 99 percent, not 99.9 percent, but 100 percent. Not even DNA obtained from other birds is 100 percent identical to turkey DNA (the next closest match in their study was 94.5 percent with another species of bird). In other words, the DNA that had supposedly been extracted from the Triceratops bone was not just similar to turkey DNA - it was turkey DNA. Gartska said he and his colleagues considered the possibility that someone had been eating a turkey sandwich nearby, but they were unable to confirm that.
FROM: Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, page 130, 131.

Just comes to show the professionalism and dedication of paleontologists! And remember, your tax dollars paid for this wonderful discovery!

171 posted on 07/30/2002 7:13:04 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Blue-skipping placemarker.
172 posted on 07/30/2002 7:16:21 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
I just find the claims of evolution as an explanation for the world that we know unpersuasive.

I make no claims about the creation of the universe or the rules of physics that we see interacting all about us. But, how about the lifeforms that exist now versus what existed 100 million years ago and the relationships that the fossil record reveals to us?

As for the skull, how many facts are evident to an expert from just a skull? Have you never seen experts reconstruct the face of a murder victim from just a skull? I have no difficulty understanding just how much a skull can tell us, how much it's age will tell us about the hominid family tree, and what it reveals about the prehistory of our world. If I studied to become an expert (as I am on other subjects), I am sure it would tell me even more than what is intuitively obvious and so I am predisposed to value the opinion of such experts.

173 posted on 07/30/2002 7:17:33 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: medved
GREAT POST!

I saved these from last year, I think. I don't know what is in it and what is in yours, but it's the only one of my FR evolution links that survived!

The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource v. 5.0

174 posted on 07/30/2002 7:18:46 PM PDT by PetiteMericco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ
EVOLUTION=DEATH--

So very true in so many ways. It has been used as an excuse for eugenics. It has been used as an excuse for racism. It has been used as an excuse for killing tens of millions of people. More than that though, the whole process by which evolution supposedly works - natural selection - is by death, the killing of those who are supposedly 'unfit' so that the species will be cleansed of 'defects'. Interestingly also, the evolutionists also cite as the proof of the methods by which species supposedly 'progress' as the mutations which result in great harm to the organism. It is a totally backwards ideology, totally the reverse of what life is really about.

175 posted on 07/30/2002 7:20:03 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: PetiteMericco
It's been updated: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 18].
176 posted on 07/30/2002 7:20:41 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: balrog666; AnnaZ
”Then why come here and post your scripture to a scientific discussion?”

Why must you insult your correspondents this way? Threads of this type are not scientific discussions. They are philosophical discussions (when they are civil). I venture to say that none of the people on this thread are “professionals” on this subject. That’s evident from the level of the discourse and the “evidence” presented. Otherwise they are spitting contests with evolutionists calling their opponents names.

In view of your screen name, are you aware that J.R.R. Tolkien was a very devout Christian?

177 posted on 07/30/2002 7:23:20 PM PDT by moneyrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: gore3000; All
Yup, you cannot avoid insulting me even when I have not posted a single word on this thread

Not an insult, a description for the uninitiated. And I stand behind my words.

Tell me, Gore-boy, have you every admitted that you have made a mistake on any of these threads? Have you ever admitted that you could ever be wrong on any subject? Have you ever added to a thread without using the words "liar", "idiot", or "dishonest"? In fact, has it ever been worth anything to anybody to discuss anything with you?

I leave you to ponder the obvious.

Good night all.

178 posted on 07/30/2002 7:26:35 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
The evidence is incredibly stronger now for his theory than when he published in 1859.

Absolute unmitigated garbage. Just the kind of totally baseless bluff which evolutionists constantly make. Science has totally disproven evolution. In fact every single major scientific discovery since Darwin's unscientific book came out has tended to disprove evolution:
1. Mendellian genetics proved that the passing on of new mutations, new genes, new traits, is virtually impossible.
2. DNA proved that the creation of a new gene is a virtual impossibility to occur even once, a total impossibility to have occurred the hundreds of thousands of times which evolutionary theory demands.
3. The sequencing of the human genome has shown quite well that Darwin's opponents, who insisted that an organism was so complex, so totally interrelated that it had to have been intelligently designed, were totally correct and that such organization and such interrelatedness make gradual evolution totally impossible.

179 posted on 07/30/2002 7:27:07 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
No one has ever observed bones being fossilized into mineral formations even for bones buried thousands of years old. Trillions of living things have walked, slithered, and oozed across this world - clearly, the conditions for fossils to form are extremely rare and yet, we dig up more every year. Perhaps, someday we'll dig up the last one you require to recognize their age and importance.

Bones can never prove evolution and here's why: in spite of all the dinosaur bones we have collected, paleontologists cannot provide a single piece of evidence that the skin of the dinosaurs was not purple like Barney's. When bones provide so little evidence of what a species was about, they clearly cannot show the gradual development of one from another.

180 posted on 07/30/2002 7:32:57 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
there's Naturalism, the Method, and Naturalism, the Philosophy. The first simply uses physical techniques to investigate the real world; it's the only effective way. The other is a doctrine which says that natural physical causes are all that exist and all that are needed to explain the world. Many scientists reject the second even as they employ the first. Luddites who despise science for contradicting their creation myth attack the first for being the second.

No, evolution clearly falls into the second category. Various evolutionists have asserted that creationism is a priori unacceptable because it means there's a supreme being. In other words it must automatically be rejected, regardless of scientific problems with evolution and regardless of any scientifically based creationist arguments. Scientific creationism uses naturalism the Method just as much as evolution does.

181 posted on 07/30/2002 7:33:50 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
All right - one more post.

Why must you insult your correspondents this way?

Is that an insult? I did't think so. I just think such posts add nothing to the discussion. If she had posted quotations from the Koran or the Upanishads or Homer's Odyssey would it have meant any more or less?

Threads of this type are not scientific discussions. They are philosophical discussions (when they are civil). I venture to say that none of the people on this thread are “professionals” on this subject. That’s evident from the level of the discourse and the “evidence” presented.

I would tend to agree with that. Are we in fact arguing about the evidence?

Otherwise they are spitting contests with evolutionists calling their opponents names.

What "names" have I used to describe anyone but the three I mentioned? Have I insulted you?

In view of your screen name, are you aware that J.R.R. Tolkien was a very devout Christian?

Well "hurrah" for him if he thought it necessary. But, ont he other hand, why would you believe that I am not?

182 posted on 07/30/2002 7:35:10 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
When I used to sometimes make bread from scratch, I didn't start with nothing.

A recipe maybe? (rhetorical)
My original question:
“Can we reproduce the Big Bang… Create time… Form molecules from scratch?”

So you took one part out of context, added the naturalist yeast and made bread? (again – rhetorical) Look, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt the first time but… you didn’t make bread – you just pinched a loaf.

The evidence is incredibly stronger now for his theory than when he published in 1859. Your "belief" on the subject is being steered by some sort of outside influence.

Really? Darwin believed cells were just globs of matter. We now know that they contain DNA, a highly information based system. Ooops.

He spent a little over a month on the Galapagos Islands and a majority of his time breeding pigeons. I do not believe this man intended to pigeon hole science, or have his naturalistic 150 year old theory become a religion.

Does something stop the adapations from accumulating forever? What is it? Why does it look over and over in so many different ways like amphibians came from fish and reptiles came from amphibians and mammals and birds came from reptiles over a lot of time?

The genome. Get a group of guys together jumping out of trees and waving their arms. We’ll get back together in a million or so years to discuss your results. That’s if these men are able to find a mate.

"Does not mean that you are not open?" This is getting silly. Maybe the sentence that precedes that one isn't conclusive proof, but you're not at all open to the idea of evolution.

No, this does not mean I am not open. Yes, this is getting silly. Maybe you can entice the guys with beer and they will be willing to jump and flap.

It's made with mechanistic Godless materialist science. It works without prayer, unless you have certain Microsoft products installed

Since I believe intelligence came from intelligence – I can only assume that you are referring to the loaf you pinched earlier.
Life comes with Intel Inside:)

Now if you will excuse me – I am in the process of designing something. ( I can only hope you understand)

183 posted on 07/30/2002 7:35:36 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
”As for the skull, how many facts are evident to an expert from just a skull?”

First of all “experts” appear to disagree on the humanity of the previous inhabitant of the skull.

” Have you never seen experts reconstruct the face of a murder victim from just a skull?”

Yes I have. The sketch artists all begin with the assumption that the skull is human. From that they can sometimes re-create an image that may or may not look like the original. But we can be sure that the artists will end up drawing a human face.

” I have no difficulty understanding just how much a skull can tell us, how much it's age will tell us about the hominid family tree, and what it reveals about the prehistory of our world. If I studied to become an expert (as I am on other subjects), I am sure it would tell me even more than what is intuitively obvious and so I am predisposed to value the opinion of such experts.”

As someone who is not committed to evolution, I can take a more dispassionate approach to this find. First, I have to be persuaded that the skull is human as opposed to ape. Second, if human, I would have to be shown that this represents an evolutionary link. Third, I would like to see more than a single example of this link. Even you would not claim that evolution of a species went through single individuals.

For people who haven an emotional attachment to evolution, singularities may not be a problem. For me, they are.

Good night.

184 posted on 07/30/2002 7:35:44 PM PDT by moneyrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Not an insult, a description for the uninitiated. And I stand behind my words.

You have yet to prove me wrong on anything. You slime because I constantly refute all the stupid evolutionist arguments made on these threads. I have yet to see a post from you in which you post any evidence for evolution, let alone a refutation of anything said against it. All you do on these threads is insult. Goodbye loser.

185 posted on 07/30/2002 7:37:17 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Placemarker (turning in for the evening).
186 posted on 07/30/2002 7:40:16 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Yeah yeah, yeah, I know… furry carnivorous mammals jumped into the water and started turning into whales – here is a chart that proves it… see the pretty pictures.

Vade, seriously, as a friend – do not watch infomercials or QVC.

Actually, I saw your website – get the BowFlex man!

187 posted on 07/30/2002 7:54:24 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"Old universe, old earth, no global flood ever, inconsistencies in the Genesis story, pi not being 3, the earth not being flat or the center of the universe . . ."

Yawn. All addressed at various places on the internet. Please do use your computer wisely for self-education.

188 posted on 07/30/2002 7:55:04 PM PDT by PetiteMericco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"It's an integral part of the delusional system: No one can tell you that you are not following the evidence, that your belief system is irrational. "

Hm, is this the beginning of VR's understanding that telling someone something (i.e. asserting) is not the same as evidence-based explanation?

Somehow I doubt it...

189 posted on 07/30/2002 7:57:00 PM PDT by PetiteMericco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Scientific creationism uses naturalism the Method just as much as evolution does.

Really? Where are the important scientific creationist discoveries?

All I ever notice creationism saying is "You'll never find a fossil in that gap!" Or sometimes, "You'll never understand how that works!"

Many of its predictions are already wrong when uttered, but it just fumes and hisses on. It's heckling science, not doing science.

190 posted on 07/30/2002 7:58:26 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
My original question: “Can we reproduce the Big Bang… Create time… Form molecules from scratch?”

So you took one part out of context, added the naturalist yeast and made bread? (again – rhetorical) Look, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt the first time but… you didn’t make bread – you just pinched a loaf.

OK, but you skipped a step. Molecules don't jump together out of nothing. They're made of atoms. No, we haven't recreated the Big Bang. This proves what exactly?

Darwin believed cells were just globs of matter. We now know that they contain DNA, a highly information based system. Ooops.

Darwin didn't know about genetics (the Mendellian details) but he knew about inheritance. He also knew about variation and natural selection. There's no "Ooops!" and there's no scientific alternative.

I do not believe this man intended to pigeon hole science, or have his naturalistic 150 year old theory become a religion.

Earth to Heartlander: Not everything that upsets you is another religion.

The genome. Get a group of guys together jumping out of trees and waving their arms. We’ll get back together in a million or so years to discuss your results.

Well, I guess your Nobel awaits you. Or is it the Medved Award for Silly Strawmanning? Create real pressures on the human population to change, and the survivors will be the ones who changed in the right direction. And so proceed. Over time, the average genome will change if the adaptation is changing.

Since I believe intelligence came from intelligence – I can only assume that you are referring to the loaf you pinched earlier. Life comes with Intel Inside:)

There is no law of conservation of intelligence. It isn't in the Second Law of Thermo or anything else.

191 posted on 07/30/2002 8:10:45 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: PetiteMericco
Hm, is this the beginning of VR's understanding that telling someone something (i.e. asserting) is not the same as evidence-based explanation?

At issue is whether creationism is paying attention to the evidence in the first place. Moneyrunner has found an all-purpose answer to those who would say that it is not. He's strategically insulted. He's tactically a victim. Thus a creationist can ignore all the evidence he wishes and cry "penis-head" when challenged.

Sounds like a "penis-head"-baiting strategy Johnny Cochrane would love.

192 posted on 07/30/2002 8:18:25 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Really? Where are the important scientific creationist discoveries?

There's various creationist analyses showing how DNA creates insurmountable problems for the evolution model of random mutation, just to name one, not to mention the analysis of the fossil record. They're looking at the same things evolutionists look at claiming to show evidence for evolution, and saying no it doesn't. The new fossil "evidence" for homo sapiens evolution referred to in this article is a case in point.

193 posted on 07/30/2002 8:20:53 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Yeah yeah, yeah, I know… furry carnivorous mammals jumped into the water and started turning into whales – here is a chart that proves it… see the pretty pictures.

We're not arguing science anymore. Just so long as you can strawman science this way, you can believe that your Invisible Friend is really making the world go around.

Science is not going to change the answers for you, even with convincing arguments like the above. </sarcasm>

Actually, I saw your website – get the BowFlex man!

Yep. You're out of ammo.

194 posted on 07/30/2002 8:27:39 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
There's various creationist analyses showing how DNA creates insurmountable problems for the evolution model of random mutation, just to name one, not to mention the analysis of the fossil record.

IOW, "You'll never understand DNA! You'll never understand the fossil record!"

Again, what does "creation science" have to teach us worth a bowl of warm spit?

195 posted on 07/30/2002 8:30:14 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: All
Out for the night. Please use the Night Depository for Creationist Strawmen.
196 posted on 07/30/2002 8:32:35 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Here's a link which says the human genome has more in common with a chicken than a mouse
197 posted on 07/30/2002 8:37:12 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
I don't know who Mr. Behe is . . .

Dr. Michael Behe is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and the author of Darwin's Black Box.

198 posted on 07/30/2002 8:43:17 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Indeed, you'd think these evolutionists would be grateful for the criticisms, considering that critique is a springboard for learning and advancement.

(But of course, we know why they are not.)

199 posted on 07/30/2002 8:44:02 PM PDT by PetiteMericco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"At issue is whether creationism is paying attention to the evidence in the first place.

Wrong, but misrepresenting the argument is a common tactic when it can be shown an evo is losing.

At issue is whether or not so-called scientists are extrapolating unsupported scenarios based on "evidence." In the end, it's not the evidence itself, it's the stories based on them--your "accumulated changes" statement is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Changes take place, but whether or not they accumulate enough over millenia to account for biodiversity is not supported in that evidence. Basically you are advertising one thing but selling another. Try that in business and you'll be arrested.

Have a nice day.

200 posted on 07/30/2002 8:49:19 PM PDT by PetiteMericco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 1,251-1,265 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