Posted on 07/29/2002 6:35:04 PM PDT by Tribune7
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.
How did you know that I cut off mouse tails? And then breed the tailless mice?
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.
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.
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?
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:
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!
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.