But we are so visually oriented now.
You'd need 972 MORE words in your post just to get one picture!
Posted on 03/28/2007 12:18:37 PM PDT by Pharmboy
But we are so visually oriented now.
You'd need 972 MORE words in your post just to get one picture!
Well.... just who WOULDN'T want to pounce on Raquel?
Tastes just like chicken....
No, chickens CAME from dinos, so we know what THEY tasted like!!!
--EvoDude
There ya go!
No beef from me.
And, just men are visually oriented. Americans, on the whole, are soundbite oriented (as your photo proves).
Hey, if that is the case, then the Egyptians could have used Triceratops to haul those big stones while building the pyramids! Thanks for solving a great mystery! (And all this time I thought the Flintstones was ...fiction!)
I kind of wonder how much they can really tell because fossil evidence is so spotty even with the thousands of samples they do have.
Its similar to trying to reconstruct a book from a small pile of dust.
But then theories ARE meant to be revised as more information is found.
I'm quite happy that dinosaurs have checked out of hotel Earth. Walking into my stable and seeing a T-Rex munching on my horse would be distressing. Plus when talking about protection under the 2nd amendment, we'd be discussing preferred types of canons, not rifles.
Honey, did you pick up any 20mm shells at Wal-mart yesterday?
HA....
hey whatever...I ate medium rare cow tonite....chargrilled to perfection......I'm a R.C. believer in evo....after that nasty debacle with galileo some centuries back, the church has decided to leave the science to the scientists and the nurishment of souls to the church.
BTW...I worked with a woman from India (one of those Christian Indians who realized it was safer to come here than practice her religion there....) and her name was Elsie. and she didnt find cows to be sacred.
There's no scientific evidence that dinosaurs were still around a few thousand years ago.
"She turned me into a newt."
"Well, I got better." LOL. I think I'll be down here in the slime for awhile.
Do you consider yourself a better mathematician or more qualified than Yockey?
Perhaps since you were unwilling to provide a specific example of what you mean on the other thread, you would honor us with one on this thread.
I'm the only one who has *ever* provided probability math in these threads.
In contrast, you Evolutionists offer nothing but incessant requests for yet more proof of your long-since-debunked theory.
You certainly can't, and most certainly won't, post your *own* probability math.
You pretend to not understand. You make demands. You don't respond with facts or math of your own.
It's a predictable pattern.
"Sorry, we're fresh out of mango sauce. How about some reptile blood - you people like that, don't you?"
Another irrevocable truth bites the dust
So do you consider yourself to be a better mathematician than Yockey, or better qualified?
There is a simple reason why the rest of us do not post mathematical calculations of probability. First, you cannot calculate the probability of events whose details are unknown, as with the origin of life. Second, in actual laboratory research, point mutations explore the entire available space of possibilities. The probability of finding the best fit, when all possibilities are tried, is one.
So in one instance, probability theory is currently irrelevant, because we don't know the history. In the second case, it is irrelevant because the coin is tossed until the winning side comes up.
Again, do you consider yourself to be a better mathematician than Yockey?
The big picture is known. You have to have a proper sequence (one of many) of genetic data in order to even have a chance at having life.
You can debate the length of the DNA sequence (and the number of unique codons/bits used), but not the probability math for the sequencing.
Yockey's probability math, by the way, is valid. Evolutionists find flaws with his initial assumptions, yet still manage to only poke a hole in his final conclusions *IF* life can somehow be created with a 2-codon sequence...something never seen.
That's a very weak scientific position for Evolutionists...they have to depend on faith...faith that life can be created with only 2 unique codons.
...and there's utterly no *evidence* to support that thin belief.
OK, so you seem to be arguing against abiogenesis rather than against evolution. Right? Yockey has declared Darwinian evolution to be proven. You agree with him on this point. Right?
No one is arguing against abiogenesis!
It's axiomatic that abiogenesis occured, as we are here!
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.