Posted on 03/30/2010 2:34:25 PM PDT by Patriot1259
just under 3/4’s is actually salted water.....the reason I ax’d is 2fold....1. your knowledge in the above posts and I expected a “no I don’t know” answer
in fact, ax a million people and no one can answer. Why ?
Either no curiousity or they were not taught.
the answer also is 2fold...........the earth is mostly salt water so when the sun is it’s most active, our waters do not evaporate to extinction and when the sun is it’s most inactive, our seas do not freeze to immobility. And both sun cycles within a margin that still allows evaporation to replenish earth with useable water
As a kid at church gatherins we made lots of home made ice creme.....granny would pop the top of the hand cranked ice creme machine to see if the ice creme was “hard enuf”.....if not we put rock salt on top and continued crankin til the ice creme was hard enuf to scoop
So much for global warming huh...........and the reason this universal truth is not taught ? GOD....it admits a supreme being made us and all things and well....we can’t teach that can we.
You cannot refute the genetic test I cited. It proves conclusively that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. All of your other questions must be answered in light of that.
I have studied the Creation/Evolution debate in great detail for many years. I have never seen the evolution side of the argument make the claim that you have made.
Please provide me with access to the study that you cite.
In the meantime, I respectfully ask for your answers to my questions. “It doesn’t matter” does not cut it.
Amen.
And according to this article creationism is established scientific fact? Ridiculous.
There are thousands and thousands of actual scientists who would disagree with you on that one.
And they’re all wrong.
Thanks for clearing that up for us. </sarcasm>
And no, your other questions don't mean anything as the matter is well settled.
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/63/11/4982
OK Redwoods.
I’ll look into it. I notice that the article was written in 1989. I have been studying the creation/evolution debate for over 5 years and have never seen this argument used by the evolution side of the argument.....not even once.
If the proof is so irrefutable, I can’t help but wonder why it is never brought up.
I have a friend who has a PhD in Microbiology who I will talk to about this.
In the meantime, don’t pretend that my questions don’t matter...... your inability to answer them is the reason you won’t try.
You can have the last word; children like that I'm told.
In the short time that I’ve had to read the info on the link you referenced, I found these phrases used by the scientists doing the research:
“This suggests”
“We developed a method to estimate”
“we estimated”
“These results suggest”
“our knowledge about their evolution is still scarce” “roughly estimated”
“suggesting”
“may suggest”
“It is possible”
These are words used in describing something irrefutable????
I’ll do more research on the subject.
By the way, you forgot to tell me that I’m a poopoo-head.
Unfortunately Redwoods, I actually looked into your claim. I understand now why Evolutionists do not argue this “irrefutable” evidence.
I sent your condescending posts to a friend who has a PhD in Microbiology.....and incidentally is involved in research.
This is what he sent me back:
“You are correct, this is “old” news. Evolutionists have argued, to varying degrees, that sequences, such as
HERVs, ‘prove’ common descent.
First, this is making an unsupportable assumption of the purpose and history of these HERV sequences in the genome.
Second, like usual, the evolutionists ignore the contradictory or inconsistent data, because they KNOW evolution (i.e., common descent) is true, thus any apparent inconsistent or contradictory evidence is simply being interpreted wrong. In the case of HERVs, for example, there is also a HERV (HERV-K) that is found in chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos, but not humans (Current Biology. 2001. 11:779).
This is inconsistent with HERVs as a marker for common descent. Of course evolutionists respond by saying HERV-K does not contract common descent, it just simply was lost in the human lineage sometime after we diverged from chimps.
It is a cop-out argument, and there is no way to prove it is wrong (how do you prove a negative?).”
(Schaef 21 comment: If there’s no way to prove that it is wrong, it violates the Scientific Method and is therefore Philosophy.)
“But, more importantly, there is no evidence that humans ever possessed HERV-K. It is a clear case of the evidence for the human loss of HERV-K is entirely based upon the supposition of evolution.”
He’s explained it for you but he can’t understand it for you.... you like to use that phrase, right?
Evolutionists are great at circular arguments. “We know evolution is true, so let’s look at the evidence in light of the fact that evolution is true.” In the end, they “prove” that evolution is true..... given their presupposition, they would, wouldn’t they?
I have dealt with your arguments, now please answer my questions. They can be found in Post #38
I’ll keep an eye on responses...thx for the ping
Excellent, thanks!
Hey Man....
I answered your question..... how about answering mine?
Well Wendy..... it looks like Redwoods took a powder. I guess his point stands refuted.... and he doesn’t want to deal with the questions on the table.
Evolution is not being defended by anybody with brains or talent at this juncture, just academic dead wood.
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.