ICR article image.
Posted on 04/07/2015 6:57:05 AM PDT by fishtank
No Evolution Is Proof of Evolution?
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D., Tim Clarey, Ph.D., and Jason Lisle, Ph.D.*
Scientists recently discovered a community of fossilized sulfur-metabolizing bacteria that are alleged to be 1.8 billion years old.1 Surprisingly, the microbes are virtually identical to their modern counterparts, yet the study authors claim that the microbes are proof of evolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Dr. Clarey received a Ph.D. in geology from Western Michigan University.
Dr. Lisle received a Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Colorado.
Dr. Tomkins and Dr. Clarey are Research Associates and Dr. Lisle is Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research.
ICR article image.
In fairness, the lack of rising temperatures in the last 15 years is further proof of Global Warming...um...er...I mean, Climate Change!
Do you have have articles from MAD magazine, an equally reliable source as icr?
Once again, the concept of stochasticism is misrepresented by those with a political agenda.
But laypeople don’t know this and eat this nonsense up like ice cream. icr should mean “ice cream research.”
OK, I will now stand back and just let you misrepresent science and make false equivalencies — the usual MO.
Did you hurt your arm, patting yourself so proudly on your back?
IF, any misrepresentation was done, write an article of rebuttal.
“Stasis” (a period or state of inactivity or equilibrium) is quite different from “Stochastic” (a system whose state is randomly determined), so why not begin with where they mention “stochasticism” and then point out how ‘random’ is used vice ‘equilibrium’?
A friend of mine is a renowned mycologist who has made some very noteworthy contributions to the field. He thinks professional wrestling is real.
What "kind" is this?
The omni-theory. Can be made to fit any past data or observation. And since it’s future prediction is “change” (or not), it has that covered, too.
Walks like a bird, talks like a bird. Must be a Chupacabra.
It’s like GW. It is not disprovable. Any conceivable or inconceivable development or discovery is proof.
A bird with teeth, fore-claws, and a long bony tail? Looks like a dinosaur to me. Speaking of which, what “kind” are they?
Dead
At this point glaciers advancing to cover Ontario in one year would be incontrovertible proof of GW.
And it looks like a bird to me. One that is long extinct. BTW, some modern birds have teeth (e.g Greylag Goose)
Speaking of which, what “kind” are they?
The 'bird' kind.
Not really actually. But its fun to say it is, and thus be able to disregard it in the same manner... beats understanding it, thats for sure.
Thse separations of the break are called tomia. Birds can’t produce enamel and their is no root. They aren’t teeth in the physiological sense.
there, not their
NOAA’s data and reports have proven to be highly politically reliable.
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.