Posted on 01/11/2003 9:53:34 PM PST by DWar
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! More for the lurkers than for your closed mind, Phaedrus:
Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium,
Tempo and Mode of Speciation (slideshow), and
All You Need to Know about Punctuated Equilibrium (Almost).
What penetrating insight, Vade! Slay us with your wit.
Some debate. The best I can do is suggest that you reread my post. No particular reason, though, that it should sink in the second time. I remain underwhelmed.
Indeed, if a woman who has had an abortion does not value the unborn as a human life - or if she does not value any human life - perhaps she would never feel regret.
you are assuming that they had "faith" to begin with.
Indeed, if she had no faith to begin with - the statement would not apply to her, i.e. she would have nothing from which to be driven away.
Personally, I think the fundamentalist christians do more to drive people away from "believing" than anything or anyone else.
You are certainly welcome to your views. I am a fundamentalist and disagree with you in part and agree with you in part.
Back in the days of Jesus, the Pharisees were the fundamentalists. Both then and now, some fundamentalists read the Word with their mind instead of their spirit. That leads to mental gymnastics which can be very troubling, especially to non-believers, IMHO:
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. – Mark 12:24-27
How many people how many times have to explain to you what evolutionists actually claim so you can get on topic? Can you read?
It is about--corrected version here--the transformation claimed by evolutionists of the egg-laying reproductive system of mammals (like the still-extant monotremes) to the live-birth strategies of the marsupials and placentals. Mammals were mammals before they had any kind of live birth.
First, mammal-like reptiles diverged from other reptile lineages. That was far back, not long after the appearance of basal reptiles. Some lineages of mammal-like reptiles experimented with warm-bloodedness and with walking up completely on the legs (as opposed to dragging the belly and merely pushing with the legs).
Reptile ears aren't very good with the head out of contact with the ground. Thus, some of the high-walkers coopted their rearward lower jaw bones to resonate with the original reptilian earbone and enhance their hearing. This wasn't as hard as it may sound, since reptiles have losely-jointed, expandable jaws for swallowing large objects whole.
Eventually, this second useage of the rearward jawbones overwhelmed the original one. A "double-joint" allowed the use of a single bone for chewing and biting and completely freed the rearmost lower jaw bones for hearing.
This transition, well documented in the fossil record, is where taxonomists draw a line and say, "From here forward, we call them mammals." Admittedly, they pick this point as much because you can't see in the fossil record if a creature had mammary glands, or bore scales versus fur. (Fur isn't exactly diagnostic anyway as, for one thing, there's evidence for fur in pterosaurs, diapsid reptiles more related to dinosaurs than to mammals. But nothing else in nature has those ear bones.)
Later yet, some time after the monotremes had diverged from the basal mammal stock, mammals experimented with live-birth schemes. Marsupials are one result. Placentals are the latest and most successful.
Now do you understand what Dan Day's 378 is about?
the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...
Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...
demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---
.. .. .. REDACTED and made these absolutes subordinate--relative - - -
and calling/CHANGING all the... residuals---technology/science === TO evolution - - - .. .. .. via schlock/sMUCK IDEOLOGY/lies/bias...to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims - - - social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION(USSC monopoly)---
.. .. .. and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY(breaking the establishment clause)...
against God--man--society/FREEDOM/LIBERTY/SCIENCE!!
yeah . . . hopeless dichotomy // schizophrenia - - - EVOLUTION ! ! !
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Please seek help.
Not a "single evolutionist writer", eh?
Correct. The examples you give are of bones which have absolutely nothing to do with the transformation of the reproductive system which is what is under discussion. Your shark examples show quite well why this is not a valid method. In sharks, with similar body plans we have some which reproduce by eggs, some by a placental like system in late development and some that cannibalize other young for nutrition. This proves quite well that fossils cannot answer the big questions of evolution, certainly not those being discussed here.
My orginal point was that one should not bring religion or God into a debate about evolution. Evolution is a sceientific theory, religion is based purely on faith and should not be used in a scientific debate. IMO
Thank you for your posts and your obvious gentle spirit.
The above is garbage since fossils do not show a placenta and there is no DNA to make such a comparison. What we do have are live specimens with and without a placenta. The problem is that since both examples are alive NOW it is only an evolutionist assumption that leads to the conclusion that those without a placenta came before those with one. In addition because there is no way at all to tell what the DNA of any species was a million years ago or a hundred million years ago, there is absolutely no way to calibrate this so called 'clock'. There are more problems with the molecular clock such as that different DNA tests give different cladistic diagrams and the fact that evolution assumes that all species are continually being changed by mutations which means that according to evolutionist assumptions a human and lizard have undergone as many years of mutations as each other since the supposed descent from fish. Thus any study that claims to use a molecular clock is dishonest and absolute nonsense.
I regret that we fundamentalists have failed you. Above everything else we who believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God - owe to everyone the out-pouring of God's unconditional love. There is no other way to comply with the law and the prophets.
So with that apology, I agree that it is time to let the subject return to evolution. Hugs!
Alamo-girl is a sweetheart. Her posts are always good-natured.
Yes, it has every appearance of being envy and resentment (and, of course, is highly hypocritical).
Oh, and Anti-Pope GoreMMM is the only one allowed to get away with comparisons to the Taliban and the like, so step carefully with such clear and accurate descriptions.
Right after you explain the didactic usefulness of the obfuscation of systematic discontinuities throughout your theory.
I contend that the evos' failure to deal with the origin of matter and the Prime Mover disqualifies them from continued building on a defective foundation. I contend that it is logically impossible to rule out a Creator. Having destroyed the foundation of your theory, it collapsed. Now you want to continue to discuss your discredited theory?
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.