Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Remedy
First off it is ridiculous to call people who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, fossil thumpers. The most compelling evidence supporting Darwin's theory is not hominid fossil evidence found in East Africa, but genetic evidence showing our similarities with other higher primates such as chimps, bonobos, and gorillas. Then again it is also ridiculous to ignore scientific evidence in favor of outmoded midevil religious text too. Also there are many political conservatives who think Creationism is rubbish. There are also liberals who think Darwin's theory is rubbish. The question is as a matter of quality in our education systems, do we want to teach people something (e.g. Creationism) which has absolutely no tangible science to back it up or do we want teach a theory and let me stress THEORY, regarding the development of not only human beings but life in general on this planet. Yes it is possible to teach Darwin's theory to those who do not and will not believe it. That is why scientists refer to Darwin's idea of evolution as a THEORY. You can reject any theory you want, however you are taken more seriously if you look at ALL the evidence and respond to whether or not such evidence is valid.
302 posted on 02/25/2003 10:40:40 AM PST by miloklancy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: miloklancy
To: unspun

us...

Awhile back, I asked a God-outlawing, life from non-life, spontaneous evolutionist, just how many species to species
transitional forms must be present within say, a million years, in order to allow for evolution on earth.

Didn't get an answer. Wouldn't look good, since we've never seen even one in our history.


fC...


Even multi trillion of years wouldn't help the evolutionists cause // difficulties !

Evolution is proselytization -- brainwashing // indoctrination ==== mind control !

Main Entry: pros·e·ly·tize
Pronunciation: 'prä-s(&-)l&-"tIz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -tized; -tiz·ing
Date: 1679
intransitive senses
1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
transitive senses : to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause
- pros·e·ly·ti·za·tion /"prä-s(&-)l&-t&-'zA-sh&n, "prä-s&-"lI-t&-/ noun
- pros·e·ly·tiz·er /'prä-s(&-)l&-"tI-z&r/ noun

308 posted on 02/25/2003 10:45:02 AM PST by f.Christian (( + God *IS* Truth + love *courage*// LIBERTY *logic* *SANITY*Awakening + ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies ]

To: miloklancy

>>>>The most compelling evidence supporting Darwin's theory is not hominid fossil evidence found in East Africa, but genetic evidence showing our similarities with other higher primates such as chimps, bonobos, and gorillas.<<<<

What's in the Fridge?. Origins Research 13:1

It's from that moment which is two months after fertilization, that we don't call any longer human being embryos, we call them fetuses. And that is very true to change the name just because it tell a very plain evidence: Nobody in the world looking for the first time at a Tom Thumb bag, looking at an embryo of two months of a chimpanzee, of a gorilla, of an orangutan, or of a man, nobody in the world would make a mistake just looking at him. It's obvious this one is a chimpanzee, this one is an orangutan, this one is gorilla, this one is a man.

Humans and Chimps

Q. Certainly. I think I have read somewhere, and I'm sure if I'm not right you'll correct me, that genetically as far as the chromosomes, as far as the contents of the DNA in the chromosomes, for instance, man, Homo sapiens, and the higher mammals, particularly the gorillas, chimpanzeeshelp me look for that species.

A. Orangutan.

Q. There is a remarkable similarity?

A. Well, it depends what you remark. You can remark the similarity, or you can remark the differences. And difference is incredibly interesting. I don't know where you want to ask me.

Q. Well, I have heard it said or read that approximately ninety-eight percent of the genetic material that is found in a chimpanzee or gorilla is identical to what may be found in a human being.

A. It has been written, and it has been written by statistical calculation of the DNA but not about the meaning of it. Now, what makes ninety percent similarity in the number of words in two different texts? They can mean something very different by the way the sentence are made. It's what makes the difference between the species.

Q. But there is a similarity in the DNA?

A. Oh, yes, exactly like the similarity in the fact they have two hands like us, not the same thumb, but they have hands, we have feet, but they are the most similar to us, no doubt. It's no surprise that the DNA also has some similarity.

Q. But the same basic process that we observe in human beings we also observe in chimpanzees?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Mice?

A. Mice, I would not go that far but partly.

Q. Mice have zygotes?

A. Oh, yes, I mean--I want to make clear when we speak about basic mechanism we have to know what we mean by basic. For example, I told you the enormous importance of methylation of the DNA we discovered those years. But, for example, Drosophila does not methylate the DNA.

Q. That's the fruit fly?

A. That's the fruit fly but it's a very complex organism. It's makes a differentiation of cells that makes me believe that with methylation we have unveiled one of the tricks used by nature, but there are other tricks we are still using, we men, that were sufficient to build a Drosophila but would not be sufficient to build the human being. I would not agree that basic mechanism are the same in the whole living system. Surely it's much more complicated to build a human being, to determinate on one cell the wiring of his brain so that he will some day invent machine to help his own brain to understand the law of the universe. There is something peculiar to the human beings compared to others, you know. I will tell you one thing, very simple: I'm traveling a lot, and as far as I can I visit two points which are very important for me when I go in a new town: One is the university and other is the zoological garden. In the university I have often seen very grave professors asking themselves whether after all their children when they were very young were not animals, but I have never seen in a zoological garden a congress of chimpanzees asking themselves whether their children when they are grown up will become universitarians. I feel there is a difference somewhere.

321 posted on 02/25/2003 11:00:22 AM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies ]

To: miloklancy

>>>>First off it is ridiculous to call people who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, fossil thumpers.<<<<

Mouth foaming, social Darwinist, fossil thumping, biased EVILUTIONIST.

323 posted on 02/25/2003 11:05:34 AM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson