Skip to comments.
Skull discovery could fill origins gap
Yahoo (Reuters) ^
| Fri Mar 24, 11:02 AM ET
Posted on 03/24/2006 11:47:46 AM PST by The_Victor
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 441-449 next last
To: CarolinaGuitarman
We do not speciate in one lifetime though. Maybe if you were lucky.
301
posted on
03/24/2006 7:48:25 PM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Youngblood
Just where, or from whom or what, did you learn biology? A Jack Chick tract.
To: Fester Chugabrew
Why use an obvious fake to support the idea that the evidence cannot be made to fit the assumptions???? Because it's the ideal test case as to whether REAL patterns are being found in the fossil history, or whether (as your hypothesis suggests) they are just being imposed on the data. If the former then faked evidence should NOT fit in with the real evidence. If the later then it wouldn't matter.
303
posted on
03/24/2006 7:51:08 PM PST
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: Fester Chugabrew; PatrickHenry
Fester,
Patrick Henry is of the opinion that there is no point to a CREVO thread if it gets taken off the mainforum lineup, as these backroom sessions get few lurkers (thus, no fence-sitters to whom a good dose of science will be of benefit) and there is essentially ZERO chance that anyone entrenched on either side will change his stance through discussion.
there was no call for you to get personal about it, Fester
304
posted on
03/24/2006 7:51:16 PM PST
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal. this would not be a problem if so many were not under-precise)
To: bobdsmith; fortheDeclaration
Wrong, when the antievo's make statements, it is never their job to back them up.
Right, ftd?
To: Fester Chugabrew
Fortunately there are some on the side of evolutionism who have the intellectual fortitude to stick around. Well, yeah. Either that or we're laughing too hard at the creatoid parade and freak show to stand up and walk away from the computer.
306
posted on
03/24/2006 7:54:38 PM PST
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: Stultis; fortheDeclaration
Good! Then you should have no problem with Jenny's test. FTD will NOT be doing Jenny's test. That would support or refute his or her unsupported statements. And anti-evos do not, unlike everyone else in forum, back up or support their statements.
To: orionblamblam
> I do skeletal analysis as part of my work as an archaeologist. Ah. So you admit to being a biased scientist, just out looking to grub up government grants! Your opinions should be ignored.
(...says the aerospace engineer working for a NASA contractor)
And just why do we need "scientist archaeologist's" anyway! Everything is all described in the Bible.
(....says the quality engineer manufacturing human implantable devices)
308
posted on
03/24/2006 7:58:24 PM PST
by
MilspecRob
(Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
To: Gumlegs
Sentient people assume that those who can't distinguish between 8 and 22 and who don't care to learn the difference have little to contribute in a discussion of science. Depends on the meaning of the symbols "8" and "22".
/postfestermodernism>
To: b_sharp
Show me a transitory fossil from one life form into another life form.
To: John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?
pick a fossil, any fossil.
got one?
good.
guess what? you have chosen a deviation from its population's statistical norm. If it had descendants, then its fossilized remains fit your requirements.
311
posted on
03/24/2006 8:05:55 PM PST
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal. this would not be a problem if so many were not under-precise)
To: b_sharp
Renewal is not change. each generation does not bring change. If it does on a minuscule basis how many billions of years did it take for man to evolve to what we are today?
To: Dimensio
If this is the case, then into which biological kingdom should homo sapiens be classified?
I'm pretty sure it depends. If a man is in the sea, he would be classified in the fish kingdom with squids and mantee.
313
posted on
03/24/2006 8:17:52 PM PST
by
crail
(Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
To: King Prout
. . . ZERO chance that anyone entrenched on either side will change his stance . . . Preachers do enjoy a wider audience. How many conversions does the Worldwide Church of Evolution boast of this evening? The Church of Organized Matter and Intelligent Design is running exactly as planned.
To: King Prout
Let see if I pick a fossil of a oyster are you telling me that some day that oysters descendant would be a polar bear?
One question what have you been smoking how much is it and can I buy some?
To: John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?
It's called "Zinjanthropos Weed."
To: John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?
Let see if I pick a fossil of a oyster are you telling me that some day that oysters descendant would be a polar bear? Nope.
One question what have you been smoking how much is it and can I buy some?
judging by the puerile inanities and addled non-sequiturs you offer instead of thought, I suspect you are too young to legally smoke anything.
317
posted on
03/24/2006 8:33:59 PM PST
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal. this would not be a problem if so many were not under-precise)
To: John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?; King Prout
Let see if I pick a fossil of a oyster are you telling me that some day that oysters descendant would be a polar bear?No. We would assure you that NONE of it's descendents were bears (or any sort of mammal, or tetrapod for that matter).
318
posted on
03/24/2006 8:36:44 PM PST
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: Stultis; John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?
No. We would assure you that NONE of it's descendents were bears (or any sort of mammal, or tetrapod for that matter).(...or chordate)
really - the quality of creationist non-sequitur seems to have fallen off badly since Dover
319
posted on
03/24/2006 8:51:16 PM PST
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal. this would not be a problem if so many were not under-precise)
To: Pharmboy
320
posted on
03/24/2006 10:24:28 PM PST
by
SunkenCiv
(Yes indeed, Civ updated his profile and links pages again, on Monday, March 6, 2006.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 441-449 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson