Posted on 07/22/2006 5:35:21 AM PDT by DouglasKC
"If there were any such thing as evolution why wouldn't monkeys have evolved, too."
They have. That's why there are many species of monkeys. It's also why old world monkeys differ dramatically from new world monkeys.
Check it out on Google.
You mean all women willlook like her in a hundred years?
Thanks for your concession.
In the case of the petroglyphs in Finland, many of them are well understood.
As is your nom de 'net. Plumes haven't been used in years.
You don't know what a theory is, do you?
When houses and bookshelves begin reproducing themselves, then we can make a comparison. Until then, the comparison makes no sense.
I am waiting for those arrogantly confident founts of truth on either side of this issue to "ever show us proof" of a majority of what they posit as fact.
Your response reeks of elitism.
The author didn't use Time and Encarta to prove his case. He cited those works as evidence how the less-advanced texts on evolution oversimplify and draw conclusions based upon our current popular working theories.
Here's his list of actual works cited:
Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, 1997, p. 253
Origin of Species, 1958 Masterpieces of Science edition, pp. 136-137
Science, Vol. 213, p. 289
Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory, 1995, p. 95
Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, May 1977, pp. 13-14
The Neck of the Giraffe: Darwin, Evolution and the New Biology, 1982, pp. 9-10
Niles Eldredge, The Great Debate, p. 131
"Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, May 1977, p. 14
You'd be hard pressed to "evolve" your Honda, for example ~ but you could change the tires.
The chicken is what God says and I do agree with Him. I apoligize for my mistake.
God created the chicken before there was an egg. Haste makes waste, I wrote in anger.
There are an awful lot of transitionals to choose from; maybe the best to illustrate here is Hadrocodium.
This is when people claiming science is on there side fall down.
Still standing.
I'm not anti-science
Of course you're not...
To reuse good prior design is a sign of a good engineer.
Adaption and evolution are two different things. Variation within a species is provable.....check out the finches.
Evolution, a wholesale jump it genetic material and the resultant new form is unsupportable on its face. I have never read where a mutation was ever anything but fatal for the mutant. That's considering one gene change...imagine a entirely different life form which intails many, many gene mutations and they are all not only non-fatal but beneficial to the mutant. That idea stretches the credulity of even the anti-God types.....maybe not.
So to make adaptaion within a species and evolution equilevant is just an unclear view of the discussion.
Does this add anything?
I knew there'd be a Helen Thomas pic somewhere on this thread. Helen and "fossil" are one and the same.
I've spent years arguing with young-Earth creationists. It's a waste of time and effort. They're immune to evidence, too lazy to learn more than superficially about the science they criticize, and invoke the miraculous when you effectively critique their ideas. You are the one seeking to overturn hundreds of years of science (astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) supported by millions of research projects done by tens of thousands of scientists. I think it's up to you to to the legwork showing how we're wrong (and not by juvenile semantic arguments quoting encyclopedia articles).
There is nothing narrower than the mind of a learned liberal professor. You must get rave reviews from you student evaluations. It appears that brow-beating passes for teaching in your classes.
Yes, I'm a professor. I am in no way liberal - you're just exhibiting your anti-intellectual bigotry (professor=liberal). I never brow beat students either but I do try to teach them to think and require that they support their arguments with verifiable evidence - not anecdotes or feelings.
I'm also an evangelical Christian and have taught geology classes at two well-respected Christian Colleges where geologists are not young-Earth creationists (YECs). I've extensively read authors like Henry Morris, Ken Ham, Duane Gish, among many other YECs, have publicly debated some, and attended their talks and conferences. Virtually all the YECs I meet in the pews have never even cracked open a basic science text (yet they "know" we're all atheistic liars).
Oh dear.
Judging the quality and gravity of your response here, you're best bet for catching up on the past 150 years (assuming your question here is sincere) is to keep it simple.
Maybe Sparks Notes?
You missed my point. The point was that both items may use 2x6 boards but this doesn't mean that they are related in any way, only that the designer used the same components. Humans and chimps may have similar DNA, but that only means that the designer used similar components. Whether or not the final product reproduces itself is irrelevent to the argument...although I am amazed and humbled at the breadth of wisdom and knowledge that is required to make self-reproducing life.
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.