Posted on 03/29/2008 6:54:19 PM PDT by wastedpotential
Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.
Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.
We believe most Americans
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
The sane parent doesn’t make the danger that they are warning their child about. They don’t say, “Stay away from that fire or I will burn you.” They say, “Stay away from that fire because it burns.”
The proper response to a disobedient child is to physically prevent them from danger when they’re immature. When they are mature, the proper response, if they go too far, is to say, “You’re on you’re own, kid. Best of luck.” In between that is a whole range of response.
The god you believe in (such a deity doesn’t deserve the dignity of capitalization) has just two responses. Reward completely/Punish completely. Psychotic binary-only thinking.
However, the universe demonstrates that the god you worship is not the Creator. The universe is not binary, yes/no, 0/1, hot/cold. It has ranges. Water can freeze, be cold, be luke warm, be hot, be anything in-between. A parent can punish a small child by spanking, putting in time-out, sending then to their room, shaking their head and saying “I am so disappointed,” not punishing at all, or many other possible responses.
Your psychotic, binary god could not have created a universe of such subtlety.
And if the god you worship is not the God who Created the universe, who are you worshiping? Be careful, kiddo, you are further away from the Eternal Disneyworld than I am. And even if I don’t quite make it there, there’s always Universal Studios.
That's actually a good example, but not of science being wrong, because the theory and practice of bloodletting wasn't based on science as we know it--just because it was practiced by doctors doesn't mean it was "medical science." In fact, it was based on the kind of logic-based, experiment-free philosophizing (about plethoras and humors, in this case) that we're supposed to value so highly when it leads to conclusions about a Designer.
It's not my research. It's your claim, you back it up. Or not. Your choice.
As I said, all he did was point to another page. He didn't summarize the objection in his note or attempt to answer it. If you consider that addressing the issue, well okay, but most publications I've been associated with wouldn't be satisfied with that.
And the 1996 findings, as far as I can tell, were peer reviewed. (Google is very much my friend.) In an e-mail to Edward Babinski in 2004, Thewissen wrote, "In 1994, we described some vertebrae, most leg bones, but no pelvis. In 1996, we described many more vertebrae, as well as the pelvis." In 1996, Thewissen and two others published "Ambulocetus natans, an Eocene cetacean (Mammalia) from Pakistan" in Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, a peer-reviewed journal. That's as far as I can go, since I don't read German, but it's a good bet that that's where they "described" the pelvis. SIX YEARS before Batten's addendum tries to wave away the evidence.
Not only that, in 2001 National Geographic published a photo of the Ambulocetus skeleton that clearly showed the pelvic girdle--the lower photo in your post. So by 2002, when that addendum was written, there were at least two sources from which Batten could have confirmed the additional bones--if he'd actually been interested in finding all the facts, that is, rather than just enough for his purposes.
All this material has been available to AiG since 2004, courtesy of Edward Babinski. And yet so far, they've done nothing about it. How about that.
Ooh, I like that. Is that yours?
No. It’s been around a while.
You still built a strawman since hosepipe never said what you infer. Relying on something does not mean excessive. I rely on my bank not to make mistakes. That does not infer I rely on my bank to make it through every day, although that might be so occasionally. Your straw man also has holes in him, since you chide hosepipe for "calculations" quote--It's rather silly to calculate the odds for things that have already happened. and you now chide anyone who has not done "calculations" quote --Anyone who worries about everyday contingencies has not done his math.
Finally, the important point, a day is not ordinary until it is over. It can be extraordinary at any point of that day.
Well, then what is this all about?
Journal of Vertebrate PaleontologyArticle: pp. 405–422 | Abstract | PDF (2.24M) Additional holotype remains of Ambulocetus natans (Cetacea, Ambulocetidae), and their implications for locomotion in early whalesA. Department of Biology, Hiram College, Hiram, Ohio 44234, E-mail: madarsi@hiram.edu, B. Department of Anatomy, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, 4209 State Route 44, Rootstown, Ohio 44272, E-mail: thewisse@neoucom.edu, C. Department of Anatomy, Howard University, 520 W Street, Washington, D.C. 20059 Continued excavation at the type locality of Ambulocetus natans led to the recovery of a majority of the axial skeleton of the holotype of this early Eocene cetacean, including both innominates, the sacrum, and most of the thoracic cage and thoracolumbar vertebral column. Additional appendicular, caudal, and cranial materials were also recovered, resulting in a specimen that is now approximately 80 percent complete. This new material allows refined interpretations of its functional morphology. Ambulocetus has a longer thoracolumbar column than that reported for later remingtonocetid and protocetid genera, suggesting that previous estimates of spinal length derived from models of mesonychid ancestry may be inaccurate. Ambulocetus also possesses a co-ossified ecto–mesocuneiform, a character found in some early and middle Eocene artiodactyls, but not mesonychids. New postcranial material provides further evidence of a systemic shift to aquatic locomotion. Received: October 6, 2000; Accepted: June 16, 2001 DOI: 10.1671/0272-4634(2002)022[0405:AHROAN]2.0.CO;2 |
I was responding to the combined rhetorical effect of “I tely on [miracles]” and “I should be dead at lease 20 times that I know positively of...”
You can parse that any way you like, but it implies that the laws of nature and probability bend around the writer of those statements. I doubt they do.
I beg to differ. I also rely on miracles. I have also escaped death. I flew in fighter aircraft.
I don't know. What do you think it's about?
Thewissen's information was published in 2001. Look up "innominate bone".
[[It’s not my research. It’s your claim, you back it up. Or not. Your choice.]]
Lol- the pushy demanding skeptic says ‘back it up or else’ lol
Nah- My word is trustworthy regardless of what you decide to do- I gave you the links to the sites and even links to direct links articles that discuss exactly what I’m talking about- insisting htey must not exist because you won’t take hte itme to check them out doesn’t invalidate anythign I’ve stated- you can either go a little bit further and discover exactly what I have discovered or not- but if you decide not to, then don’t sit there and state there are no articles exposing TO and PA for hte lies, half-truths, serious ommissions and cover-ups and expect others to beleive they mustn’t exist
Madar, S. I., Thewissen, J. G. M. & Hussain, S. T., 2002: Additional holotype remains of Ambulocetus natans (Cetacea, Ambulocetidae), and their implications for locomotion in early whales. –Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology: Vol. 22, #2, pp. 405-422
I did not include this in my original citation of the article ------>Volume 22, Issue 2 (July 2002)
[[The sane parent doesn’t make the danger that they are warning their child about. They don’t say, “Stay away from that fire or I will burn you.” They say, “Stay away from that fire because it burns]
No sir- the responsible person says that a hell was created ror the evil one, and that if YOU choose to follow the evil one by denying God, then you will share in his just punishmenets- A parent warnign a child about not hanging out with murderers and drug pushers does so tellign the child that if htey so choose to then they will share in the negatives that are associated with such a lifestyle- Suppose the child becomes affected weith aids from a dirty needle, or ends up in prison? Did the Parent “Make that child suffer”? Of course not- the parent did EVERYTHING possible short of FORCING that child to stop hanging with hte wrong crowd- but hte child REFUSED sound council
Again- you seem to be of them ind set that nothign is YOUR fault- you refuse to take responsibility for YOUR own actions, and wishj to lay the blame on God when he has done EVERYTHING possible short of FORCING you to accept His word.
[[The god you believe in (such a deity doesn’t deserve the dignity of capitalization)]]
Tell Him that when You meet Him face to face and try to shovel the blame off on Him when it will have been your own choice to refuse Him. There won’t be ANY excuses available to you then sir- you wqill HAVE to own up to your own actions at that point- complaining about it here on earth, and maligning and insulting Him and htose hwo follow Him in public forums won’t dimish your OWN accountability.
[[However, the universe demonstrates that the god you worship is not the Creator. The universe is not binary, yes/no, 0/1, hot/cold. It has ranges. Water can freeze, be cold, be luke warm, be hot, be anything in-between. A parent can punish a small child by spanking, putting in time-out, sending then to their room, shaking their head and saying “I am so disappointed,” not punishing at all, or many other possible responses.]
Lol- your whole argument against hte existence of God is based on your opinion that God must be and act in 1 0 parameters?
[[you are further away from the Eternal Disneyworld than I am. And even if I don’t quite make it there, there’s always Universal Studios]]
You think so huh? Good for you.
[[They don’t say, “Stay away from that fire or I will burn you.” They say, “Stay away from that fire because it burns.”
]]
Pssst- God isn’t ‘doing hte burning’ The person that refuses sound council is willingly walking into a fire they were fully warned to avoid-
let me ask you htis watches- Suppose you commit a murder, you go before a judge, and the judge sentences you to life in prison- Did the judge ‘make you go to prison’? No- You made yourself go- willingly- out of your own free will. Before you committed the murder, There were ample folks trying to warn you that if you do so, you will go to prison- Are these people being ‘psychotic and mean’ in your opinion? Are they being ‘judgemental’? Of course not! Suppose you’re in prison- what’s your excuse goign to be then? The judge put you there? The judge was simply carrying out justice- you decided before the murder that you did NOT want to abide by the rule of justice- knowing full well that if you refused to, you would have to pay the price- you can claim ‘it isn’t fair’ all you like, and try to shift the blame all you like, and insult and malign those hwo tried to warn you all you like- but you STILL are responsible for your own choices- you can’t shift hte blame, you can’t duck your own responsibilities., and accusing the judge of being mean and insulting him in no way dimishes your own responsibility in the matter.
Ah. So I take it you're suggesting that the pelvic girdle was not in fact written up until 2002, and so Batten didn't have access to the information when he wrote his addendum. You may be right. Thewissen said he "described" the pelvic girdle in 1996, and he has a paper on Ambulocetus published in 1996. Was it in there? I don't know, and I'm not going to pay $50 for something in a language I can't read to try to find out.
I suppose it's also possible that the initial recovery of the innominates happened in 1996 but that excavations continued after that, and the 2000 article (that's when it was written) was a summing up of all the evidence collected to that date. I don't know if papers like that always deal only with the most recent findings; perhaps one of the scientists here can shed light on the question.
Nevertheless, even if the information first appeared in 2002, Batten has had six years to correct his original statement or update it with another addendum. The fact that he hasn't suggests to me that presenting all the evidence is not high on his list of priorities.
Some percentage of every combat branch survives. And every once in a while someone dies struck by lightening from a blue sky.
When you use the word miracle, are you asserting you were singled out for survival by a specific act of God? Implying that those who didn't survive were specifically singled out to die?
No, it would not have a high priority since the data might be suspect.
I posted those two images of the "same" fossil for a reason. They do not contain the same fossil pieces. Look at the two "hips" on both images. Count the rib pieces. Count the tail vertebra, etc.
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.