Posted on 04/05/2006 10:32:31 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
That'll make you go blind and grow hair on your palms, or so they say.
Amen!
If it is not some evolution nonsense, it is nonsense like the De Vinci Code.
Anything but the truth. (Rom.1:22)
I find it interesting that the natives gave the name of the fossil the name of a fish.
When there's no debate it's hard to lose. I guess I'm just one big loser.
So it had crocodillian carachteristics but not human? All we need now is a crocodile that walked upright and/or had opposable thumbs. The tiktaalik is hardly a missing link. There are lots of amphibious animals that may have evolved from aquatic animals as a result of drought. I saw a documentary not long ago about some modern-day aquatic animal in Africa that either evolves into an aquatic animal or amphibious animal based soley on how rainy the breeding season is. Sorry, don't remember what channel, the name of the animal or have a link. But I did see it so it must be true! :-)
HA Ha best joke of the day.
The tiger salamander is one such critter:
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/narcam/idguide/atigrin.htm
Can be a nasty predator and cannibal or a docile aquatic thingy, depending on the environment. Probably not what you were referring to, but similar, no doubt.
Yeah. I posted it because it was funny
I read on some of these threads that some consider philosophy to be a waste of time because they don't understand it.
It surprises me because science began as a philosophy. The way that science gathers information seems to be derived from Epistemology.
The prokaryotes (single-celled organisms without membrane-bound organelles), kingdoms Eubacteria and Archaea. These at one point had a common ancestor but it is lost. Eukaryotes (organisms with membrane-bound organelles) are thought to have evolved through some type of symbiotic arrangement between bacteria and archaebacteria. The simplest version involves an archaebacterium engulfing an bacterium, the bacterium lives inside the host and provides oxygen scavenging, hydrogen, or some other benefit. Over time many genes on the engulfed bacterium's genome become transferred to the nucleus (there are varying theories about how that arose too), new genes arise, and eventually we get the modern eukaryotes with mitochondria.
Support for this idea includes the fact that eukaryotes like us share many metabolic enzymes with bacteria, but our mechanisms for gene transcription and translation are more like the archaebacteria's.
Aw c'mon, the smokey backroom is where all the Earth moving deals are made.
That's right. You said nothing of substance at all.
That's right. You said nothing of substance at all.
Science does have an epistemology - it's called the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is often an object of derision from the Creo crowd who have no useful alternative, but it is sound and well tested over hundreds of years.
Dare I say it - OK, Descartes.
OK PH you can abandon the thread now.
Yes there are a lot that feel that way. Some criminals believe its OK to kill others. Some who's dog was killed 10 years ago still believe he is playing out side. However science is not based on your beliefs. That is philosophy. Science was designed as a method to observe material facts and give evidence and explanation of the fact. It does not care what is faith and belief. It would seem that after all that collage one should know the difference between the methods of philosophy, science, and mathematics. It should have been learned in High School.
Also the similarity of of some of our mitochondrial genes with those of procaryotes.
Unfortunately I think that entertainment masquerading as science has been a catalyst for much of this misunderstanding regarding evolution. I am a Christian, and I believe evolution occurs. The evidence is undeniable. I do not know to what degree.
(11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.)
Let the land produce? Something to think about.
and again,
(And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.)
Interestingly enough, it does not word it this way for life in the oceans. Here, it suggest direct creation. Which is in line with the Theory of Evolution.
I do part with ToE on the evolution of man. But, I have no scientific evidence to back it up, so I won't argue it on this forum.
My first WAS as much a statement of substance as this nonsense:
Huge predators would have lurked in Tiktaalik's rivers and lakes, study co-leader Shubin saysperhaps one reason why Tiktaalik appears to have been headed for land.
Yea! I'm sure this creature was thinking "Gee, it's very vicious out here in the deep. I think I'll learn to grow mini-legs over the next several million years so I can take a look-see on land and see if it's safe. If so, I'll then spend another several million years morphing myself into a 'land critter'"
And you call that substative?
No, it's not. It's full of loud-mouth idiots whose ignorance is inversely proportional to the amount they know. There are way too few people who know anything much about science.
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.