Skip to comments.
Newly found species fills evolutionary gap between fish and land animals
EurekAlert (AAAS) ^
| 05 April 2006
| Staff
Posted on 04/05/2006 10:32:31 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820, 821-840, 841-860 ... 1,501-1,512 next last
To: CarolinaGuitarman
The problem is you are an "unbeliever" making profound comments concerning the status of the Bible in the realm of religious and spiritual belief systems.
If you were the Pope, we could have a discussion where we at least understand the words in the same way, and we might arrive at some new understandings.
Unfortunately, you are not the Pope, I am not a Catholic, and we seem to share a totally different understanding of the terms required to effectuate discussion.
821
posted on
04/06/2006 11:11:26 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-)
To: jec41
Wikipedia is not a reliable, trustworthy source. That's because anybody can go in there and write anything they want. I've done it myself.
822
posted on
04/06/2006 11:12:39 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-)
823
posted on
04/06/2006 11:13:17 AM PDT
by
dread78645
(Evolution. A dying theory since 1859.)
To: muawiyah
True, there are some people who might argue that, but they're the ones who would deny God the privilege of further revelation. They are just trying to protect the REST of us from...
Muslims (Mohammed was God's LAST Prophet: PBUH)
Mormons (Brigham is His Prophet)
JWs (Prophet? Who needs a prophet when you've got a FINE organization like the Watchtower?)
Scientologists (Yo momma HOLLERED too loud when you wuz born! We gonna deprogram you! Give us money!)
824
posted on
04/06/2006 11:14:45 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: mlc9852
I thought you were an atheist. Nope.
At least they have made some kind of decision.
I have made a decision. I've decided that the evidence is such that there is no way to make any informed, objective conclusion about the matter absent additional evidence, and that most people who have reached a conclusion have done so out of emotion, not reason. (Which is fine; emotional decisions aren't per se bad, just not how I think the issue should be approached.)
To: muawiyah
"The problem is you are an "unbeliever" making profound comments concerning the status of the Bible in the realm of religious and spiritual belief systems."
Irrelevant. What I believe does not change the fact that Christians believe the Bible is objectively true. They believe that Jesus died on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. This they believe is objectively true.
"If you were the Pope, we could have a discussion where we at least understand the words in the same way, and we might arrive at some new understandings."
No, you are dead wrong. Reality doesn't change because you are talking to one person and not another person.
"Unfortunately, you are not the Pope, I am not a Catholic, and we seem to share a totally different understanding of the terms required to effectuate discussion."
True. I, and the vast majority of Christians, believe that there is an objective reality that exists no matter what they believe. You believe that reality is whatever you wish it to be. There does seem to be no room for further discussion.
826
posted on
04/06/2006 11:15:23 AM PDT
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
To: Elsie
Are you trying to say that mutations don't start in a mere individual?? Individuals differ from their parents, but this, by itself, is not evolution.
Evolution is change in the frequency of alleles in a population. Individuals cannot be so different from other members of their species that they cannot breed.
Evolution by sudden change is a Hollywood fiction. It is sad to see conservatives so caught up in Hollywood that they cannot understand science.
827
posted on
04/06/2006 11:16:23 AM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: King Prout
For all practical purposes they were dead since tectonics didn't come along until 40 years after his work was first translated into English.
He proposed it long before that event.
Working scientists (with all their degrees and so forth) were undoubtedly in their late 20s and early 30s at the youngest when they first read WEggener's thesis. 40 years later they were like some of the elder denezens of Free Republic ~ still writing, but trapped in their crystalized memories, unable to adjust to the new world.
828
posted on
04/06/2006 11:16:40 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-)
To: muawiyah
"Wikipedia is not a reliable, trustworthy source. That's because anybody can go in there and write anything they want. I've done it myself."
So? What makes something reliable? You don't believe in objective reality anyway. Maybe all definitions are correct; how would you know the difference?
829
posted on
04/06/2006 11:16:41 AM PDT
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
To: Quark2005
This, Master, I have kept since childhood!
830
posted on
04/06/2006 11:17:07 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: William Terrell
I agree with you regarding the application of occam's razor. Nature seems to be a mechanism of design. If that is so, science would only be discovering the way in which that mechanism works.
831
posted on
04/06/2006 11:18:01 AM PDT
by
Conservative Texan Mom
(Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Not really ~ the Deccan Traps and their counterpart in Siberia indicate that sometimes it goes like crazy.
Then there are a couple of "fronts" ~ one in Utah, and the other in the Himalayas, that may well have changed elevation by up to 15,000 feet in ONE DAY.
Then there are the "hot spots" around the world, and the volcanos popped up over subduction zones.
Fast and hot ~ hardly "gradual".
832
posted on
04/06/2006 11:19:06 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-)
To: Elsie
A "mutation" might start in the tissues that create sperm and eggs, and the "owner" might well never exhibit the mutation, yet all of the offspring would.
833
posted on
04/06/2006 11:20:27 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-)
To: Dimensio
Demonstrating that humans can genetically modify or even create life does not provide evidence of an entity or entities doing the same thing 4.6 billion years ago. Demonstrating that humans CAN'T genetically modify or even create life pretty well shows evidence of an entity or entities doing it 4.6 billion years ago!
834
posted on
04/06/2006 11:20:43 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: muawiyah
Which means, of course, you can study life without reference to evolution.Provide the facts or such studies by science.
That's not what is currently being claimed by those who seek to keep ID and Creationism out of the schools. They claim now that evolution is the very paradigm for biology itself, and you cannot understand the slightest thing about life without using evolution.
Id and Creationism will be explained by science when they are observed as a material fact. Until then they remain the argument of faith and belief.
I doubt either position is correct, but there you have it.
Doubt is the method of solipsism
835
posted on
04/06/2006 11:21:34 AM PDT
by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: muawiyah
"Not really ~ the Deccan Traps and their counterpart in Siberia indicate that sometimes it goes like crazy."
Geologically speaking, it's gradual.
"Then there are the "hot spots" around the world, and the volcanos popped up over subduction zones.
Fast and hot ~ hardly "gradual"."
Geologically, it IS gradual.
836
posted on
04/06/2006 11:21:53 AM PDT
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
To: jec41
Your opinion only. Hinduism tells us that we are but a thought in the mind of God.
Do you have objective evidence that Hinduism is in error?
837
posted on
04/06/2006 11:21:55 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-)
To: js1138
So once again, why do anti-evolutionists assume that evolution involves an increase in information or complexity? UHhhh...
Because Evolutionist state so assuredly that it all started out so SIMPLE??
838
posted on
04/06/2006 11:22:24 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: muawiyah
Alfred Weggener was laughed off the stage at his first presentation of his continental drift theory. Not a scientist of his age ever adopted the Weggenerian view.vs.
For all practical purposes they were dead since tectonics didn't come along until 40 years after his work was first translated into English. He proposed it long before that event. Working scientists (with all their degrees and so forth) were undoubtedly in their late 20s and early 30s at the youngest when they first read WEggener's thesis. 40 years later they were like some of the elder denezens of Free Republic ~ still writing, but trapped in their crystalized memories, unable to adjust to the new world.
ah, so now you move from a doubled-absolute statement-as-fact into equivocation and pure speculation. very nice. good day.
839
posted on
04/06/2006 11:23:00 AM PDT
by
King Prout
(The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT.)
To: muawiyah
Wikipedia is not a reliable, trustworthy source. That's because anybody can go in there and write anything they want. I've done it myself.I'm sure there's a connection lurking in this.
840
posted on
04/06/2006 11:23:01 AM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820, 821-840, 841-860 ... 1,501-1,512 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