Posted on 04/05/2006 10:32:31 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Proves nothing. It is an animal that existed and went extinct. There is no proof of that it's or any of it's decendents were different from their parents.
Now, whales on the other hand, did adapt from living on land to living in the sea. (See: Living whales found with hindlimbs)
It's too bad that the Tic-Tac finders are not as SURE of their data interpretation as others seem to be.
(Ya left off...
"And that's the absolute truth!"
You've backed off a little in only 7 replies....
René Descartes
1633 was the year that Galileo's Dialogue was condemned by the Catholic Church, and although Descartes book was ready, he put off its publication out of ...
Then NOTHING; "by itself", is ALSO not evolution. Since there isn't ANYTHING, taken alone, that can be 'evolution', therefore, Evolution must not exist!
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
There are two observations I am wondering about.
Law, implies order, or predictability.
Here are the most relevant definitions.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics" [syn: law of nature].A formulation describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met.
A generalization based on consistent experience or results.
They all indicate a form of order. Now I have also observed laws of nature being referred to as forces of nature. Here are relevant definitions of force
1 : a cause of motion, activity, or change. : (physics) the influence that produces a change in a physical quantity; "force equals mass times acceleration". physical energy or intensity. a powerful effect or influence.
Now, the word force, as it applies to nature is generally a noun. I think that it would not be out of line to say that nature follows natural law in creating these forces. So, when the statement is made that evolution is a process of unguided forces, we can surmise that evolution is a process of unguided forces, which are the result of natural law.
Here are the relevant definitions for guide.
Something that serves to direct or indicate. To direct the course of; steer. To exert control or influence over.
Hence, unguided means the opposite.
Is the term unguided forces a contradiction?
I see nothing popping into existence. You might say the results of Creation are all around us, but that is pure conjecture with no scientific foundation.
The Bible Creation Myth is no more valid than the flying Spaghetti Monster -- it merely has more adherents.
What happened 46 years ago?
As far as evolution goes, it does seem to be "gradual" if you look over the continuum from 4 billion years ago to the present time. However, for the first 3.6+/- billion years NOTHING HAPPENED.
NOTHING HAPPENED is a bit of an embellishment, I think. The Precambrian (particularly the Ediacaran era) is a time of immense biological change - though a lot of it was happening on a molecular level. The first eukaryotic organisms appeared then, and the first macroscopic plants and animals - not a small change at all in the existing biospshere, all prior to the Cambrian explosion. Lateral gene transfer no doubt played a much larger role in that era of evolutionary history. Many of the tools in the genetic toolkit that allow macroscopic change hadn't appeared yet, but to put it in the words of Carl Zimmer, "evolution is and always has been primarily a story about bacteria", if you really want to trace where most of the genetic change in life has taken place. The whole Cambrian explosion is really little more than a 'macro-centric phenomenon', from what I can understand - robust change in living organisms had already been occurring for a long time, only on a cellular level.
What exactly spawned the sudden change is indeed a mystery, but I think it's pretty clear that the reason it didn't occur earlier is because the genetic toolkit of triploblastic organisms wasn't all in place yet (e.g. the HOX genes you referred to earlier).
So, does it taste more like chicken, or fish?
FSM - yeah, whatever.
Thanks for the intelligent discussion. Have a nice afternoon.
I don't take much of EITHER side 'seriously' (So WHY do I waste so much TIME on these threads???)
I however DO get to post Scripture from time to time.
It irritates the hell out of WHC, glazes the eyes of others, makes folks like Narby lose their faith, and encourages dudes like Runningwolf and Metmom and Andrewc.
Go figger....
The question is why someone calling himself a conservative would waste the time of people who don't enjoy his company, and why he would invite himself to a party having nothing to contribute.
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831. 16, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 714, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 1520, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 2125, The strait and narrow way that leads to eternal lives; 2627, Law given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 2839, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation made to prophets and saints in all ages; 4047, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 4850, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 5157, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; 5866, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth. 1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many awives and bconcubines |
To Whom It May Concern:
Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy
I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.
One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.
Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.
WILFORD WOODRUFF
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:
I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.
The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.
Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.
Well you could look it up yourself or read a science book but anything other than your opinion would be discounted. The definition of evolution was stated many years before Wikipedia and in fact I probably studied it before you were born. It has not changed even though you would change Wikipedia as a agenda to support your opinion.
I have noticed something else. It seems certain posters are quite happy to speculate about how nature could lead to many things without a designer, yet when asked if these things could be following the design of a designer, they repond with, "evolution doesn't address this."
IOW, you can't really defend your thinking since I have you dead to rights. Will it make the boo-boo go away if I substitute the American Indian Creation Myth in place of FSM?
You can't win the argument anyway.
1:42:59 PM CDT
1:52:16 PM CDT
How do I get a double post THIS far apart in time???
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.