Here's real proof - from living things - that evolution did not occur:
Euglena, Hymenopimesis Wasp, Butterfly, Platypus, Bat, Fugu, Cambrian species
Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
Is this larger or smaller than Gore3000's 1 to the 720th power?
I fully expect that shortly G3k and "Gargantua" will team up to promote the "Power of Unity Continuum Hypothesis" in which they will opine as to whether or not there are any intermediate values for "n" in N such that:
Logic is for constructing proofs, which give us reliable confirmation of the truth of the proven proposition. I thought you were not asking me for proof. Why ask so many times for that which I cannot give? You're the one playing games, pal. You and your friends haven proven very good at it.
But please point out to me what is illogical in assuming that - for one small example - GRAVITY has a design and purpose? You've avoided this one small example thus far. More games?
In that case then neither is evolution because evolution has never been observed.
One of the big lies of paleontology is that brain size matters. This is such an obvious falsehood that it can be easily dismissed. First of all elephants did not go to the moon. Second of all, if brain size matters, then how come we need IQ tests to tell how smart people are, surely if that were so we should just be able to look at people's heads. Lastly and most importantly, a look at the DNA of men and chimps has shown that the difference in intelligence is not due to brain size but due to the expression of a certain gene in humans 5 times more than in chimps. If this were not enough, science has known for a long time that the folding of the brain in humans allows for more thought capacity and that the amount of folds is indicative of a higher species. Of course we do not have such information from fossils which is just one reason why fossils cannot prove descent and why paleontology is not science but fairy tales.
We've heard it all before, Ted. Didn't anyone ever tell you that you repeat youself a lot?
Euglena, Hymenopimesis Wasp, Butterfly, Platypus, Bat, Fugu, Cambrian species
I know of no evidence to support such an assumption. Do you?
It could not, and a reference from your buddy Don Lindsay, well known at home at dinnertime, proves absolutely nothing. What real science shows is that about a quarter of our brain is dedicted just to processing visual information. So no, the eye did not evolve.
Yes. The purpose of gravity is so that we can tell young women from old ones when they have their clothes off. I don't know what else it's good for.
Back to the question I've been asking for 400 posts: Upon what evidence do you base this assumption?
Well you see when I was a kid I put a set of coins in sets of two. I put the heads facing the tails hoping that they would mate and I would have a fortune in a few years. Well, after 5 years I still had the same number of coins.
I've spent far more time studying the Bible than the average Christian. The confirmation process of the Moravian Church, which I underwent, is far more demanding than most.
You are the one claiming that intelligent design is logical. All I'm asking for is evidence to support your position.
Hardly unreasonable.
Just show me the fossils which show how reptiles changed their mode of reproduction from egg laying to live bearing. Show me the gradual DNA changes in the fossils which accomplished this miracle.
The problem is that it's a lie.
No, we understand it just fine. It's a self-contradictory notion.
This might help. Please think your way through it. I've posted this a number of times to other threads:
The question, "what happened before Archduke Ferdinand was shot" is a well-formed question, as is, "what is south of Topeka, Kansas." The question, "what happened before the big bang" is an ill-formed question, as is, "what lies south of the south pole."Imagine you are travelling south, down to the south pole. As you get closer to the pole, the east-west direction does a curious thing: it curls back upon itself in an ever-tightening circle, disappearing completely as you reach the point of the pole itself. At that place, the ground is as smoothly two-dimensional as anywhere else on Earth, but every possible direction points north, even directions that lie at right angles to each other.
Imagine that you can go backwards in time, back to the big bang. As you get closer to the big bang, space does a curious thing: the spatial dimensions curl back upon themselves in an ever-tightening circle, disappearing completely as you reach the singularity itself. At that event, spacetime is as smoothly four-dimensional as at any other event in history, but every possible direction points towards the future, even directions that lie at right angles to each other.
I stress that what I have laid before you is not an analogy, but two separate examples of the same phenomenon.
There may exist events that are external to the space and time dimensions of our universe, but none of them can be said to come before or after any events of our universe; they cannot be included in any causal framework such as history. Time itself is strictly internal to our universe. If we want to use words like "cause" and "before", we must needs keep our game pieces on the board.
Touching. Any chance of you addressing the question?
Or is 1372 more your speed?
But, inasmuch as the Theory itself propounds in direct contradiction of that which I know to be true, I haven't wasted much time on pursuing it. Here's what i can tell you, from a scholarly perspective.
Our common usage of the word "evolution" conveys the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years.
A more precise understanding of the above statement divides the phantasmagoric "atoms to people" transition into four realms:
1. Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which deals with the origin and formation of the general structure of the "known" [sic!] universe.
2. Abiogenesis refers to first life - the unbidden production of living organisms from otherwise inanimate matter.
3. Micro-evolution or speciation refers to populational and species change through time. There are many published examples of speciation, if by the development of a new "species" we describe the development of a new population of individuals which will not breed with the original population to produce fertile offspring. (Micro-evolution is a scientific fact which no one, including creationists, dispute.)
4. Macro-evolution or, as it is often called, general evolution refers to the progression to more complex forms of life. The mechanisms of macro-evolution, including whether or not micro-evolution over a long enough time leads to macro-evolution, can be regarded as a "research topic."
Pure bunk, for the most part.
As in suggesting what God should have listed as His "11th Commandment." You are one sick, irrational pup.
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.