Posted on 12/27/2004 2:34:25 PM PST by Ed Current
*Fossils are always found exactly where we expect.*
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm
Reason tells me evolution is wrong, for it does not pass the evidence test, nor did it ever.
Oh, bother, said Pooh.
The scientific evidence published by the IPCC said that no man-made global warming was ocurring.
The excutive summary published by the IPCC politicians said otherwise.
Which do think was supported by climatologists?
A few flaws? So how life could start from non-life in inconsequential? The tree of life is not important to Darwin's theory? The lack of fossil record supporting the transitional stages doesn't matter?
Perhaps you should first ask yourself if Intelligent Design theorists really ARE victims.
(From The Case for a Creator, this is from an interview with Jonathan Wells, PHD, PHD) The Archaeopteryx is a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways -- their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. It's a bird, that's clear -- not part bird and part reptile. Then there is the problem from cladistics. Cladists define homology, or physical similarities as being due to common ancestry. Then they saw, well, the main way we can group animals in the evolutionary tree is through homologies, which is already a bit of a circular argument. When they go back into the fossil record, they assume birds came from reptiles by descent, and they look for reptiles that are more bird-like in their skeletal structure. Know where they find them? It turns out they find them millions of years after archaeopteryx! So here is archaeopteryx, undeniably a bird, and yet the fossils that look most like the reptilian ancestors of birds occur tens of millions of years later in the fossil record. So the missing link is still missing.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA!
Good one. Here's one for you: Onyate Man!
Correct. I am old enough to remember that. Apparently alacarte is either a youngster or just showing typical FR evolutionist disregard for fact.
"If the theory 30 years ago was wrong, why do you think the theory today is correct? Maybe I'm missing something?"
Argh, I see part of the problem now. That 'thing' 30 years ago was NOT a theory. It was a paper published in a very respected science journal. A 'paper' and a 'theory' in science are two very important but different things and you should look them up on wikipedia (my suggestion, good site).
30 years ago there was no theory on climate change, just hypotheses. Today global warming research has concluded that global warming happens. This 'theory' is likely based on hundred if not thousands of papers like the one you mention 30 years ago.
The rest of your post I won't comment on sicne it is all opinion. It was good though. Well, i do have one comment.
"Evolution means we are randomly created and accountable to only ourselves, of no more value than a fruit bat or a grey whale."
Evolution does not say we are 'randomly' created. This is an unfortunate misconception that comes from the term 'random mutation.' There is in fact nothing 'random' about evolution.
"That may not be the robust scientific truth you're looking for, but if you do some fair research, you'll find that science is not an infallible source, nor as simple as you seem to believe. "
Oh I know science is not infallible, I'm an engineer. But it is the ONLY tool we have for explaining the natural world, and given that we've cured polio and gone to the moon I'd say it has served us well so far, and that some things can be trusted. When a new unproven idea comes along in science it is called an hypothesis, once that hypothesis has been sufficiently proven that the community feels it is as close to fact as we can get, it is then called a theory (for an explanatory model, otherwise it is called a law). Evolution is a scientific theory, on par for acceptance in the scientific community with every other theory.
BTW, how did we get talking about global warming? I don't know that much about it, and I really don't care either. I do know evolution, and I do care about it.
ALso, I liked your post, you are very polite, thankyou. ;)
"Although Darwin got the particulars wrong, his swimming-bear scenario was not far off the mark. Modern molecular biologists say that they now have the unassailable evidence to track whales' origins among four-legged mammals."
Regardless, using darwin to attack evolution is the height of dishonesty. It is like pointing to a flaw in the kitty-hawk to argue against the theory of flight.
Oh Joy. Phyllis Schlafley?
This stuff is just getting crazier and crazier.
Yo, Phyllis? Put a sock in it, dear. You're out of your league.
Not that she'll listen. She's one of those people who already knows everything.
Since you brought up logic,
How did the singularity explode without a cause?
How did initial temperatures become infinitely high in a finite universe?
How did infinite energy become available to propel particles faster than the speed of light?
How did dirt come to life?
How did invertebrates all of a sudden (poof) grow a backbone yet leave no transitional forms?
Why is something that is supposedly happening every moment never observed?
Another swipe at Bush? You evos just don't like him, do you?
"http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm"
Do you really think I'm going to visit a site called bible.ca to read about science? Come on people! There are thousands of actual science websites! If it were true, then you'd be able to link to a website with a bit of credibility.
Look-see method?
A great Republican lady, and almost always on the right side of issues. But alas, she's not quite ready to be the White House science advisor. Like a lot of very good people around here, she's using as her talking points the Jack Chick version of evolution. Big Daddy? Very sad.
Back to the bear, no one here even knew it was part of Darwin's original theory. I do not think the collective knowledge on this thread justifies the emotion and vitriol.
"It was one part of her opinion column."
Sorry I have no idea what this is about, please paste refernce text from now on. I'm too lazy to find it in the older posts :)
"Back to the bear, no one here even knew it was part of Darwin's original theory. I do not think the collective knowledge on this thread justifies the emotion and vitriol."
I work on jets, but I've never seen the kitty-hawk. Does that make me under-qualified?
What on earth does reading darwin have to do with understanding evolution? Pretty much everything darwin said has either been modified or expounded upon.
The bear wasn't "part of Darwin's original theory." He was tossing ideas out. This is something that real scientists do, they toss ideas around. It's called "brainstorming."
People who were never allowed to have original ideas because they are only allowed to believe that magic books have all the answers probably don't never learned how to brainstorm. Which is a shame.
Well, I never much cared for her to begin with. Always thought she was a narrow-minded, close-minded, hateful old harridan, and now see that she's also abysmally ignorant.
There's something about a woman with a career making her living by sneering at other women with careers that puts my teeth on edge.
"God does not play dice with the universe" - ALbert Einstein in a debate with Neils Bohr. He also did not believe in quantum mechanics.
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.