Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Cherry picking the few flaws in evolution theory while ignoring what is established evolutionary fact is more of the same "scientific method" of creationism. Someone please explain why Creationists always have to present theirselves as such violated victims.

And, BTW, the Archaeopteryx is undeniably (to those with sufficient a minimal lack of bias) both reptile and bird.


137 posted on 12/27/2004 5:25:24 PM PST by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]


To: DaGman

Someone please explain why Creationists always have to present theirselves as such violated victims.

... needy, helpless children always need protection from the boogeyman.

For some reason, in this one domain, logic, reason, mental abilities all seem to flip at the throwing of a switch and otherwise reasonable people become....


139 posted on 12/27/2004 5:29:14 PM PST by ItCanHappenToYou (ItCanHappenToYou)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies ]

To: DaGman
Cherry picking the few flaws in evolution theory while ignoring what is established evolutionary fact is more of the same "scientific method" of creationism. Someone please explain why Creationists always have to present theirselves as such violated victims.

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.

184 posted on 12/27/2004 6:58:41 PM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies ]

To: DaGman
Cherry picking the few flaws in evolution theory while ignoring what is established evolutionary fact is more of the same "scientific method" of creationism.

Not to mention lying about certain things, like claiming that Archaeoptryx is "just a bird".
210 posted on 12/27/2004 8:23:52 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson