I have been on the colonial ship the USS Constellation that rests in Baltimore's inner harbor and the sleeping quarters, the ceilings, etc. are very short like midgets lived there. I guess the food must have been pretty bad! lol
Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Actually, every PhD (both men and women) I work with could care less about fame or "relevance" as you purport relevance. The relevance they are after is being able to add to the knowledge of the body of science. I am currently working on a joint paper with a colleague who completed his PhD in Astrodynamics. He is one of the nicest guys you will ever meet and couldn't care less about fame and/or fortune. All he wants is to make his tiny contribution in designing more efficient ways of flying spacecraft to planets in our solar system.
My Grandfather received his PhD in chemistry. But you will never find him on the web. Not even his name. Do you know what he did? He developed better and safer paints for homes. My dad received his PhD from the University of Wisconsin. He worked with the AEC back in the 50s and 60s. He too cannot be found on the web. However, he revolutionized uranium exploration. My uncle is rather famous (all over the web) but his PhD (same university as my dad) was in Geophysics. He became one of the leading researchers studying Antarctica. He wintered over there three times. He also has a mountain named after him down there. He too does not care for fame or fortune even though he is considered a leading expert in the world.
I work with PhDs every day and NOT ONE of them are after what you suggest.
For what it's worth, Chinese crossed a human and a rabbit. It was done in the lab and was not natural. And they evenutally aborted it. But it proves nothing.
For that matter they've crossed insects and plants. But again, it's unnatual and doesn't prove anything about evolution.
Basically then, what you are asserting is that the Bible, while true, doesn't necessarily tell us every single detail about the creation of the universe. Therefore, is it impossible that God, in the beginnning, arranged the laws of physics in such a way that the big bang would occur and inevitably lead to the formation of the earth and all life on it, including man? Couldn't the other "people" you mentioned in reference to the question about who Cain and Abel married be simply pre-human ancestors that were close enough to human to interbreed with the earliest humans? Couldn't being made in God's image refer more to the spiritual and mental capabilities of man, rather than physical ones? (ie. ability to think and reason, ability to make moral decisions, etc.) If you don't take everything literally in the Bible, and if you recognize that there can be things that aren't in the Bible, it opens up many possibilities, such as the possibility that science and religion really aren't contradictory.
Who, exactly, is trying to prove this?
*You* know -- those imaginary 'scientists' in her head. Just like the imaginary Halliburton executives who are pulling the strings on the Iraq war, at least according to the hallucinations of the nutbar liberals.
I didn't say that. I said "the beginning" and that's what scripture says. To me, the "beginning" clearly means the time when something starts or begins.
That would be Day One, NO?
Well, my Maine Coon is also a cat, but no way he's breeding with a female tiger. Though I'm sure he'd give it the old college try.
The liger example shows, IMO, that speciation is a gradual process with lots of gray areas. As species drift further apart, such as house cats and lions, it becomes clear that they are distinct. However, some species are still close enough that thay can interbreed.
Yes. Exactly.
This brings a certain surface appeal to your argument,
Translation: "Uh oh, that's undermining my point, I'd better try to hand-wave it away as just "a certain surface appeal", without actually refuting it..."
but the gap between type and species is a vast one.
Feel free to define it, then.
Your "leap" is still a huge one. Dogs are still dogs--goats are still goats.
Humans are still primates... Still apes too, for that matter.
I know that species are related--but your underlying assertion--"they arose from them"--is just not borne out as "proof" by any such list. Interesting, indicative, but hardly doctrine. I then pointed out what many people do to evo-shamans--that life dwindles rather than proliferates. Species decrease rather than increase. That there were more "then" and less "now" points to a speciation theory that lacks generative potency.
Each new day brings a story of a new "Eve" of our genetic ancestry, and the evos go into High Ritual Mode to worship their new goddess. A few months later, a new Eve and, with no spraining of cognitive dissonance, seems to be as welcome as the previous, abandoned, Eve was.
That the programming of life swaps around could be some very useful information for applied science--I'd just prefer that the scientists keep their religion to themselves.
How do you figure that? It was inaccurate, petulant, snotty, and devoid of any real substance other than arrogant "attitude". You go for that sort of thing?
If you built a robot which was designed to build a machine which produced a new product, who created the new product? The robot? The machine? No, I think it's pretty obvious that you created the new product. Similarly, if God created the laws of physics which made the big bang, evolution, etc. happen, then who created man? Evolution? The big bang? Nonsense, God created man in this scenario, just the same as if He had done so directly. If God created everything directly, then why does the Bible say it happened over a six day period? Why not just God spoke and everything was created immediately? The Bible implies that creation of everything was a process that required time to occur. It says that God created man on the sixth day. Therefore, man was created toward the end of the process. All of this is perfectly consistent with the idea that man is a product of evolution, the same as all the other species of life on earth.
"I get ya! And the animals that were being hunted developed defenses to protect them from the technological advancements of the hunter."
This a common misintrepratation of evolution. Organisms do not develop characteristics that protect them, those organisms that had the particular aspect which kept them alive will now be able to reproduce, an animal which does not have this certain protection will die off and not be able to breed. The following generations will most likely have this protection as well, those that do not will not live long enough to reproduce.
ROFL!!!!!! And 'bravo' on finding the *perfect* image to go with it.
Precisely what we'd expect if the theory of common descent were accurate. All life is a continuum. Alas, large chunks of are extinct, but as fossils are found, they fit right in. As predicted by the theory:
All present and fossilized animals found should conform to the standard evolutionary tree. And they do.
Fossilized intermediates should appear in the "correct" chronological order on the standard tree.
Nah. You are only talking 1 day. And God created light before he created the Sun.
In order to prove God didn't do what is recorded in Genesis, you have to know the extent of God's knowledge and abilities.
hmmm. Genesis is accurate because Noah's flood occurred. How do you arrive at the conclusion that the flood occurred?
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.