Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Easily explained:
The Moon rotates in the same direction as it revolves, and it is gravitationally locked into a 1:1 synchronization because the the formerly molten rock have cooled and solidified, and the resulting shape is permamently oriented with its major axis pointing toward the earth. This type of gravitational synchronization is fairly common in the solar system, almost always with a ratio of 1:1.
Now be a good guy and find out how many planets exhibit similar rotations.
Someone pinged me awhile ago and informed me that I may not have understood your post. I could only smile then.
I don't care what you might personally find "believable" or not -- the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that it did indeed happen, so either you need to learn about the evidence and see for yourself, or continue to sit there in the corner mumbling, "I don't believe it, I don't believe it, I don't believe it..."
"...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."
Exactly.
Since the beginning is "Day One" then the later passages are in error or Genesis is in error or you cannot literally interpret Genesis or other parts of the Bible.
I don't know a *single* evolutionist who makes that argument -- or *would* make such a moronic argument.
If someone says something that you *think* is that, then you weren't listening closely enough.
"I built that bridge, but do they call me Ian the bridgemaker? No. I built that church, but do they call me Ian the churchbuilder? No. But screw one sheep ..."
I've read it, which is how I know that you've grossly misrepresented both the paper, and the subsequent discussion.
I don't know whether you've done so out of confusion, or dishonesty, but neither option inspires confidence.
Why do Scotsmen wear kilts?
Because a sheep can hear a zipper being lowered at 500 feet.
Sure it's a valid argument. Now show us your math, which accurately models biological processes. We'll wait.
What's that? You say you *don't* have any actual statistical calculations based on valid models, nor do you know how such a calculation would be performed, you just don't "feel" like such a thing would be likely enough to actually happen?
(Feel free to prove me wrong... But until then, I call BS...)
By the way, evolutionists argue from incredulity all the time when they say, "It must have been from natural causes, because a designer is unbelievable"
I call BS *again* on you. Provide a cite to *any* evolutionist who has actually argued such an idiotic point in that way -- or retract your bogus accusation.
I'm getting *really* tired of the unsupported accusations from you folks. Put up or shut up.
The odds of this occurrence are infinitesimal.
I predict they will do neither. It's creationism, y'know.
Why would whales need to be on the Ark?
Actually, they're not. The Moon is tidally-locked to the Earth. A number of other satellites in the Solar System are also tidally-locked to their primaries.
No. They are predicted by scientific theory and the conservation of angular momentum. In fact, in billions of years from now, people on the moon will only see one side of the earth!
Hon? Childish. It's been fun watching the Descent of the Species.
Oh NO you don't... Don't you *DARE* try to pull that horsecrap...
You know, the "we anti-evolutionists are so genteel and refined, while those evolutionists are childish, name-calling brutes..." horsecrap.
I don't think anyone needs to be reminded that YOUR VERY FIRST POST on this thread was a snarky, *CHILDISH* remark on the article which started the thread, wherein you dismissively called evolutionary biologists "Evo-shamans" in search of a "juicy little grant for the seekers of PhD Welfare".
Your *second* post childishly asked, "Does this make you pope, or something?" and spoke of "no religious fanatic so obnoxious as the doctrinaire PhD crank longing for tenure and relevance".
Your *third* post sarcastically called me "so pious [...] So righteous! Righteous me a Grant!" and suggested "an altar to Hopeless Tenure Track and Our Lady of Perpetual Unemployability."
And on, and on, and on...
So don't get all taken over by the vapors *now* just because I returned a *small* portion of your own attitude in kind by condescendingly calling you "hon"...
What a hypocrite you are... Have you no shame? Ah, hell, don't bother answering that -- you won't deal with it directly anyway, and the answer is already entirely obvious.
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.