Posted on 04/21/2005 4:34:42 AM PDT by gobucks
I always wonder where the quantum fluctuations of
"nothing" came from which we got the
"BIG BANG"....any "scientific" ideas?
Is a Bird, not a dinosaur:
Referring to Archaeopteryx, Ichthyornis, and Hesperornis, Beddard stated, "So emphatically were all these creatures birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains." (F.E. Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds, Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1898, p. 160.)
Is a dinosaur, not a bird or transition species:
"Archaeopteryx is not an ancestral bird, nor is it an ‘ideal intermediate’ between reptiles and birds. There are no derived characters uniquely shared by Archaeopteryx and modern birds alone; consequently there is little justification for continuing to classify Archaeopteryx as a bird.” (R. A. Thulborn, “The Avian Relationships of Archaeopteryx and the Origin of Birds,” Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Vol. 82, 1984, p. 119.)
Can't be a "transitional" because birds already existed:
“Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characters from a Late Triassic redbed sequence of Argentina, at least 55 Myr before the first known skeletal record of birds.” (Ricardo N. Melchor et al., “Bird-Like Fossil Footprints from the Late Triassic,” Nature, Vol. 417, 27 June 2002, p. 936.)
I've even read some claims that at least 2 of the specimines were fakes. However, I don't remember who made those claims so I'll leave them out.
Yes, all this controversy and disagreement within the evolution community and nothing is ever printed about it in our kid's textbooks.
"Kids, just drink your koolaid and repeat after me: Darwinism is how you got here . . . Nothing you heard in church is true . . . "
And the anti-Darwinist Louis Agassiz believed they weren't even human.
You can point out many a racist in the 19th century (most were), but it was Darwin whose racism had a following, and whose philosophy masked as science still has devotees defending him and his imaginitive theory..............even right here on FR.......
If you are willing to read what you linked with a fewer preconceived notions, you will see what I see: discord and disagreement within the evolution community.
The whole article is an attempt to support the "archaeopteryx was a transitional" over a multitude of other published works by other evolutionary biologists that said otherwise.
Your link proves my point. Thanks.
Carbon dating can't be done on rocks.
Be specific. What are the problems, in your own words?
Oh, hey, it's fester. Long time, no argue.
Science is in complete harmony that evolution occurs, and is the cause of the varous species on earth. Yes, the details are constantly discussed, but the basic concept of evolution is not in doubt.
Religion, on the other hand, can't even get it's story straight even among those who follow the same Bible.
Then we'll bring in those other major religions that are completly different, like the earth on the tortise believers.
ISA 55:9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
I want my God to be smarter than I am. He is in charge of all things and it is ironic at the very least to see His critics sitting around saying, "prove to me He exists," which carries with it the concept that they could comprehend the answers. This is the height of arrogance.
Furtherance of the teaching of moral values in public schools would be better served if the same energy were put into lobbying state legislatures and school boards to establishment classes on religion and ethics, and to end prohibitions against student religious organizations and prayers by students and teachers. Trying to inject moral teaching into the classroom through the vector of biology and the life sciences is wrong way to approach the problem. Not only will it probably fail, but it will perpetuate the untrue stereotype that most religious people are anti-science, and is likely to turn students away from religion not towards.
How is it that the 'basic concept of evolution is not in doubt' when the things that were called facts are proven wrong, only to be supplanted by other 'facts' which are subsequently proven wrong?
Sort of reminds me of Dan Rather's claim that the story of the President's being AWOL was still true, even though all CBS's 'facts' were revealed to be wrong.
Illogical, contortionist thinking, IMO.......
You are the one going ad hominem by attempting to tie the racist tag to Darwin.
But, if we are going to get into the inherent personalities of the individuals, the choice between an unbeliever who may have considerd Africans less advanced than Englishmen, but was nevertheless appalled by the idea of enslaving them, and a Christian who thought them created by God as draft animals, is a no-brainer.
Done. See # 83 and read your own linked article.
I don't know enough about Agassiz to even know if he was actually a Christian (there's a huge gap between all those who claim to be, and those who actually are Christian), but your reference to him is still irrelevant, because he has no following nor influence.
Certainly, you can point to racist Christians, but as I stated previously, they don't have followers a hundred years later.
I'm not saying that anyone who believes in the deductions based on the guesswork of Darwin is a racist, as he was, but my point is that his devotees have a religious fervor that even the right wing fundamentalists can scarcely match.
It's a faith, and he's the founder. You may not be one of the faithful (I don't know that), but there IS a faithful, and they will fight to the finish for their beliefs.
I've read it and see no problem. What is the problen, in your own words?
Oh, please. Charles Darwin is regarded as the father of modern biology, but biologists don't worship him any more than, say, chemists worship John Dalton or Antoine LaVoisier, or physicists worship Issac Newton or Albert Einstein. Claims that Darwin was a racist do not hold water. Though some Darwins chauvinistic Victorian attitudes may seem quaint by today's standards, he was not a racist by any stretch of the imagination. Like most British, he strongly opposed slavery and supported of the Union against the Confederacy in the American War Between the States.
The Bible says that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Do you believe that, too?
Some say the Hebrew word in Genesis really was re-created.. or re-modeled.. in that case what went on "before" is a mystery.. except for a few old bones and such.. and who's to say that, that didn't happen a few other times.. when some other societies offed themselves.. Could be the TRUTH is a version of the "Planet of the apes" scenario on CRACK.. but all we have are some metaphors from the book of Genesis and few legends.. or some "scientific" IF'n...
Religious and scientific folks talling me, "TRUST ME".. gives me the heeby jeebies..
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.