Your cattle have hooves like these??????
Posted on 05/04/2005 12:32:23 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
The "one point" was simply a question as to whether it is possible that "details" makes the species (especially considering that such details vary so widly between races of the same species.)
If you told me the creature had a mixture of grinders and choppers I'd be more inclined to think that it was transitioning from something to something because I could understand an advantage. As is, I don't see it. But then again, neither did anybody else.
"I think that difficult-to-read statement was a reminder to keep one's mind open when reading the scriptures to what is going on around you. "
Agreed! More should think like that, and then I think real progress could be made in education and philosophies.
I'm not necessarily a creationist, but I'm intellectually secure enough not to accept something merely because it's the majority view. Scientific progress is generally made by those who question current paradigms, not by those who accept them without question and mock anyone who puts forward new ideas.
Atkins-Vegan place mark
What advantage is gained by being prey rather than predator? Herbivore rather than omnivore? A mouth full of grinders with the gut of a carnivore?
"The "one point" was simply a question as to whether it is possible that "details" makes the species (especially considering that such details vary so widly between races of the same species.)"
I really don't know the answer to that, and you'd have to ask a specialist.
I'm a petroleum geologist and engineer, and my experience with fossils of anything bigger than a snail is limited to things I picked up because the topic is interesting, and not an actual course of study.
How about those who run around with their fingers in their ears shouting 'NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH' when presented with evidence that their old ideas are flat wrong?
Why is it so hard to say the earth is 6000 years old. But God created it old as a test of faith. Abracadabra, your faith is fine and you don't have to attack every science from geology to physics to prove your faith is actually a scientific theory.
" my experience with fossils of anything bigger than a snail is limited to things I picked up because the topic is interesting, and not an actual course of study."
Exactly why I pinged my ID list :) it was intersting.
I'm not trying to bully you. Please don't think of me as if I am. Like you, I am merely here for questions.
Fregards
-Mac
"What advantage is gained by being prey rather than predator?
Depends if there is anything to hunt something of your size. While not exactly huge, it would take a T-rex or some substantial to hunt these guys.
Herbivore rather than omnivore? Chopper vs. grinders?
You're an omnivoire. Pretend your a cow. Go try to eat some grass with your nice sharp front teeth. NO HANDS, mind you.
Dr. Dino-the-Huckster is broke and under another investigation by the IRS, the state of Florida, and Escambia County for fraud, tax evasion, and being an unrepentant, fraudulent dumbass. His "reward" is on its way.
With very sketchy evidence, it's possible to make a classification error. This has happened, but it's not all that common. Such things get corrected as more evidence is uncovered. DNA evidence, if available, is very good for clearing up confusing cases. I can't recall hearing about anything more "serious" than a genus reclassification. These are relatively trivial issues (like shuffling a specimen from one group of spiders to another), and it's nothing that could give any comfort to creationists. Perhaps one of our experts will be able to shed more light on this subject.
Being a sh!t-for-brains Creationist means never having to say you are sorry.
Stalin's being kicked out of the seminary for declaring Darwin's theory as the answer to creation occurred decades before Lysenko published his theory.
> Scientific progress is generally made by those who question current paradigms, not by those who accept them without question and mock anyone who puts forward new ideas.
Thus spake Charles Darwin. Guess what: he challenged the existing paradigm, the evidence backed him up, and the previous world-view was shown to be laughable. And so far, nothing has come along that even comes close to challenging evolutionary theory as an explanation. No other notions even have a scrap of evidence to back them up.
It is not enough to simply say "I doubt." You should have some sort of servicable alternate theory. And dredging up old and discreditted notions that do not even rate as creditable hypothesis is just lazy... and makes one a valid target for pointing and mocking and laughing.
Au contraire, I'm a red blooded, blue collared American. No French, nowhere.
It tells us that intelligence is not necessarily a naturally selected mutation. Too bad.
Have you ever seen him behave otherwise?
Your cattle have hooves like these??????
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.