Skip to comments.
Newfound Dinosaur a Transitional Creature
Las Vegas Sun (AP) ^
| May 04, 2005
| Malcolm Ritter
Posted on 05/04/2005 12:32:23 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380 ... 741-755 next last
To: furball4paws
Well... it is.... a.....
FLAMIN' CARROT!
341
posted on
05/05/2005 6:11:53 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Aquinasfan
Because I have a lot of unanswered questions. You wish to bludgeon with your cultivated-to-massive-proportions ignorance. Bludgeon away. It's nice to find a creationist who admits he doesn't know what he's been talking about for the past several years.
342
posted on
05/05/2005 6:12:37 AM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: narby
The fact is that one or the other of us is following pure, unadulterated, BS. Only TWO choices?
343
posted on
05/05/2005 6:15:39 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: VadeRetro
And that's the "Tah-Dah!" proof that horses have always been horses!!!???" What do they put in your communion wine? You make a powerful scientific argument.
Being questioned by religious crazies is annoying, isn't it?
344
posted on
05/05/2005 6:15:41 AM PDT
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: Doctor Stochastic
Actually all fakes are found by evolutionists because creationists do no field work. (They don't find real fossils either.) You aren't usually given to such blatant falsehoods. Or was it simply a case of not knowing what you are talking about? Either way, here is a refutation. Of course there are many others doing field work like Dr. Robert Gentry, but their work is rejected without examination by the "open-minded" evo types who must protect their fabrication at all costs.
345
posted on
05/05/2005 6:15:58 AM PDT
by
Dataman
To: VadeRetro
![](http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Graphics/miller_fig10.gif)
Are we all the same scale??
346
posted on
05/05/2005 6:18:05 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Elsie
Bye for now folks; I've got WORK to do!
347
posted on
05/05/2005 6:19:47 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: MacDorcha
I understand I can do better, but I also hold that balrog shouldn't be allowed to act like he does and get away with it. Perhaps you would care to explain why ID proponents never, ever criticise creationists when they repeat the same lies and absurdities, thread after thread.
- Fossils are fake. Piltdown is typical. (setting aside the question of how a creationist would know it is fake)
- The deposits from Mt. St. Helens are equivalent to the strata exposed in the Grand Canyon.
- No one has ever observed evolution.
- The speed of light and rate of radioactive decay change significantly over historical time.
- Carbon 14 dating methods can be applied to rocks.
There are lots more wherre these came from.
I am also curious why creationists almost never criticise ID proponents for denying God as the Designer. I mean, who designed Magrathia?
348
posted on
05/05/2005 6:24:12 AM PDT
by
js1138
(e unum pluribus)
To: jwalsh07
Nothing wrong with skepticism - asking questions is how we find answers, after all. Unfortunately, most of us don't have much time to become full-blown experts in everything, so what can we do but listen to the experts?
349
posted on
05/05/2005 6:25:06 AM PDT
by
general_re
("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
To: narby
You're probably one of those people who think cells are just complicated crystals.
To: Elsie
Are we all the same scale?? Hate to admit it, but yours is bigger than mine.
Are a housecat and Siberian tiger the same scale?
351
posted on
05/05/2005 6:28:02 AM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: Elsie
Kent is a liar; therefore all crevo's are liars.... If you say so. I'm not sure I'd sign up for that reasoning myself. Anyway, regardless of what it says about his friends, it's pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that Kent is a liar. And he cheats on his taxes.
352
posted on
05/05/2005 6:31:26 AM PDT
by
general_re
("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
To: Aquinasfan
You make a powerful scientific argument. You just posted a detailed desciption of horse evolution from hyracotherium to equus as an intricate, branching tree with numerous local trends in response to situational pressures here, there, and then. That's a good argument, but not for what you were doing with it.
I've noticed that a lot, lately. You guys don't even look at the stuff you grab to throw at us. At any rate, you don't know what it means.
353
posted on
05/05/2005 6:31:50 AM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: furball4paws
I used to wonder how the old USSR could have lasted so long until I realized that Western Europe propped them up for years, primarily out of fear, but also out of yearning for the "perfect socialistic state". Leftists admired Stalin for the same reason they still admire Castro. Something about making the trains run on time, or perhaps universal health care.
I can't help but suspect that when Leftists think about socialism they envision themselves (and their children) as part of the ruling elite.
Right-wingers also have fantasies -- mostly about being successful entrepreneurs -- but these do not involve the use of force against others.
354
posted on
05/05/2005 6:34:42 AM PDT
by
js1138
(e unum pluribus)
To: js1138
"I am also curious why creationists almost never criticise ID proponents for denying God as the Designer."
Maybe because IDists and Creationists recognize that putting a name on a creator (or religion, in Creationist standards) is inconsequential to the arguement.
"Perhaps you would care to explain why ID proponents never, ever criticise creationists when they repeat the same lies and absurdities, thread after thread."
I can't speak for everybody, but my reasoning is that I come from a creationist background. The fact that I am in an IDist mindset is a step forward for me, that I hope to open other creationists to.
IOW, I try to remain diplomatic with them. Evolutionists are just more fun to debate with anyway! :)
(And just so we are clear, I DO argue against strict creationists on occasion. I just typically do it in freepmail due to the nature of things like "convictions" and "faith")
355
posted on
05/05/2005 6:36:24 AM PDT
by
MacDorcha
(Where Rush dares not tread, there are the Freepers!)
To: narby
I think there's a lot to be learned about the role of viruses in genetics. This post reminds me a lot of the claims of "junk" DNA" that did not pan out.
Why don't you restate what you think this proves?
To: Aquinasfan
Is it a transitional creature or a fully formed and functional creature?I'm genuinely curious why you think these are different or incompatible concepts.
357
posted on
05/05/2005 6:41:10 AM PDT
by
js1138
(e unum pluribus)
To: VadeRetro
I only believe in possible miracles, not impossible magic like darwinite something for nothing.
To: VadeRetro
When I walk, am I not fully formed and functional or just not fully located?It depends on whether your legs have evolved to be long enough to reach the ground, or whether they are transitional.
359
posted on
05/05/2005 6:43:12 AM PDT
by
js1138
(e unum pluribus)
To: mike182d
If evolution is true, there is no such thing as a "species" as every creature is a variation of the same thing. Basically, every creature becomes transitional. Speciation becomes nothing more than a man-made convention intended to categorize everything he sees into nice, neat, organized packages.That's exactly right. Creationists like to get caught up in the definitions of words rather than looking at the scientific findings. They throw out observation when it doesn't agree with the classical definitions used in scientific vocabulary. It's like a hypocrisy game - the scientists are wrong when things don't fit their nice, neat definitions. They don't understand that those words are our descriptions for things, and have a human origin. Those descriptions change as we learn more.
If you really want to get a biblical literalist upset, ask them about the Bible. Ask them how can it be infallible when, according to scripture, man is imperfect and everything man does is tainted by original sin and no work done by man, in the eyes of God, is 'good'. Hence the need for salvation through Grace rather than through acts.
360
posted on
05/05/2005 6:43:14 AM PDT
by
doc30
(Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380 ... 741-755 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson