Posted on 05/31/2005 12:03:06 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
I'm sorry, did you say something?
Care to back that assertion up with a little more than your opinion? Give an example of them dismissing something that goes against the ToE?
"Here, case in point, in the past in order to "convince" (read that "indoctrinate") people as to the validity of the theory of evolution, they used to use a chart of a horse and some smaller horselike creatures that they claimed were ancestors of the horse in some distant epoch. However, when you carefully examine the skeletons you notice that the creatures gained and lost pairs of ribs at random as it "evolved". As more people began to question this, the evolutionists backed off the validity and eventually the chart used to indoctrinate MILLIONS was discredited as innaccurate."
If you would look at taxonomy, you would see that some are considered in the direct lineage and others are in offshoot lineages. You created a strawman to attack.
"And how many scientist "prove" evolution is to say, well, this extinct critter looks somewhat (or maybe even a lot) like this living critter, so therefore it evolved from this extinct critter."
Have you ever looked at the methods used to determine if a specific extinct organism is related to a specific extant organism? If not, then maybe you should.
It bothers you that science is self correcting and is gradually narrowing its theories down to be more accurate all the time?
Do the methods used to approximate definite integrals also bother you?
Before we go any further, are we taking a gene or an organism?
"A better example is to start with a sentence, and then see how long it takes to morph into a completely different sentence, with all of the intermedia sentences making sense. Of course, this still leaves the problem of the origin of the first sentence, which is still just as problematic and combinatorially improbable as before.
This also requires the end result be known. Nor does it take into account the intermediate failures that are discarded.
Actually, Occam's razor says the simplest from a number of equally likely theories is more likely to be the correct one, but I take your point. :-)
As I have said, the only sin to evolutionists is to dare to question the validity of their precious science.
Marshe's horse theory was tossed.
Nebraska man was a pig.
Ramapithecus was a mistake.
Peking Man
Java Man
Lucy
Misplaced fossils: "Evolutionists believe, for example, that the land plants didn't appear until over 100 million years after the Cambrian trilobites died out. Yet over sixty genera of woody plants, spores, pollen, and wood itself have been recovered from lowest 'trilobite rock' (Cambrian) throughout the world. The evidence is so well known that it's even in standard college and biology text books.
The problem with NS as the Theory of Evolution is: The only people questioning it, are IDers! It is a scientific corruption, not real science and devoid of scientific principle.
DK
It's still alive placemarker
Did you read your posted evidence?
It started with:
>>The recognition and interpretation of patterns in the fossil record require an awareness of the limitations of that record. Only a very small fraction of the species that have lived during past geologic history is preserved in the rock record.<<
Gads man, do you teach? You should administrate!
>>The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world, and nowhere does this succession occur in one location. The arrangement of the evolution of horse is made by aligning various fossils found in India, South America, North America and Europe, in a series from the smallest to the largest. (Modern horses range from 17" to 80" in size)<<
Cope's Rule was WRONG. And is still taught.
This is from that bastion of Creationism, University of Chicago.
>>Jablonski gave two reasons why Cope's Rule has so thoroughly permeated paleontological thinking, and both of them are psychological. "Believing that larger body size bestowed long-term evolutionary advantages fit our preconceptions that body size is important in the short term. Size determines who you can eat and who eats you, how widely you can range and your mating success. Secondly, there is a human tendency to focus on the largest animals: the biggest horse in a given time slice, for example.<<
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/970123/jablonski.shtml
>>Cope's Rule that evolutionary lineages have a tendency to evolve toward larger body size is one of the most long-standing evolutionary "laws." E.D. Cope first formulated his now-famous rule in a book published in 1896, and it is cited widely in textbooks from elementary to graduate school.<<
VadeR...it took one hundred years for NS Evolutionists to actually test a cherished RULE. It was wrong. But it took one hundred years before someone did the testing.
The tools to test were not more exotic than scales and micrometers. NS Evolutionists chose not to do it.
NS Evolution is not a real science.
And I have to explain this to a smart guy?
DK
The Teacup poodle is a small toy poodle that measures 9 inches and smaller.
Compared to a Great Dane or a Bullmastiff, WWETU?
What would evolution tell us?
XenuDidit place mark
>>The recognition and interpretation of patterns in the fossil record require an awareness of the limitations of that record. Only a very small fraction of the species that have lived during past geologic history is preserved in the rock record.<<
Gads man, do you teach? You should administrate!
How dumb are you willing to play before you get some sense of shame? The source is saying that there are holes in the fossil record because fossilization conditions are rare. That is, there are holes in the recording process. You are claiming that any holes in the fossil record are actual holes in the history of life. You maintain this position although you refuse to specify what exactly you are talking about. Why should there be unbridgeable holes in the history of life? What O what does a person who is not a creationist say is filling those holes?
There's nothing to do here but point out how transparently dishonest you are. Seriously, there's nothing else to say. Where are the good arguments?
When do you explain the horse series? Stop your silly-assed tap-dancing and ANSWER THE QUESTION. Why is there a horse SERIES?
Here was the question:
DidWhat's the problem here? The series is there. It isn't there because of some law. It's there because it's there. Are you really going to pretend you're too stupid to understand? What does that prove, even if you convince someone you're too stupid to understand?GodSomething that wasn't evolution create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?
CreationismAnything-but-evolutionism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "GodSomething That Wasn't Evolution Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory.
>>The recognition and interpretation of patterns in the fossil record require an awareness of the limitations of that record. Only a very small fraction of the species that have lived during past geologic history is preserved in the rock record.<<
Gads man, do you teach? You should administrate!
How dumb are you willing to play before you get some sense of shame? The source is saying that there are holes in the fossil record because fossilization conditions are rare. That is, there are holes in the recording process. You are claiming that any holes in the fossil record are actual holes in the history of life. You maintain this position although you refuse to specify what exactly you are talking about. Why should there be unbridgeable holes in the history of life? What O what does a person who is not a creationist say is filling those holes?
There's nothing to do here but point out how transparently dishonest you are. Seriously, there's nothing else to say. Where are the good arguments?
When do you explain the horse series? Stop your silly-assed tap-dancing and ANSWER THE QUESTION. Why is there a horse SERIES?
Here was the question:
DidWhat's the problem here? The series is there. It isn't there because of some law. It's there because it's there. Are you really going to pretend you're too stupid to understand? What does that prove, even if you convince someone you're too stupid to understand?GodSomething that wasn't evolution create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?
CreationismAnything-but-evolutionism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "GodSomething That Wasn't Evolution Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory.
Misplaced fossils: "Evolutionists believe, for example, that the land plants didn't appear until over 100 million years after the Cambrian trilobites died out. Yet over sixty genera of woody plants, spores, pollen, and wood itself have been recovered from lowest 'trilobite rock' (Cambrian) throughout the world.
I call bullshit. No such things have been genuinely been found in the lower cambrian.
The problem with NS as the Theory of Evolution is: The only people questioning it, are IDers! It is a scientific corruption, not real science and devoid of scientific principle.
What is NS as the Theory of Evolution? And how exactly are "IDers" questioning it?
Nebraska man was a pig. Ramapithecus was a mistake. Peking Man Java Man Lucy
What are Java Man and Lucy doing in that list? They are part of the thousands of genuine transitional fossils. Its a shame you can only find less than a handful of frauds and mistakes amongst the thousands of genuines. You think Java Man and Lucy are the only fossil evidence for evolution of man? They are not. You probably haven't heard of most of the others because anti-evolution propaganda sites tend to keep quiet about them. Such is the problem with the BS of the "theory" of Intelligent Design.
Here's one source, but not the original...
http://www.case-creation.org.uk/palae6.html
Could happen to anyone. Early morning stuff.
>>When do you explain the horse series? Stop your silly-assed tap-dancing and ANSWER THE QUESTION. Why is there a horse SERIES?<<
Remember, this series has chains that are separated by continents and millions of years, a tree based on morphology, with many more missing parts than parts. I give you a 500 piece puzzle with ten pieces, and you want to crow about a series based on morphology.
I believe that genetics will settle most of the questions on NS ToE. It will provide actual roots, maybe a mechanism that we will test. The hard sciences...you know.
NS ToE is squishy and soft.
Sound like a creationist to me.
Ooops, you can't even get your head out of your hate mode long enough to realize there is more than one opposing view on this topic.
What a sad, tired, pathetic place to be.
Have a good morning!
DK
Now then, contrast that to the frauds and lies on every creationist website.
Natural Selection.
It is the theory we are talking about, right?
DK
Did you cite your last post?
Oops, we need a little more caffeine.
God created the Universe approximately
4.5 billion years ago and has been active
in its evolution ever since.
He's is not hasty. He takes his time.
Occasionally He will take a rest. On
other occasions he will work with a
flurry of activity. His work
is wonderful.
It is left to us to divine His hand. The
more His Truths are discovered through the
methodology of Science the more beautiful
His Creation becomes.
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.