Posted on 09/26/2005 5:44:09 AM PDT by DARCPRYNCE
Charles Darwin, the 19th century geologist who wrote the treatise 'The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection' defined evolution as "descent with modification". Darwin hypothesized that all forms of life descended from a common ancestor, branching out over time into various unique life forms, due primarily to a process called natural selection.
However, the fossil record shows that all of the major animal groups (phyla) appeared fully formed about 540 million years ago, and virtually no transitional life forms have been discovered which suggest that they evolved from earlier forms. This sudden eruption of multiple, complex organisms is often referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, and even Darwin knew about the lack of evidence in the fossil record to support his theory a century and a half ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at chronwatch.com ...
LOL. I just asked a question. Interesting that you went there, though - if I were into character assessments, that'd be gold, without a doubt.
AZConservative,
Can you unquestionably refute the fact that my kitchen microwave created the entire universe 2 minutes ago from nothing, and implanted false memories and fossils?
Now how many massacres were initiated by differences in Scientific ideology?
_____________________________________
Probably about 50 million in the 20th century alone.
I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of very early atmospheric and oceanic conditions. It seems that there is some disagreement on the oxygen content of the atmosphere and the gravitatioal attraction. From what I've read on these threads lately there are fossils that support both the oxygen rich and oxygen poor atmosphere. There was also the discussion about a flying creature that would have required a denser atmosphere to fly which would have required a stronger gravitational attraction. Aren't there also dinosaurs which would have required less graviation to survive; for example: for the blood to flow up their necks?
Thanks.
Hey!!! My microwave just changed my MAC and Cheese to a black, smoldering orb! I'm sure it could create things too!
Are you having a meltdown?
Maybe take a break and go for a walk.
Perhaps... either that or I signed up years ago, then forgot all about the place. Either way, I've been posting here regularly for the past several months.
I do believe that different conditions have existed at different times throughout the earth's history. And some of that is confirmed by geological processes. BUT again, things have been different at different times. We just don't know EXACTLY when. With all sorts of flying things now, I don't know about the flying stuff.
That greatly glosses over what evolutionists do.
The conclusion comes first: All life evolved from a common ancestor.
This conclusion is never questioned. That would be sacrilege.
New evidence is found, scientists see that their theory on how evolution "must have worked" is incorrect, so they alter their theory and say evolution "must have worked this way". But then new evidence is found and so the scientists say "Ooops. I guess evolution worked THIS way".
And they say "that's what a good scientist does, we take into account new evidence as it becomes available." I say it's BS. A good scientist checks his premise once in a while. Your premise is your conclusion. And your conclusion is your premise. It's rotten science.
LOL!
Talk about whipping a dead horse.
This garbage goes on and on ad infinitum. Reading this continuing collection of drivel and misguided nonesense gives me mental indigestion.
Theologians shouldn't be teaching biology.
Biologists shouldn't be teaching theology.
Evolution has nothing to do with the belief in a divine being or the Biblical rendition of creation, unless you are an atheist out to disprove religion, or a religious nut with an ayatollahesque interpretation of scripture.
I submit that society could do better with either of the two last mentioned groups of people who continue to create an issue where there is none and contribute nothing worthwhile to the study of religion or biology.
Evolution rationally explains the development of life on earth. No serious biologist can possibly ignore it.
Evolution has nothing to do with removing the Hand of the Divine Creator from the laws by which it functions.
Well, there was the Suez Neutrino Conflict of '72, and of course the Top/Truth Quark Naming Schism which resulted in much bloodshed.
And of course, the Dark Matter Wars smolder even today among the Physics Tribes of Borneo.
Yes, those silly Indians. Why, they should believe that an invisible man in the sky magically created everything in six days. Because, you know, that makes so much more sense.
"No matter how many times you point out to cretards that they can't learn real science by reading a bible tract, they still insist that they know, scientifically, that one of the most well-understood and established theories in science is somehow "in controversy" because their pathetic religious feelings requires them to believe that fact."
You might want to actually take the time to read my article before you suggest that criticising evolution theory makes a person religious. In the first place, Intelligent Design theory has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Secondly, Evolution theory, no matter how well understood you may think it is - and it isn't very well understood by most people - or how well established in the scientific community, it's still NOT FACT, and anyone who suggests otherwise, is an imbecile.
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.