Posted on 10/10/2005 4:59:55 PM PDT by gobucks
Uh. Try reading beyond section 5.1
Section 5.2: Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy
You're wrong. There are plenty of transitional forms.
There are examples put forth here.
The whole point of science is to throw out prejudice and look strictly at the facts.
But, hey. Feel free to "go beyond" science and believe whatever. Isn't that what you want? To believe in something that science doesn't support? You have to rationalize it somehow I guess.
There are plenty of people that have "gone beyond" science. Most of the time they end up believing foolish things. Science helped up put aside foolish things.
Of course it's a free country. So believe what you will.
Yeah. Communists and Islamofascists.
If ever you wanna tick off a Leftist, just remind 'em that Nazis were Leftists, too. That's right...the Nazis were National Socialists.
It's guaranteed that the Leftist who hears this will either have an aneurysm, give birth to broken glass, or spontaneously combust on the spot. If you're lucky, all three. :o)
I just came to say hi. Miss talking to you.
"There are several of examples here including fruit flies that have evolved into new species of fruit flies."
And they're still FRUIT FLIES. Evolution tries to turn a one celled amoeba into a fish which crawled up out of the sea onto land and somehow turned into a monkey which somehow turned into a human. Never happened, not happening now, never will happen.
Ping.
"If ever you wanna tick off a Leftist, just remind 'em that Nazis were Leftists, too. That's right...the Nazis were National Socialists. "
Several years ago, when I was first being exposed to FR, I saw a thread here that changed so thoroughly exactly how I viewed the term "leftist", encompassing what wrote you wrote here. Until I read that I had always wondered why my antipathy toward the USSR and Nazi Germany was the same, but I kept being told that they were so different, that the labels really meant something.
Thank God for this website.
Thanks, but I'll pass.
I never see you on these threads; my own view is that this particular fight underlies many of the other conflicts at the political level.
It is nice to see you here.
read later
Good to see you, too; come on, don't I get in enough trouble on the regular threads? You want me in here, too? :-)
Absolutely...
Placemarker for reading later
Heyas! Was thinking about you the other day. How are you and yours doing? :o)
Just doin my part, sir. I'm nothing special; but, I'm glad to provide clarity and conciseness to the extent I can in making this argument plain for all. Obfuscation is a common tool to those with something to hide. So cutting through the fog is necessitated. It isn't easy sometimes; but, nothing worthwhile ever seems to be easy..
Doing fine; bought a new car today; I miss all your wealth of information, but I'm not willing to have a hurricane so we can hang out together again!
Maybe a launch?
Ah, cool. What make & model?
I miss all your wealth of information, but I'm not willing to have a hurricane so we can hang out together again!
Heh. I'm totally on board with you there! It's been a rough year with rough weather. Up until this year, I always figured the Gulf of Mexico's coastline was formed by the shifting of tectonic plates. Now I'm pretty darned sure it was carved out by the ravages of countless hurricanes.
Maybe a launch?
There is one coming up on the 26th of this month (CloudSat/Calipso), but it's been delayed 8 times and is scheduled for an absurdly early hour.
I'm really looking forward to March 2006, though. :o)
This also describes ways of pursuing truth which do not follow the scientific method. Real science is more narrow then this description implies, it involves repeatable experiments.
For instance the careful study of history does not use the scientific method, but this does not mean that historians are foolish, prejudiced, and not concerned with objectively pursuing facts. By inference it seems you either think historians are fools, or you have a looser definition of what science is then I do. In which case you ought to recognize dedicated, fact based theological studies of prophecy and the Bible.
But, hey. Feel free to "go beyond" science and believe whatever. Isn't that what you want? To believe in something that science doesn't support? You have to rationalize it somehow I guess.
You appear to be projecting way beyond the facts with quite a bit of prejudice, but as you mock: its a free country. Even discussions on FR can be attempts to pursue truth. By your own lofty (foolish/reactionary/not very thought out) standards would make your opinion "beyond science" and thus you have ended up:
believing foolish things.
If you wish to continue disagreement, I insist that you only use the scientific method in this debate (and with no such restriction on myself :)
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.