This chimp, from some zoo, IIRC suffered from some kind of disease that caused him to lose his hair.
Posted on 11/02/2005 10:54:52 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Creationists ignore refutations of their arguments and keep repeating the same ones (cf. Arthur).
I don't care about that school board. I just want the weaknesses of evolution explained and I'll be happy. Most people already agree God is the creator so our work is pretty much done.
Ask any lawyer about "evidence". It is indeed the interpretation that matters. You surely aren't saying scientists always agree with the evidence, are you? Because you know that would be a lie.
Can't help myself. And I enjoy imaging the veins popping out of your neck every time you reply to me.
And none of what you mentioned depends on whether we evolved from apes or not. Not one iota.
For one thing, if there are no assumptions, then all data was directly observed and recorded without interpretation. According to the article itself, that is not the case, therefore assumptions are involved.
Are you sure YOU understand science?
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, since you still think I was referring to the research, rather than the ARTICLE, as I have plainly stated at least twice. I have not been referring to the research, since there are no links to the research in the article.
Do you have any links to the research? Oh, that's right, I asked that before, and you've already ignored the request twice.
It's still in the taxonomic order Salientia, yes. Now here are the taxonomic levels as they typically pertain to animals.
Domain (Older taxonomies may not show this one)I highlighted order for you. Frogs are a whole order.
Kingdom
Phylum
Subphylum
Superclass
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
Subspecies
Taxonomy, the effort to classify the kinds of life, goes back about a century before Darwin to Linnaeus in the 1750s. It's nothing but an effort to lump similar things into bins. It can be obvious at time, but it can be rather arbitrary, a beauty-contest decision at others.
What evolution says about making a whole new order is it's a branching divergence over time. It starts with a common ancestor. Two groups diverge into subspecies (what we would call "varieties" in the plant world). Later yet you have speciation. Eventually, the two groups not only are notably different from each other but have spawned species differences within themselves and you call them "genera." (Thought I was going to say "genuses," didn't you?)
Eventually, diverging genera would be seen as different families. And so forth.
The higher up the taxonomic level a difference goes, the more diverged it is. You saw a headline that says a new species formed in 8000 years. The point of the story is that this happened faster than we normally think it does. You waved the whole thing away as not being a change at the level of taxonomic order.
Depending on why I think you said that, your argument is either a deliberate strawman or seriously uninformed.
-- A Creationist FAQ
Q: What is the principle evidence for Creationism?
A: The Holy Bible, of course. After all, is it likely that the author of the Universe would be mistaken about its age?Q: But isn't the Bible religion and not science?
A: Truth is truth. It's a poor sort of science that ignores truth.Q: But isn't there a lot of evidence for evolution?
A: Not really, most of it is from university professors writing papers for each other. If they didn't write papers they wouldn't have jobs.Q: How big was Noah's ark?
A: Big enough.Q: But what about radioactive dating?
A: Hey, everybody knows that stuff is bad for you. Stick with good Christian girls.Q: What about the fossil evidence?
A: The real fossils are university professors writing papers for each other.Q: Is there any other evidence for creationism besides the Bible?
A: Yes.Q: Can you give us some?
A: Yes.Q: Could you give us a specific example?
A: Yes.Q: What would be a specific example of evidence for Creationism?
A: I've already answered that question.Q: What about the Antarctic ice core data?
A: Now I put it to you. Coop up a bunch of men in a Quonset hut in the worst weather in the world, with nothing to do but gather data and drink, and what do you expect?Q: Did the dinosaurs coexist with man?
A: Look, the liberals were preaching coexistence with the Communists, and you saw what happened to them.Q: Should Creationism be taught along with Evolution in the schools?
A: Creationism should be taught instead of Evolution in the schools.Q: Doesn't the Geologic Column prove that the Earth is very old?
A: The geologic column proves that some things are on top of other things and some things are underneath other things. But we already knew that, didn't we.Q: Hasn't evolution been demonstrated in the Laboratory?
A: Students are demonstrating everywhere these days. To their shame, many professors are demonstrating also.Q: Aren't Hawiian wallabies an example of Evolution in action?
A: No.Q: Why not?
A: Because they aren't.Q: What is a kind?
A: A kind is cards of the same rank. Thus 4 aces and a king are four of a kind, but four spades and a heart are not.Q: Doesn't genetic variation indicate that life has been going on a long time?
A: Let's be up front about this. That's deviation, not variation, and yes, there is a lot of deviancy out there. That just shows that there has been a lot of Sin since the garden of Eden.Q: What about Neanderthal Man?
A: Hey, you take one of those geezers and put him in tweeds and give him a pipe and he could be a professor anywhere.Q: Some scientists state that the earth's continents are drifting around on top of a molten interior which has shaped life as we see it now. Are they right?
A: As you well know the Bible says that beneath the surface of the earth is Hell where there is eternal fires and brimstone. If the continents appear to be moving around that is Satan's doing.Q: Why do almost all of the scientists believe in Evolution?
A: The real scientists don't. As for the rest of them, that's a very good question, isn't it?Q: Are you talking about a Satanic conspiracy?
A: Did I say anything about a conspiracy? You might want to think about the shape the world is in since the Evolutionists and the Liberal Humanists captured academia and how Evolution is hand in hand with Godless Communism and crime in the streets but I certainly wouldn't want to say anything about a Satanic conspiracy. I just want you to think about it with an open mind.
I'm posting for the lurkers.
Nonetheless, it is the application of evolutionary theory that makes the continued exploitation of mineral resources economical.
Ah, you are trolling then.
If the females do not respond to some but respond to others and the two group's calls are different, then logic dictates that the females currently respond to only one call. If the communities were at one time combined then the calls must have been the same. It is easy to determine if the two groups have shared genes in the past.
You can speculate that the females responded to two different calls if you want but that would not change the speciation event.
"Speculation. Why is this kind of stuff given such high credibility by evolutionists? Can it be because it aligns with what they already believe?"
You speculate very well, however you did not ask why evolutionists believe what they believe. Is it possible your speculation is backwards and we evos believe in evolution because the evidence has such high credibility?
How did you determine this?
-- Charles Darwin, letter to Henry Fawcett, who had defended Darwin before the British Association for the Advancement of Science against a critic who said Darwin's book was too theoretical and that he should have just "'put his facts before us and let them rest," quoted from Michael Shermer, "Colorful Pebbles and Darwin's Dictum: Science is an exquisite blend of data and theory"
This chimp, from some zoo, IIRC suffered from some kind of disease that caused him to lose his hair.
Data can be interpreted without making assumptions. It can be interpreted in the light of all the other tests and observations that have gone on before. You seem to think "if we haven't done all the work ourselves, then everything we haven't touched personally is an assumption." I'm afraid you'd be wrong there.
So why are you posting here? You won't read the articles about the trial, you won't listen to any new information, and yet you insist on sounding off. You do your side little credit when its obvious that you don't know what's going on.
Please, read the articles. Learn about the issues raised by the trial (I'd like you to also learn about the lies your side is telling, and then see if you approve of their tactics.
Once you've done that, come back and join in.
All honest viewpoints are welcome in the discussion, but willfully ignorant ones can't be taken seriously. Deliberate, willful ignorance should never be respected.
Well theyes lurkers sho' aint impressed by all the 'scientists'
Just ignore my posts. You really have no reason to respond to me, do you?
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.