Posted on 11/25/2005 8:34:07 AM PST by Exton1
My Ph.D. is in mathematics (Univ of MN, 1975), but I have also studied physics, chemistry, and astronomy at the university level, and done wide reading in philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science beginning with a series of college level courses in philosophy. My formal study of biology ended in high school, but personal studies have kept me in touch with developments in molecular biology at the level covered in, e.g., Watson's "Molecular Biology of the Gene". I see, in checking the Amazon listing, that I am one edition behind (4th). I will have to pick up the 5th edition and see what I've missed in the last few years.
If you look back on my posts you will not see much name calling. I don't consider it productive.
Thanks for a brief glimpse into your background. That gives me some idea of who I am dealing with. I have a Ph.D. in Anthropology, and two of my fields for the exams were human osteology and fossil man.
So, let the games resume!
Those interested in following the discussions about the development of biological knowledge beyond the polemical level may also want to become familiar with this text:
Molecular Biology of the Cell, Fourth Edition (Hardcover)
by Bruce Alberts, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, Peter Walter
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0815332181/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/102-5784961-9541720?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Students of computer science and mathematics will find much to fascinate them in the advances of molecular biology. Some of the most interesting challenges in the representation and formal manipulation of information are being set forth by the investigators on the frontiers of this discipline.
OK. So we've established your goal is a fundamentalist theocracy. That's what we thought, but thanks for confirming it.
Sure thing, Mullah Omar. But here in America, we have this thing called "free speech".
Being rude and antagonistic is protected speech.
No, I was pointing out that our contemporary society holds some religions as sacrosanct while leaving other religions open for cheap pot shots.
I'm sorry you missed this obvious point. Maybe if you let go of your anti-Christian bias, you'll be able to appreciate the reality of the situation.
I would expect that someone with a PhD in mathematics would understand that it is totally meaningless to apply probability in such a convoluted manner.
No silly, it took billions of years. You want days, see the bible literalists.
Wow. Believing in evolution makes one anti-God, and anti-American to the order of the islamic terrorists. Who knew?
No idea. Bones are more my field.
Yeah, I pretty much accept around that time period. There is a lot of flood evidence. I personally find it important though that every culture has had an almost identical flood story seperate of each other. That's pretty cool.
With those pictures, does that show the evolution of chimps into homo sapiens? Are those ones in between supposed to be the missing links between apes and man? If so, do you have a link that tells how they are similar? I'm not really much of a archaologist so I don't really understand those pictures. For all I know all those could all be humans(shows my ignorance).
bump
So, you're saying the Big Bang didn't occur?
Why don't you prepare an alternative scientific model of the Creation of the universe that explains the observed cosmic redshift, 3 degree Kelvin isotropic background radiation, universal H/He/Li element ratios and increasing presence of quasars & bluer stars with greater astronomical distances; then get back to us with your findings.
God said, "Let there be Heavens" or something like that. :)
You bet wrong. We look at morphology, not size. See the following:
STS 14 Pelvis (on the left)
~Discovered by Robert Broom and J.T. Robinson at Sterkfontein, South Africa in 1947
~Dated to 2.5 million years
What do you think?
The point of my post #57 was to show you some of the fossil evidence. You had written in #54 "There should be tons of fossil evidence. There isn't."
I don't expect you to know all of the details of these specimens, as that takes years of study. But the point I am trying to make is that you are dismissing a couple of hundred years of evidence by thousands of scientists, with little actual knowledge on your part of the field, theories, or data. You are acting from your religious belief.
Yeah, I pretty much accept around that time period. There is a lot of flood evidence. I personally find it important though that every culture has had an almost identical flood story seperate of each other. That's pretty cool.
On the flood--I have been in a lot of residential sites in the western US which cross-cut the 4,000-5,000 time period and there is no evidence of a large scale flood. Rather, we have general continuity of stratigraphy, occupation, pollen, macrobotanical (plant parts) remains, radiocarbon dates, etc.
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.