Posted on 07/30/2007 2:01:00 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Geologists have found the remains of a huge underground rainforest hidden in a coal mine in Illinois. The fossil forest, buried by an earthquake 300 million years ago, contains giant versions of several plant types alive today.
...
Also surprising is the presence of remains from mangrove-like plants. "It was always assumed that mangrove plants had evolved fairly recently," says Falcon-Lang.
(Excerpt) Read more at bioedonline.org ...
Sorry, Coyote, but that name cracks me up so much that I can't think straight. All I can picture is a pteranodon crossed with a giant sperm...
Which then reminds me of Larry Niven's famous essay on Superman's sex life...
Cheers!
Perhaps you could translate this for me when you are done LOL? :-} Presumably the sentence means what it says but obviously I was wrong on that. Please enlighten me on where these conditions are different than those extant in "this unvierse". Thanks!
I'm sure you intended no insult, nor slight on my character. Sometimes electrons are difficult to control.
Last time I was 'told' to "Carry on," was when I ETS'ed. That was in '79.
I hope you have a great evening.
5.56mm
I think you may be unfamiliar with creation theory. Almost all creationists believe in rapid degradation (movement from complexity to simplicity). The latter involves no new DNA, no new information, merely a single negative mutation. It can happen in a single generation. This does not conflict with creation theory, indeed to the extent that most creationists come from a christian world-view, information reduction harmonizes well with the christian understanding that all creation is "fallen" from it's ideal state and in a process of ongoing corruption.
One of the reasons I find the evolutionary establishment difficult to trust, is that it is rare to find an evolutionist capable of comprehending that adding information is of necessity a very different process from losing information. If producing a novel the same as stomping on a novel and tearing out some pages? No. They are two utterly different processes and cannot be substituted the one for the other. Most well-known arguments for evolution fail to make this distinction.
Good night nurse! I didn’t mean anything like that!!! ~8-O
I'm simply pointing out how limited that view is and irrational in its ego-centricity. He presupposes that his view has taken everything into account when it is demonstrably very narrow. He launched his rocket and left logic and reason on the ground.
You are thoroughly incorrect here Tiger. Just mho acourse. The Dr. can only do science on what he can observe and from my limited breadth of knowledge observing things outside of our universe is currently a no go. If you claim that there are other life forms exisitng in other universes you are negaged in metaphysics. When the Dr. states that changing certain physical parameters in our universe by very small amounts would disallow life as we know it, he is engaged in science.
It’s obvious that YECers do not support the old age of the earth. The YECer quoted is merely pointing out that the Church of Darwin can’t even get their own ages and sequences right, and that each new discovery keeps pushing biological complexity further and further back rendering random mutation plus natural selection ever more improbable. Although, based on the probability models I have seen, the idea that RM + NS could produce even a simple cell, let alone the millions of species we see today, is nil.
Again, I was simply pointing out that the good proffesor's theory is based entirely upon an assumption. A lot of them actually.
I am sufficiently familiar with creation "theory" to know that it is based on scripture, not science. It will say anything necessary to support scripture, and to deny any science that contradicts scripture.
One of the reasons I find the evolutionary establishment difficult to trust, is that it is rare to find an evolutionist capable of comprehending that adding information is of necessity a very different process from losing information. If producing a novel the same as stomping on a novel and tearing out some pages? No. They are two utterly different processes and cannot be substituted the one for the other. Most well-known arguments for evolution fail to make this distinction.
Your analogy fails in that organisms are not books. Mutations happen all the time. Most are benign, and generally don't mean anything. Some are favorable -- under certain conditions. And some are lethal: game over!
To follow your analogy, those "stomping on a novel and tearing out some pages" mutations are gone immediately. Big deal. Natural selection happens.
Adding information: Actually in most cases mutations are changing information. There is often a range of variation in a trait (skin color, for example). Dark skin colors fare better in hot climates while light skin colors fare better in low sunlight.
Selection -- well, it selects for those best adapted to the particular environment. And this is occurring simultaneously for hundreds of traits!
Do you know of the theory of darkons?
Gotta love it when the elitists get stumped.
Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying.
I have a feeling your going to tell me anyway. So I’ll take a stab in the dark (so to speak). Is your pet theory in any way analogous to the Church of Darwin's assumption that life can come from non-life?
I have a feeling your going to tell me anyway. So I’ll take a stab in the dark (so to speak). Is your pet theory in any way analogous to the Church of Darwin's assumption that life can come from non-life?
No, that's an assumption for the very reasons you stated. He has not observed conditions other than extant in this universe so there is no observable scientific basis to say that life cannot exist in other conditions yet he states it. More than that he cannot have closely observed conditions other than exist on this planet well enough to postulate that life only exists here. Just a few decades ago no one believed or even seriously theorized that life could exist without sunlight or oxygen or CO2 yet now we know that it can.
I did not state that there are other life forms or that there are other universes. I am not interested in addressing that idea one way or the other. Reason ought to apply to the theory as well as the evidence. Dr. Townes missed the mark on that account.
Indeed. I wonder if it has begun to dawn on them that it is a stump of their own making.
You never addressed this contradiction of your assertion in post #1.
I don’t see the contradiction.
I am a practicing scientist and have no idea what you are talking about.
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.